Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to apply 1RR rule to all Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles

1) There seems to be more editors than the ones currently named as parties that are reverting on the article. Motion to apply 1RR rule to all Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Since there's a current injunction for this case, ArbCom would have to rule on adding new parties to the case; this motion would be equivalent of the solution. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Motion to add more parties to this case

1) I would like to ask arbitrators to allow addition of two more parties to this case, i.e. User:Vartanm and User:Zurbagan. The former is mentioned in many evidence as a participant in edit warring on a number of pages and is included in proposed findings of fact as a one of the warring editors.[1] The latter is also involved in edit warring on Ziya Bunyadov and personal attacks and is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Robert599, who used banned socks before to edit the same page. Grandmaster 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The current listing is incomplete. Anyone aggressively editing these articles should assume they are a party. Add their names and give them notice. No motion is necessary. Fred Bauder 13:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Grandmaster

I support this proposal. On my section of evidences I presented facts about edit warring by user:Vartanm--Dacy69 13:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Zurbagan is a ban material(as I believe he is indeed Robert), some newbie toying with Wikipedia is not an arbitration case, he is a "ban by an admin" material. Arbitrators have better things to do than wasting their time everytime some newbie start toying with Wikipedia. As for Vartanm, he is a new member, I don't see why a new member who was not much there when this "conflict" sparked should be dumped in this case. He is protected under "don't bite new members." Bring your issues with him. Fad (ix) 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for adding my name to the list Grandmaster and Atabek. Next time let the administrators decide who gets added to this arbitration.--Vartanm 05:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Vartanm, but I still propose that User:Zurbagan is also added to the list. He continues his attacks on other editors: [2] despite a warning by the admin [3]. And checkuser for this person is still delayed for some unknown reason, despite the filed formal request [4] and my personal request on this page. Grandmaster 10:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Note: User:Vartanm has been added to the case by Mackensen here. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Motion to add more parties to this case

1) I would like to ask arbitrators to allow addition of one more party to this case, i.e. User:Davo88. He has suddenly become very active on a number of Azerbaijan-related pages (just like some other questionable editors, e.g., Nagorno-Karabakh War) and Caucasus-related pages (e.g., Orontid_Dynasty, Tigranes the Great) after ArbCom was instituted, mostly doing reverts. --AdilBaguirov 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The current listing is incomplete. Anyone aggressively editing these articles should assume they are a party. Add their names and give them notice. No motion is necessaryFred Bauder 13:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

He only had 3 reverts last week. All of which were done after an anon. IP vandalised a page[5], [6] and [7]

Why don't you tell us whats the real reason you want to add him to the list? Vartanm 22:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading this it looks like Davo88 is just a nice guy, who fights IP anons and vandals. Right? Wrong! What about reverting my fully sourced, academic and verifiable edits? [8] and

[9] --AdilBaguirov 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to remind you of the discussion we had in the talk page of the article about your interventions? -- Davo88 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've been adding content to Armenian History related articles for a while now, including Tigranes the Great, which I've been editing since 4 November 2006.[10] I've included the articles about the Orontid Dynasty and the Nagorno-Karabagh War in my watchlist for a while. Is there anything wrong in reverting vandalism? -- Davo88 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously no, they just want you here so you can revert once. Artaxiad 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Davo88, do you call your "debut" on TigranesTheGreat [11] as an "edit"? This is your early supression of information, where you removed the sentence "Greek inscription..." And then you ceased until mid-January 2007. --AdilBaguirov 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He never removed anything its in the bottom. Artaxiad 00:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur w/ user:Artaxiad, user:AdilBaguirov just wants to include all active Armenian users in wikipedia so they can all revert once. user:Davo88 has a clean history in wikipedia, he has never been blocked, let alone even been warned about an infraction! - Fedayee 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil wants to add all of the active Armenian users to the list because he thinks all the Armenian users are against him. Plus he wants to make the number of Armenian users bigger, because he wants to get an underdog symphaty. It's just me against all the Armenians... you get the point. Vartanm 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm the latest example of how this blanket approval is being abused by adil to make all Armenian users party to the current dispute, and therefore only be subject to the 1RR... I became active one Wikipedia around August 2006, and participated in achieving a consensus for the introduction of the Nagorno Karabakh article [12]. I have been inactive in these heated debates since then, and have only edited other undisputed articles with the conscious intent of "letting the dust settle". However, due to various vandalisms of the Nagorno Karabakh article, I have recently only edited it twice to protect that version of the intro that we all agreed upon (and not more since August 2006)... How can this be considered "aggressively editing"? I believe this is just a false pretext to limit my actions on Wikipedia, and is completely unwarranted. Therefore, for the sake of non-proliferation of these issues, I will remove myself from this list and request that Adils right to report additional parties to the dispute be revoked permanently...HyeProfile 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with who is Armenian and who is Azeri, I'd've added you myself (and later did). Reverting is not a right, and everyone with a clear side chosen in any of the related articles is essentially under 1RR. --Golbez 06:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right, Reverting is not a right, yet you give yourself such a right liberally and without refrain or consultation! I myself was simply maintaining the status quo, that is the agreed upon consensus version of the article, but you repeatedly ignore my plees in the talk pages and discussions, and continually give yourself that God-given right of deciding what to revert and when! This is more than absurd, this is preponderously agitating and should immediately be stopped or it will lead to more wars and conflict. Golbez, as an admin, you should withdraw from these discussions as you have undoubtedly compromised your neutral stance and are clearly taking sides in an aggressive fashion...

Furthermore, you have not responded to my claim that 2 edits in the past 6 months cannot constitute "aggressive editing" and I am therefore not a party to this agreement and will again remove myself from the list. I am simply trying to keep the finely balanced peace through prior negotiated results, and people like you keep on undermining that! However, as you yourself have been actively involved in shooting down anything that doesn't have an Azeri POV, I will add you to the list... Respect would go a long way...HyeProfile 06:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They aren't 2 edits in the past 6 months, they are 2 edits in the last 24 hours after an absence of six months. --Golbez 07:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So you do agree that it's been six months since I've had to revert, right? Now you are contending that I haven't been active in those six months. Well you're wrong. As proof that I still contributed to many articles including the NK article in a peaceful manner by simply discussing and trying to create consensus (without ever reverting), see my contribution list, namely [13]. Therefore, your accusations can only be assumed to be in bad faith... I am desperately trying to practice restraint regardless of how much my contributions get abused,, and have voiced my concerns about POV-pushing in the NK article to you, and doing so calmly and reasonably (as an example, see my response to your first revert [14], which you characterized as "aggressive". Can I be more reasonable that that???), but you keep on being unreasonable and refuses to explain your actions and constant reverting...

The arbitrators must clearly see I am trying everything to abide by, and even surpass the rules of WikiPedia, yet the other parties constantly seek to aggravate and agitate, and passive behavior simply isn't working... The fact that I was even added to the list as a party to this arbitration is the prime example.

Therefore, again, I would respectfully ask the arbitration committee to revoke the right of parties in this matter to add other parties to the list without consulting the arbitrators first...HyeProfile 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's probably horribly out of line to remove yourself from an arbitration; you can ask an arbitrator to do that, but to do it yourself is out of line.

However, since I am now listed, I will not be removing myself. I will simply bring this complaint to the public here, and I have the utmost trust in Arbcom that they will make the right decision on this. --Golbez 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the action that this is about is [15], HyeProfile removing himself from the list and adding me in his place. --Golbez 07:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... Anyone can put my name on the list, but I should ask an Arbitrator to take it out??? Hmmm, it seams to me that in civil society, people are innocent until proven guilty...

That's exactly the reason why I removed myself (clearly explaining that I did not belong here), in order to avoid needless hassles for the Arbitrators since I am clearly not an aggressive participant to this arbitration. In fact, I have been as passive of a contributor to some of these articles (again, reverting twice in a day since you didn't even answer my claim in the discussion page is considered "protecting the page from vandalism") yet I am being dragged in and limited in my actions due to bad intentions.

I sincerely hope that the arbitrators will consider that I have shown an amazing amount of restraint while being completely ignored and trampled upon on WikiPedia... I truly hope I won't get dragged into this mess since that would really discourage me from further contributing to wikiPedia, as it's integrity would be in serious question in my mind. Let's not let it come to that...

Again, I would like to ask that the arbitrators revoke the blanket approval that allows anyone to be added to this list since it's being thoroughly abused...HyeProfile 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to open threat of edit warring[16] by HyeProfile--Dacy69 23:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, I am simply protecting the page form vandalism since many users like Grandmaster and Golbez repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the consensus version of the intro [17] even though they both agreed to it, and are constantly reverting to a totally unacceptable Pro-Azeri POV version that doesn't even mention Armenian presence in the region since 1923... I have repeatedly explained my actions and have made structured and reasonable arguments why their proposed version is aggressively biased [18], yet I am being ignored and none of my concerns are being addressed.HyeProfile 19:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The version that you are reverting has been in place for many months and is based on consensus between the most editors to that article. If you want it changed, you should get a consensus for your changes on talk first. I see no reason to include the words "predominantly Armenian" in a 2 line paragraph twice. Discuss your changes, as this is a very troubled article and any undiscussed changes result in heated debates. Grandmaster 19:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

GM, you are streading misinfomration. The version that I am reverting to IS the consensus version and does include the "predominantly Armenian" portion in it. Both you [19] and Golbez [20] have clearly agreed to it, and the changes you later integrated to the intro were never discussed or approved by any editor, let alone a majority, on the talk pages... I beg you to prove me wrong...HyeProfile

Motion for urgent checkuser of User:Zurbagan and User:Pulu-Pughi

1) I already asked for checkuser of Zurbagan (talk · contribs), but nothing happened yet, despite a checkuser request also being made a while ago. [21] Yesterday another account, Pulu-Pughi (talk · contribs) appeared out of nowhere and instantly started editing the article about Ziya Bunyadov, which was created for character assassination purposes by MarkHessen (talk · contribs) and Վաչագան (talk · contribs). Those two accounts along with Jalaleddin (talk · contribs) are proven socks of Robert599 (talk · contribs). I have a reason to suspect that the sock puppeteer is none other than the famous User:Rovoam, who was banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. He was known for using an army of socks to edit war and attack other editors, and this bunch of socks looks pretty much like his favorite manner of disrupting Wikipedia. Please see [22]. As of now, Rovoam continues his disruptive activity on Wikipedia, see his vandalism of the arbcom page, [23] and yesterday the admins had to protect one of the redirects to Azerbaijani people article, [24] so it is very urgent to investigate this issue, as the number of suspicious accounts keps on growing. Grandmaster 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I urge Arbcom members to pay attention to this issue because the activity of this sockpuppet became highly disruptive. Look at page Ziya Bunyadov (where actually Armenian and Azeri editors came to some compromise text) But today again the same vandalism. Please compare editing of user:Zurbagan [25] and today's editing of user:Pulu-Pughi [26] - it is almost identical language and semantics and the same POV pushing!!!--Dacy69 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I will like to point to the Arbcom, that after checking the evidences here I doubt Rovoam_2 is Rovoam. I have passed a great deal of time checking right now, past contributions of Rovoam, and my intuitions are telling me that Rovoam_2 was created by a user to make it sound as Rovoam, there is clearly something wrong. Rovoam has been innactive for a very long time, and there was no recorded activities by him until this Arbcom case was opened. This makes no sense what so ever, as Rovoam was known to use other names to vandalise articles. Rovoam_2 just makes it too obvious, and picking it just on Feb, 2007 even more. I also request a full investigation. There are lists of open proxies on the web. like the one .ru, and if another member had used Rovoam for strategic purpouses, there are chances that the IP chosen on one page out of the various pages on sites like the .ru will correspond to a IP from that specific page matching with one used by one member involved in this case. Fad (ix) 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rovoam never really left, he was coming back over and over again, like here: [27] Grandmaster 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of this, but this was months ago, and it is apparent that that was Rovoam, "test" etc., those are his style, what is not his style though, I don't remember it is, is to log Rovoam_2 and with it excessivally using his expressions on the summary as he has done a very long time ago, about the same time this case was oppened. There is something that is just not right. But I guess we will never know. Fad (ix) 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks llike typical Rovoam style to me. Check the numerous accounts he used to vandalise the user page of one of editors: [28] And his constant attacks on Tabib leave no doubt who it was. Tabib's page protected, so he chose another target for attack. Note that Test56 attacked this user on his talk as well. Grandmaster 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Temporary revert parole

1) Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Armenian Revolutionary Federation and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic still under protection, and much edit warring continues (e.g. [29]). Dmcdevit·t 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Could an arbitrator (or a clerk familiar with the wording, maybe its been recycled) respond to my query here about the enforcement of this injunction? Some of the parties have already made a revert or two (on different pages) without talk page explanation. Picaroon 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued Edit War

I would like to draw your attention to user:Artaxiad continued edit war while certain pages are pertinent to Arbcom temporary injunction. Please check his contrib. Please see pages Khachkar destruction - removing alternative opinion thus destroying NPOV, Farida Mammadova for pasting irrelevant information from other page Ziya Bunyadov and inserting POV comments like "blooper", etc. Many reverts are supported by user:Fadix. --Dacy69 17:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I see nothing wrong, if you have issues discuss them I barely did one thing and your reporting it already. Artaxiad 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain what "supports" you're referring too? I am unsure I am following you. Fad (ix) 16:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Artaxiad and Atabek restricted to edit while the case resume

1)Artaxiad and Atabek have disturbed by vilifying and attempting to spread the problem so they should not edit any articles related to the conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Atabek has created an article to add a category about "Armenian terrorism" which is right now on deletion to justify the validity of the category, and Artaxiad has created a category on Turkish terrorism and retaliated to the creation of Armenian terrorism. That they continue disturbing even during the Arbcom make it doubtful of possible reabilitation without a ruling on them. Fad (ix) 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Varoujan Garabedian was created based on evidence, facts and references. Whether or not it falls under the category of Armenian terrorism or Terrorism, is a secondary subject, which has nothing to do with reason why article was created. Atabek 18:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The request is based on behavior, you have created the page about two hours after the request for deletion was submitted and the justification presented was that there was only one article in the category. You soon after created the article and added the category in that article by full knowledge that it was requested to be deleted, for which you have voted keep, when even a Turkish contributor voted later delete. Your last activities would just spread the conflict. Fad (ix) 18:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Assume good faith

1) All editors are expected to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. FloNight 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Courtesy

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. FloNight 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

3) Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives that have been published by a reliable source. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Misleading, if there are no reliable sources for alternatives to a formulation, the effect is to present that formulation as fact, in effect, "the truth". Fred Bauder 17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This policy is most threatned here, and this is one of the major reasons I have not contributed much in the mainspace of the articles. It is unfortunitly a loss, no one is respecting it or seem to not understand it. Some believe it is a form of balance, others believe it is a pass for a 50/50 coverage. There are hardly any articles involved in this dispute which adhere to NPOV policy. And Armenian editors are also to blame. But particularly Adil and Dacy have absolutly no use of this policy at all. Throwing some obscure source from somewhere and then pushing this fringe position not only as simple position, not only the 50/50, but pushing it as far as 100/0. And many of my attacks directed against members was particularly my innability to enforce this policy. I think most of the edit wars will be prevented if people accept to adhere to it. I believe the Arbitrators should read this recent happenings in the talkpage of this article. [30] Fad (ix) 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also believe they shoud read that article which concerns two parties of the conflict, and while perspective of one party (Armenian) is given, some users tries to remove another perspective. It is ironic that user:Fadix speak about NPOV supporting those who remove it. As for nexus for my edit and NPOV - Urartu page should be studied. Here all answers to continued false accusations by user:Fadix And if Britannica and Columbia encyclopedia and works of prominent scholars in the matter of question can be called obscure sources then I should leave Wiki. NPOV was also completely removed from such pages as Monte Melkonian and Armenian Revolutionary Federation. Solution would be if 2-3 admins will be appointed to monitor and facilitate ensuring NPOV on Armenia-Azerbaijani related pages.--Dacy69 16:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is funny how you are enough naive to think that suppositions might fool arbitrators. Newspapers like the The Independent, the European parlement or independent investigators like Steven Sims etc. are not just yet another party, as just like Armenia they have accused Azerbaijan. This is called the majority position. As for your accusations, I don't remember ever questioning Britannica, care to show any diff? Yet, I am waiting you to prove I have edit warred or POV pushed, my evidence section document you having done just that. Fad (ix) 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I complained about your false accusations, incivility and insults which are unbearable. You just insult people on talkpages and let other expat editors to do editing and rv. That was my point - on ARF you insulted - Fedayee reverted. Artaxiad reverts, you support him.That is it - I never told about your edit war. As for Britannica - since you accuse me of villifying and putting obscure sources - I just show that, inter alia, among my edits I presented views and referenced from Britannica--Dacy69 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ask Francis, Golbez or any other administrators involved in articles like PKK, I supported Fedayee, because there was a concesus on the use of the term terrorism and terrorist. It took about 2 years of conflicts and finally a concensus was established. And no, I have never encouraged others to revert war, to the contrary. So, are you actually confirming that I do not edit war? What what does expat refers to, I wonder. Fad (ix) 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Verifiability and sourcing

4) Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. FloNight 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Original research

5) Original research is prohibited. This includes a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position; an argument is permissible only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the specific topic of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant and appropriate. Personal analysis, however insightful, cannot substitute for attribution. Fred Bauder 17:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. FloNight 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Article probation

6) Where user conduct issues seem to revolve around a single articles, and where there are a large number of editors involved, and those editors are not disruptive otherwise, it may make more sense to put the article itself on probation rather than individual editors. Administrators are empowered to block or ban editors from editing the article for misconduct like edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruption relating to the article on probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

7) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal or external conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Wikipedia articles are not a forum for the continuation of real world disputes by other means.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. FloNight 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Artaxiad 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nicely worded. Picaroon 02:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The point I was trying to make was that it was an all out war, before arbitration committee stopped it. Vartanm 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is apolitical

8) Wikipedia is apolitical and an organized attempt to reverse that shall never be tolerated

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed. Fad (ix) 04:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A Wikipedian is a Wikipedian

9) Members should consider eachothers as equaly Wikipedians regardless of faith, ethnicity, social class, belief or any other social construct unless a user is harming Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed. Fad (ix) 21:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed. Artaxiad 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! But I hope ArbCom will decide who is "harming Wikipedia" and not just us, don't you agree? --Neigel von Teighen 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree. Fad (ix) 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fair editing freedom

10) Any kind of attempt of a member for avoiding someone else to contribute according to the policies shall never be tolerated.

10.1) No editor is permitted to prevent any other editor who is abiding by the official policies of Wikipedia from contributing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed on behalf of User:Dacy69 --Neigel von Teighen 14:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

10.1, proposed adjustment of wording for more idiomatic English. This probably needs a little work. For instance an editor who is banned from editing a Wikipedia page is free to edit the rest of the encyclopedia as long as he conforms to Wikipedia's policies in doing so, but he isn't permitted to edit the page from which he is banned, even if he makes otherwise-acceptable edits. But I don't think that's the kind of thing this proposal is about. --Tony Sidaway 10:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewording; English is not my mother language (Spanish is). --Neigel von Teighen 11:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there’s a Wikipedia policy that covers this issue, which I listed below, i.e. WP:OWN. It holds that no one owns the articles in Wikipedia and everyone has a right to edit them. Grandmaster 13:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and revert warring violates this principle. I beg to order ourselves and fight for NPOV and civility in WP. --Neigel von Teighen 17:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of articles

11) Ownership of articles. If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and allow them to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Grandmaster 11:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This template is not even needed, its obvious anyone can edit it. Artaxiad 19:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is needed, as some users try to prevent others fom editing certain articles. Grandmaster 20:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah like March Days or Urartu, if the reverting stops a solution can be reached. Artaxiad 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, your edits of March Days have not contributed anything besides falsifying evidence (10,000 to 30,000 WP:OR presented falsely using HRW source which says 10,000) [31] and futile attempts to prove prominent scholars wrong based on failed attempts to attribute their ethnicity [[32]], and fascinatingly, based on the very same comment that I present from introduction :) Your idea of "solution" on March Days is not clear and seems to be just joggling with numbers in unrelated September (not March) events in 1918. You hardly read anything about the topic and trying to argue with evidence from well sourced material. Atabek 09:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of the dispute

1) Wikipedia has been disrupted by a serious of editing disputes centered around the political and ethnic constitution of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sources

1) Sources in English include 1993 UN Security Council Resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan: Seven years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki (1994), ISBN 1-56432-142-8 Online. Articles in the New York Times include "Trying to Tell a Truce From a War", By MICHAEL WINES, May 27, 2001 restricted access, "Armenia and Azerbaijan Remain Stalled in Talks", By KATRIN BENNHOLD, February 12, 2006 restricted access, "Hopeful Signs Appear in Solving a Post-Soviet Impasse", By C. J. CHIVERS, February 2, 2006 restricted access, "Attacks in Caucasus Bring New Tide of Refugees", April 7, 1993 restricted access Front page stories, New York Times. Conflict history: Azerbaijan, conflict history: Armenia, and conflict history: Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Irronically, the main problems are not on Nagorno-Karabakh, beside the table Adil added. But the bordering articles as well as articles not related with Azerbaijan. Francis and Golbez have done a good job on the main article. Fad (ix) 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problems are on Nagorno-Karabakh, which is the most troubled article and which was protected endless number of times long before most of parties to arbcom joined Wikipedia. But the disputes and edit wars also go on many other articles, related to Azerbaijan and Armenia, so it is not limited to a certain topic, even though that topic is the main cause of problems. Grandmaster 07:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true, the main article was in an unusual relative peace before Adil came back from his wikibrake. Fad (ix) 13:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Edit warring

1) Numerous parties to this dispute have engaged in edit warring including, but not limited to, AdilBaguirov, Aivazovsky, Artaxiad, Eupator, Grandmaster, Elsanaturk, Azerbaijani, Mardavich, Atabek, Fadix, Dacy69, TigranTheGreat, Vartanm, and ROOB323.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Please check my edit history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 16:22, March 11, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

AdilBaguirov

1) AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a participant in the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by AdilBaguirov

1) AdilBaguirov has made personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Artaxiad 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. Anything that could constitute a "personal attack" from me pales in comparison to what my accusers, such as user:Artaxiad (aka user:Nareklm), have done against both my persona, other individuals, and Wikipedian community as a whole (see specific evidence about their massive sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, insults (as far as using the f-word towards me), etc. --AdilBaguirov 21:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Stay on topic please, usually when users get off topic they know there wrong. You have attacked others, see [33] stay on topic. Artaxiad 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also you should stop saying Artaxiad and Nareklm, your not going to get me blocked because of that I changed my username there not socks. Which F word? Artaxiad 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad (Narek), are you a bot or a person? Seriously, this is weird. To begin with, your reference of my alleged attack has no personal attack, insult or harrassment towards anyone, if anything, the text reveals constant attacks against me from others. Secondly, why did you support my motion against ROOB323 below (you put your name right under mine), where I presented this evidence [34], and now ask "Which F word?"

Because ROOB made a personal attack before, so it was justified to say it. Second your edit summary is self-explanatory. Artaxiad 00:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Original research by AdilBaguirov

1) AdilBaguiov has engaged in original research [35]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Opposed. There is no OR -- I have commented on user:Aivazovsky's included maps, where he misrepresented what is clearly written on them (i.e, if dates were about early 1920s, he would suggest they support his theory about certain borders being like that until 1931 [subsequently, he dropped 1931 and opted for 1927, a date that is still not supported by maps]).

As such, I did not introduce a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea; did not define or introduce new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms; did not introduce an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; and did not introduce an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article. --AdilBaguirov 21:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators have just to check NK article to see another example of original research, where Adil tries to pass the whole Karabakh population as NK and push it on to include it. Fad (ix) 22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's your misinterpretation, that has been soundly disproven. You have a long record of trying to deny and supress facts and evidence -- you've done this on the Nakhichevan page (going as far as denying what Armenia's own chroniclers of the time have clearly written), and do this on the Nagorno-Karabakh page (such as with the fully-sourced and verifiable census table). --AdilBaguirov 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you. Sure. Fad (ix) 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the arbitrators should review that AdilBaguirov is still continuing with original research. [36] And shows no inclination. Fad (ix) 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, here he claims the European parlement line is false. [37] He's being doing this from the beginning, deciding what is accurate so what goes in the articles. Fad (ix) 03:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeap, to say "Azerbaijan denied European Parliament (EP) a visit to Naxcivan" is false, since there was no official request from the leadership of EP or any resolution asking or requiring a permission to visit. Hence, my correction, that a request of a few MPs was denied, is correct, precise and NPOV, and certainly does not qualify for OR. Meanwhile, what constitutes OR in your first example, that Armenian language is Indo-European, and that those words are from ancient Persian language? --AdilBaguirov 06:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Independent is a notable source and confirms that, you on the other hand claims it is not true. You are claiming a "truth" which is called original research. As for Indo-European, Armenian is indeed an indo-European, but claiming that all Armenian words are etymologically Persian, thosefor Persian terms should be used insteed is OR. Fad (ix) 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

More, AdilBaguirov does OR by choosing when scholars are saying the truth and thosefor should be included or are not saying the truth, so they should be excluded. Here, De Waal, for AdilBaguirov should be removed. [38] And here, De Waal should be added. [39] Fad (ix) 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, again he assess the credibility of authors and as such justify their removal. [40]

Comment by others:

Conflict of interest by AdilBaguirov, Tabib, Dacy69 and Atabek

1) AdilBaguirov, Tabib, Dacy69 and Atabek (used as meatpuppet) are party in the real life Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute, one member is official part of the negotiations regarding Nagorno Karabakh(Tabib), AdilBaguirov and Dacy69 are official representatives of the position of Azerbaijan republic in the United States.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Their edit reflects that, as being major parties in the real dispute, there is a conflict of interest. For example, here AdilBaguirov adding the Journal of Turkish Weekly [41], which with he has associated himself and publish there also. [42] Fad (ix) 19:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There’s no evidence of any connection between the aforementioned users and the government of Azerbaijan. So this claim is baseless and unsubstantiated until Fadix presents any evidence to the contrary. Grandmaster 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

One user works with political parties in Azerbaijan and is also part of the negotiations. Two other users are part in the US. There clearly are conflict of interest. Conflict of interest applies when a published member who is linked with the conflict in real life come on Wikipedia and push his position. This is called conflict of interest. Fad (ix) 15:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You presented no proof for your claims. Grandmaster 15:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, you continue your disruptive activity by numerous false accusation. Once again I state - I live in Canada and my IP was checked for that matter. Please provide your evidence of my official activity on behalf of Azerbaijani government in US.--Dacy69 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

 Clerk note: Some comments removed. Note that having a conflict of interest is not a bar to editing, although it may be taken into account as one factor in judging what remedies to apply to a disruptive editor. If any party wishes to offer evidence regarding the real-life identities of editors who have not disclosed this information themselves, please e-mail it to an Arbitrator using the e-mail addresses listed here. (Spamming all the Arbitrators would be an exceedingly bad idea.) Thatcher131 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Fadix

1) Fadix has made personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed and supported by evidence [43] Atabek 19:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazingly the same inaccurate statment as Adil, Zuljan NOT Zuljian, there is no "i" he is a Slovak author and it is about time you guys stop using the word "Armenian" to insult scholars. Another evidence you provide is not a harassement it was retreaved from Artaxiad talk page. The arbitrators could read the context as well as the last part of my message as an answer to Artaxiad requesting to figh back. I said and I quote: The answer is not fighting back, but enforce Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Those are the best tools against blind nationalism. [44] Araxiad did revert war and did disrupt Wikipedia and I was trying to deal with this but thanks to you Dacy and Adil my tutoring FAILED!!! The rest of the harrassements, for the rest I did harass and take all the responsability. Fad (ix) 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Fadix has a long-string of various personal attacks, harassment and insults towards myself and other editors involved, always starting first, and always being asked to cease and desist: [45], [46], [47], [48] --AdilBaguirov 22:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have confirmed it, and even said that under the same circumstances I will do it again. I wonder why you push something I have admitted and even gave for you evidences by saying that I will do it again. You have disturbed Wikipedia, I will lie to save someone from being murdered, I will steal to save someone from murder. Understand? Fad (ix) 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that everyone would understand from your statements is that you are the one who disturbs the Wiki community, not anyone else. Before finger pointing, one should take a good look in the mirror. --AdilBaguirov 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK good, leave others understand that then. Fad (ix) 02:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While Arbcom is considering this issue user:Fadix continues on every page accuse other editors and make personal attacks [49], [50]--Dacy69 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I attacked you there too, next? Fad (ix) 15:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, are you confessing to have been violating WP:NPA?? I.e.: are you recognizing (by saying that those articles would be sabotaged until Dacy69 is not banned) that you have no interest in following consensus, hearing other opinions, learning from other people (anyone has too) and, finally, collaborate instead of sabotaging? --Neigel von Teighen 09:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I admit, I have never denied it, I plainly admit having attacked him, I never denied it and plainly said it in my oppening statment of this case. I have followed WP:Ignore_all_rules which is also a policy. I have more than two years experience on Wikipedia and I can know who are here to contribute in good faith and who are not. This guy came along with Adil and started editing various articles and engaging in edit wars, getting closed articles one after the others. Most he had touched were locked. And then, after starting an edit war, always the same patern, after disturbing the mainspace and creating this putrid atmosphere, he will go on the talkpage and justify his edits, not open to compromise but enforce without any compromise the entirity of his proposition, then requesting mediation, to "prove" he is right. Just like when this case was about to be accepted, he said that it was about proving who is right and wrong, who will get punished. I will continue attacking those who take Wikipedia as a hostage. Not doing so would be worst. Someone come in the talkpage, discuss and respect members, and this before engaging in an edit war, I will be more than willing to discuss with that person and respect him/her. If that person start engaging in an edit war and get the article locked and then goes in the talkpage and request mediation not for compromise but believing that it is a tool to enforce his position. Then, sorry to say, but a disturber will be treated as a disturber. Assume good faith is a guideline, it doesn't mean that one should assume good faith with a vandal. Just like No Personal Attack does not mean to leave a bad faithed, Wikipedia disturber to continue disturbing articles. You don't know who you are defending. Fad (ix) 00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

At least from where I come from, there's principle called A confesión de parte, relevo de prueba' (="After confession by party, no more evidence needed"). --Neigel von Teighen 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Fedayee

1) Fedayee has made personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose, Could I please get a link by a third party as to where I personal attacked someone? Thanks - Fedayee 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Artaxiad 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Note the username (nickname) "Fedayee" is extremely offensive to all Azerbaijani, Turkish and Kurdish inhabitants of Caucasus and the greater region. Fedayee, originally an Arabic word, has been adopted by a mix of Armenian ASALA terrorists, irregulars, mercenaries from the Syria and Lebanon (where those ASALA terrorists got their training in the 1970s and 1980s)), and army soldiers and officers as nome de guerre (although it was adopted before the Karabakh war, it has become especially widely used since), during which such slaughters of innocent Azerbaijani civilians as the Khojaly massacre (February 25-26, 1992) were committed, where 613 people are just confirmed deaths, with another two hundred listed "missing". All in all, over 20,000 (half of which were civilians) Azerbaijanis and Kurds were killed (plus a small number of Jews), and about 800,000 Azerbaijanis and Kurds were driven out from their currently occupied lands by the "fedayee". To all innocent victims of the aggression and occupation by these "fedayee", the term is as offensive as "Shtandarten Fuhrer SS" or "Storm Trooper" would be for any WWII victim (whether Jewish, Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian, and other Soviet and others). Everyone has such sensitivities, including Armenians, who too would be unhappy if Azerbaijani or Turkish users would choose certain nicknames -- this is why Wikipedia has a policy against using inappropriate user names. Despite repeated hints to user:Fedayee to change his name [51], he consistently essentially defended his choice, and expressed pride in the actions of his role models. Wikipedia is not the place for loud sounding names of some blood-thirsty killers -- if one wants to be a "hero" or tough guy, he should go into the open, a battlefield, and prove his worthiness (as opposed to massacring civilians). --AdilBaguirov 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats from your point of view, Fedayee has nothing to do with ASALA, so stop causing random trouble you find many things offensive, I find the Azeri government offensive and what? let go of it. Artaxiad 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL you must be joking Mr. Baguirov. You cannot get as POV as what you said in your essay about my nickname above. This proves that all you write, all you think is nothing but an Azeri POV pushing of things and you are emotionally driven. I or the arbitrators dont care what you think of my nickname. You my friend have nothing to provide so you go through all this trouble to POV push your POV on my nickname? haha. You're not gonna teach me a history on what my nickname means. For you, every Armenian is an ASALA connected person. I'm sure it was ASALA that fought the Azeris in Nagorno-Karabakh too... right (rolling my eyes)? What you do is you create flames, flames so people get angry and burst and throw insults at you. Then you can easily use it against people. It's not gonna happen...you can call Iranism Nazism, you can call me a Nazi, (which can be viewed as a personal attack!) I don't care because it is a violation of a wiki rule called POV. Weak attempts to lure me into a trap to personal attack you. My nickname had nothing to do with Azeris when I chose it, fidain is the equivalent of "armed volunteer". Anyway i'm not gonna argue, I will patiently wait for the day you are banned. (btw nice try on the inclusion of Jews in your comment above, it's not gonna convince anyone that my nickname is something Nazi). And wow I hope the Arbitrators are reading Adil's comments like this one "if one wants to be a "hero" or tough guy, he should go into the open, a battlefield, and prove his worthiness." Irrelevant comment, noone's gonna take you seriously man. - Fedayee 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So you still refuse to change your nickname, and you laugh "LOL" at the victims of the Karabakh war, particularly the Khojaly dead and survivors? --AdilBaguirov 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Khojaly dead? thats sad buddy, both Armenians and Azeris suffered, Fedayee's were the least who committed civilian casualties. Fedayis have no business in killing young ones, it may have been the army with the help of others. Artaxiad 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, manipulation of words Adil, I laugh at your accusation that my choice of nickname was to poke fun of Azeris. What do you think I am that I would laugh at the victims of war where 6,000 of my countrymen were killed...why do you stoop so low Adil? I mean do you seriously think I would be doing that? Do you think Armenians are heartless monsters Adil...have Kerim Kerimov Mammadhan's caricatures affected you that much? - Fedayee 00:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by ROOB323

1) ROOB323 has made personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. One such evidence was reported here: [52] --AdilBaguirov 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed. Artaxiad 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Eupator

1) Eupator has made personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Aivazovsky

1) Aivazovsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Clevelander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an Armenian participant in the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Revert and Edit war by Eupator

1) Eupator was engaged in edit war and rv. Evidence presented [53], [54], [55], [56]

More evidence has been presented here: [57] --adil 20:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Dacy69 21:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed.--Atabek 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will advice the Arbcom committee to dig Eupator reverts and check what he has reverted, a full history of his reverts. While I do not justify misbehaving or did not defend anyones misbehaving. Atabek and Dacy in this particular case are misrepresenting the evidences. Most of the reverts Eupator have done were against some anon users edits, or users like Ararat Arev, which even Dacy69 himself reverted. Eupator has done a great deal of work reverting undiscussed changes, vandalism and etc. On the other hand, the reverts by Atabek and Dacy were mostly done against established members, not some anon edits and removals. Fad (ix) 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Eupator has been engaged in revert warring on Azerbaijan – Armenia related articles long before Adil or Dacy69 joined Wikipedia. First time he was blocked for 3RR violation on Nagorno-Karabakh article on 31 January 2006. Check his block log. Grandmaster 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Checkuser Request for User:Zurbagan

1) I have a reason to suspect that this person is a sock of Robert599 (talk · contribs), who used socks MarkHessen (talk · contribs) and Վաչագան (talk · contribs) to create the article about Ziya Bunyadov for character assassination purposes. Zurbagan (talk · contribs) appeared two days after the aforementioned accounts were blocked [58] and immediately started editing the article about Ziya Bunyadov, edit warring and making personal attacks on other users on talk. Check his contribs. I would like to ask for immediate checkuser of this person. Thanks. Grandmaster 06:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a strong evidence that user:Zurbagan is a sockpuppet. Please compare edit of established sockpuppet user:Jalaleddin [59] and edit of user:Zurbagan - [60] - use of similar language, same POV, the same references across two different pages. Interestingly, user:Artaxiad made similar edit [61]--Dacy69 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored his quote obviously and don't even say things like this, regarding your editing at Urartu, [62] and [63] Artaxiad 19:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem you rarely engage yourself to talkpages and just rv or restoring someone's info. I do the same sometimes if I support that opinion but I have a bulk of discussion, e.g. on Urartu. My friendly advise is not to copying obvious POV of obvious sockpuppets.--Dacy69 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I come and go enough, I explain my reverts daily, that user is new I don't think calling him a sock puppetry and a vandal is going to help its uncivil and biting newcomers is not recommended, the material looked good to me. Artaxiad 06:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Checkuser Tabib

There are other edits and a number of accounts created from the ip that Tabib used and they are from Azerbaijan; however the edits by the other accounts are childish, not concerning the issues Tabib was concerned with. So essentially, no evidence of sockpuppeting by Tabib was found.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Results of checkuser requested by Fadix Fred Bauder 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Checkuser Request for User:ROOB323, User:Vartanm, and User:Aivazovsky by User:Atabek

The patterns of some of these users' edits are astonishingly similar. For example, User:Aivazovsky at [[64]] says:

I find it difficult to deal with User:Dacy69, User:Atabek and especially User:AdilBaguirov.

and at about the same day, User:ROOB323 wrote at [[65]]:

It is very difficult to deal with this two users User:Atabek and User:AdilBaguirov

Further User:Aivazovsky writes at [[66]]:

I can discuss issues with Azeri users such as User:Grandmaster and come to eventual compromises

and then comes from User:ROOB323 at [[67]]:

Although there were some conflicts with User:Grandmaster, but eventually we were able to come a compromise

Also, User:Vartanm and User:ROOB323, as it can be clearly seen here [[68]] are engaged in coordinated edit warring at Monte Melkonian

Thanks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If you're attempting to prove that User:ROOB323 and I are sockpuppets, then good luck. According to his profile ROOB323 lives in California. I live in Ohio. We most likely have completely different IPs. So we happen to agree on Azeri users, that doesn't prove anything. -- Aivazovsky 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

loooooooooooooooool oh my god, WOW!!!!!!!!!! This is the funniest thign I ever heard. WOW Atabek, I really can't control my self laughing, it is just so hilarious that all your other tactics did not work out and you came out with something like this looool. I can't believe it. What can I say, nice one looool go ahead and prove it. ROOB323 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Coordinated edit warring? We simply removed the irrelevant sources added by you. None of the sources you provided contained the information that you were trying to add to the article. Three of them didn't even mention Monte Melkonian.Vartanm 17:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and lets not forget that Atabek knows first hand what a sockpuppet is Tengri. --Vartanm 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser Request for User:Batabat

I ask that the administrators investigate User:Batabat. In this user's short tenure on Wikipedia, he has defended Adil's behavior of User:Khoikhoi's talk page [69] and he created a user page that only consisted of the following text (also see here for evidence: [70]):

“ Greetings from Batabat! It is a miraculous place on the border between northern Naxchivan and Zangezur, that is today called Republic of Armenia. Paradise!!! No wonder Armenians want that place. We don't mind - they continue to want it. ”

It should be noted that the Republic of Armenia has never laid claim to Nakhichevan, the autonomous Azerbaijani exclave seperated from the rest of Azerbaijan by Armenia's Syunik province. This was an obvious attempt to provoke a response from Armenian editors. His clear unconstructive attitude towards the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It has been claimed that Batabat is a sockpuppet of User:AdilBaguirov, though this has yet to be proven. -- Aivazovsky 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

User:Batabat wasn't proven to be a sockpuppet of anyone, so it's premature to claim him a sockpuppet of User:AdilBaguirov or anyone else. User:Batabat is blocked based on suspicion (not proof) of sockpuppetry and cannot defend himself in this case, so your accusation looks more like a one-man party.

Regarding User:Batabat's comment which you're trying to use as incrimination, any user has a right for his opinion expressed on his own user page, as long as it reflects the truth and does not violate Wiki policies. And it's not quite visible why what User:Batabat said is a violation, given the fact that majority of ordinary Armenians (including yourself at Qazakh page), lay claim on Azerbaijani lands on just about every Wikipedia page. Here is just one example, which should be actually considered as Wikipedia:NPOV violation, at [[71]]:

No, we admit that what is now Republic of Armenia, as well as half of Azerbaijan, has been populated by Armeninians since antiquity, whose percentage decreased only due to Turkoman invasions in 16-18th cc (except in Karabakh and some other areas). And much of the area began to become fully Armenian again after the Genocide and influx from Diaspora. And we fully intend to restore the Armenian population to the rest of these ancestral lands, bit by bit.--TigranTheGreat 14:37, 5 February 2007

I think this kind of hate attitude is really counterproductive in balanced approach to editing. Atabek 06:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What is so racist about that comment? I see nothing wrong. Artaxiad 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Batabat is not a sock and has been unblocked. Grandmaster 13:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So much for user:Aivazovsky accusations above! It shows that Aivazovsky and some other users are ideologically and politically motivated, acting in bad faith, ready to accuse those whom they view as "enemy" of anything to achieve their disruptive aims. It's unbelievable that user Batabat has been blocked for so long, by the way -- on one hand an innocent user, who is not a sock, is blocked for a month, and on the other hand, a multiple-time convicted sock and meatpuppet, harrasser Nareklm (user:Artaxiad) is blocked "indefinitely" and then unblocked. Only shows that the former is just an honest and simple person, who just wants to contribute his knowledge and expertise to Wikipedia, whilst the latter is a cunning and shrewd puppeteer, who learned how to abuse the system to his and his possy's benefit. --AdilBaguirov 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WOW!!! I have missed this one, really, this is the best of all. Politically motivated? You are accusing, you of anyone else someone of being politically motivated? You who have with Dacy organised you know what to come here in Wikipedia to extend both of your websites and use Wikipedia as your servers? You both with the political affiliations you have? What would you have said had some scholar working with the republic of Armenia organise with high members from the Armenian assembly of America to come here and start contributing in Azerbaijan related articles? You really made my day. Really. Fad (ix) 16:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant you have used socks also, Batabat comes out of nowhere and starts replying everywhere where Atabek has replied the admins have the right to indef him due to the disruption per checkuser. The block on me is different you love mentioning things repeatedly. Don't attack me when you call Fadix a "fag" and you evaded your block with 3 different ips. Artaxiad 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough! Stop your constant personal attacks. I have never used socks, the Check User [72] proved that to your dismay. Had I've used socks, I would have been blocked. Having bunch of sockpuppets seems like your domain, user:Mikara (ooops, Narek. Or is it Artaxiad?). Also, I never evaded any blocks, and that has been thoroughly addressed (the system logged me out after a while due to not checking the box at login, and I always post under the same IP set). Also, what do you mean about fag, which meaning [73]? All your actions are indeed very tiring. --AdilBaguirov 23:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "fag" is a insult funny how you go and show me a link its common sense, oh and its Artaxiad if you didn't know, check your block log buddy, you've been blocked for 3 IP evasions. Artaxiad 23:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to check - I know I was not evading anything or anyone, and the admins involved know that too. And I would most welcome an additional, new investigation, so that this thing is cleared from my record, Mikara (where you not only created a sock, but also falsified its Talk page, including lengthy exchanges from another users' Talk pages to make you appear "older" and "unbiased" -- that shows a very much pre-meditated attempt to fool everyone and evade all blocks. Speaks volumes about you). --AdilBaguirov 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and how you deny you evaded your block when obviously they were you, after you get blocked, an anon appears and starts reverting. Artaxiad 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Grandmaster has revert warred

1) Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has revert warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would like to add supplementation. Check the reverts based on his edit summary counts. [74] It does not include all the reverts. Fad (ix) 18:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is another piece of forged evidence by this person. No diffs, no search results, just baseless accusations. Grandmaster 10:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I have removed a very large argument. The Arbitrators can judge for themselves whether Fadix' evidence is convincing. Analysis and commentary on evidence is useful to the Arbitrators, argument is not. Thatcher131 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. See the evidence I've compiled here. Picaroon 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad has revert warred

1) Artaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Nareklm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has revert warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. See the evidence I've compiled here. Picaroon 22:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad has been meatpuppeting

1) Artaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Nareklm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been meatpuppeting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See the evidence here. Grandmaster 13:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. No evidence, that I allegedly wrote it. Artaxiad 21:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

AdilBaguirov has revert warred

1) AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has revert warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I will like to add supplementation to support that he did just more than revert warring, his edit wars have closed many articles which were never closed before. See. [75]

Note Interesting, and how is one to prove that all those articles were locked because of me? Many were locked before, others were locked on different versions -- some on my versions, some on others. Yet what is most important, none of my edits violated any policy and rules -- all were scholarly, academic, verifiable and properly cited and sourced. So this whole argument is based on a weak foundation. --AdilBaguirov 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This supplement is relevent to show that the locking of articles, for most, Adil had most of the blame to share. [76] Various articles were NEVER locked before Adil. Fad (ix) 18:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. See the evidence I've compiled here. Picaroon 22:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad blocked

1) Artaxiad has been blocked indefinitely [77]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note. Kirill Lokshin 13:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Provisionally unblocked, based on promises of good behavior. Kirill Lokshin 09:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me note, for anyone unclear about this, that the blocking was an emergency measure related specifically to the attempt at revealing personal information (and, hence, the unblock is due to my being reasonably certain that this particular behavior won't be repeated). The other issues being discussed here will be considered by the Committee in due course; but they do not require any emergency action at this point, given that the matter has already reached arbitration. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Kirill, just see the post by User:Fadix below. Your "reasonable certainty" about this particular behaviour not being repeated has only resulted in this:

• Adil and Tabib were contributing under their real name, the information thosefor is under public domain. And the harassement was appopriate...

Thanks. Atabek 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Krill can read you don't have to quote me there. Wikipedia remaining apolitical is above every other policies and guidelines here. If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. [78] That is what I did and will do it again. Fad (ix) 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think by saying "blocking indefinitely" and then unblocking the user, who violated perhaps the most fundamental Wikipedia rule, you only opened a "can of worms". This shows that it would be sufficient to attack, threaten, harass, stalk, create sockpuppets, etc. for an established user, and then ask for forgiveness (for 3rd time now). Better then not block anyone at all, and have a complete anarchy. And if someone gets a physical threat, obviously none of you, as administrators, will care to take responsibility. Atabek 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is simply ridiculous, we both know that no one will be physicially threaten, it is not as if Artaxiad provided an information about someone who does not do similar things in real life regardless of the consequences. Two of the users contribute with their real names here and the information is easily available on google, it is public domain, they knew the consequence of their act by registering under their real name. I admit that Artaxiad by providing another name did it wrong, as no user by that name was contributing here so it would be considered as revealing personal information. The Arbcom on the other hand should consider the harm that this would cause to the real person. In this case none. Persian and Armenian users here are not active with such stuff in real life, neither elites in this domain who are known to have very strong published opinions, just like the majority of contributors on Wikipedia they do mistakes, and should be shown how to act. This should not be compared with an organized attempt by an originized and financed elitist group to reverse the apolitical nature of Wikipedia and this is worst than any misbehaving having been done. I always said that this was not about content dispute. This is worst and the Abrcom should have this in mind. If it does not take position on the principale that Wikipedia shall remain apolitical under any circumstances. This case then is worthless, I attacked members because I knew something, my attack was a "devoir du citoyen." Fad (ix) 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fadix is actually guilty of similar offence, i.e. harassment by revealing and distorting personal info. See evidence below:

• "Tabib who has voted, works in a tink tank organization which work with political parties in Azerbaijan, was a real life friend with Adil, who has associated himself with think thank organizations members of the republic of Turkey, like Sedat Laciner, and even got articles published by their journals, among many things denying the Armenian genocide and adhering to Laciner ultra nationalistic views." [79]

• "Look around you and check who are contributing, Tabib is a known leader of some tink tank organization working with Azerbaijan political parties. Adil has a specialisation on media information, particularly the internet. What do you seriously think someone with some form of graduate degree in international relations and who has a specialisation in the transmission of this information will do on the internet." [80] Grandmaster 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Public domain, I don't think anyone would have any problems if Zundel would have contributed in Jewish related articles and being treated this way. I have never revealed names of someone who contributed under another alias even though I had informations on them. Adil and Tabib were contributing under their real name, the information thosefor is under public domain. And the harassement was appopriate. Adil is a known contributor to Sedat Laciner extrem right newspaper, in which he denies the Armenian genocide and accuses Armenians of having exterminated 2.5 million people. Adil is a published Zundel, there is no way that he will be treated fairly by any Armenians by full knowledge of knowing how prejudicial this guy is. Tabib had in his site materials denying the Armenian genocide and the rest of the information about him is public domain. I have done nothing wrong there and I will do the same now and ever. I will never permit Wikipedia to be controled by organized and financed political groups who use it as their servers. Fad (ix) 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Argument removed. Thatcher131 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich edit wars

1) Mardavich edit wars on article's where he is not a regular contributor, and in many cases has never edited the article he reverted before. This may indicate tag team reverting, reverting after being asked to revert or wikistalking. Examples: [81][82][83][84][85][86][87].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Also complaints from other, unrelated, users: [88]--AdilBaguirov 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think this case deserves special attention. He also does the same on other articles (e.g. List of Iranian scientists and scholars), but these are relevent to the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute so I only posted these. NagornyKarabakhian 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose account, likely sockpuppet of Jidan. Khoikhoi 22:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tabib revert war

1) 1) Tabib revert warred in a verry abusive way. see. [89]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, Fad (ix) 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed, Artaxiad 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If Tabib, an occasional contributor, "warred in a very abusive way", then how would you describe the way Eupator edit warred, considering that he made more reverts than anyone else? Grandmaster 11:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we are getting nowhere. Grandmaster, Tabib nearly entirly only reverted, and in support of you. Misteriously when you needed reverting and could not he would reappear out of nowhere to do the job. Just like he would come out of nowehere to vote. Fad (ix) 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So what? At the time we were the only Azeri contributors, of course he would revert in support of me, like you reverted in support of Eupator or Tigran. And he has a right to vote too, which he did. Grandmaster 07:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why it is obvious? Eupator and I, did revert various other Armenian contributors. Why is it OBVIOUS? Grandmaster that Tabib being an Azeri should edit to the version of another Azeri contributor? Tabib was not contributor, but everytime misteriously when you needed another hand, he would just come out of nowhere. HE was used as a revert account and misteriously only when you came on Wikipedia, not before. Fad (ix) 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As an advanced contributor he may have many pages on his watch, and might have chosen to contribute from time to time, however he was not an active contributor for more than a year now, so any attempt to present him as someone who "revert warred in a verry abusive way" are baseless and are just an attempt of character assasination. If he revert warred "in a very abusive way", how can you describe the way Eupator and TigranTheGreat revert warred? Grandmaster 12:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, watch list does not make sense, the articles which were in his watchlist were regularly edited, he only reappeared when you needed a hand, also, and the votings on stuff which were created when he stopped to be active does not add up in a watchlist alone. Someone had to tell him about them. Also, your attempt to compare his behavior with Eupator is really unconvincing, Tabib only reverted mostly. Fad (ix) 22:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Dacy69 edit war

1) Dacy69 edit warred in a verry abusive way. see. [90]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Fad (ix) 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On my section of evidences I left comments about false accusation and forging of evidences by User:Fadix [91]--Dacy69 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, your evidences on my forging of evidence will be taken into consideration. Nothing will justify the fact that the majority of the articles you had touched were closed and that as my evidence shows you and Adil with Atabek organised from outside of Wikipedia to come and take articles as hostage. When a user only engage in articles which close, there is no evidence at all that will ever justify that. Fad (ix) 00:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to propose separate sections for edit warring of various individuals, because there's a proposal that lists all people who did, and this person did not edit war more than those who propose this fact finding. In fact, Dacy69 was trying to add accurate info, which is attested by User:SilkTork, who mediated the dispute by Dacy69's request, so it is those who repeatedly removed verifiable info are to blame for page protection, i.e. User:Eupator, User:TigranTheGreat, User:Artaxiad, etc. Grandmaster 10:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actualy it is necessary, Dacy69 and Adil have not only edit warred, it is evident from the evidence page that they have just more than edit warred. Adil has closed many articles which were never closed before, Dacy69 by coordination acted as his meatpuppet. TigranTheGreat and Eupator did not close most articles they have touched. Eupator in particular has a history of editing Armenian editors who push their POV too and opposed editors such as Ararat Arev. Fad (ix) 13:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No one edit warred as much as those 2. Tigran even got protected Nakhichevan after his revert war with Aivazovsky, in addition to getting all other articles blocked because of his edit wars with different Azerbaijani users. Grandmaster 19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha! You pinpointed something interesting thank you. Yes, Tigran revert warred, and yes both Aivazovsky and Tigran revert warred one against the other. I reverted Armenian users myself. Here is a clear differences between the Armenian users here and the Azeri one. Armenian users have conflicts among themselves, they disagree with eachothers, they revert eachothers. You guys on the other hand, gang, never ever in any conflicts among you, not a single message in the talkpage of the other, but so well coordinated. You change your mind, misteriously the others change their minds. This is actually called meatpuppeting. As for the amount of revert war, we both know that no one has as high of a correlation between his presence and the closure of articles as Adil, Dacy and Atabek. And I have documented that they came here organised to take articles as hostage. This is worst than any misbehaving having been done by any users, and yet you have not ever blamed them. I did blame various Armenian contributors, you have blamed not a single Azeri contributors. Fad (ix) 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see arguments among Azeri editors you should study Azerbaijani pages related to its political leaders and human rights - just an example. As for coordination - I presented evidences how Armenian editors concerted their efforts in rv. Besides, it is easy to monitor situation from the watchlist. It has nothing to do with meatpuppeting. It is just common interests on certain subjects. (Once when was a novice, I even complained about Artaxiad how he follows me and he told that he has 400 pages in his wathclist) And again - in evidences you presented only one article was blocked after me. The rest - after Armeniana editors, including two after Eupator. So what - you are blaming me why I touched them ? It is my right and justifiable if I put well-refernced info (as for example in Urartu, Armenians and some others. I improved them which was affirmed by neutral parties. Guys who reverted me with no discussion or weak arguments - they should be blamed for closure of those articles. My or Grandmaster or someone else strongness does not depend whether we blame or not our expat editors. --Dacy69 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh Pleeeeaazzz. Can't you come with anything better than that? Armenian editors edit because you edit articles related to the Armenians. While you guys have meatpuppeted for articles which had not to do with Azerbaijan but to do with Armenians. As for organisation, there is ample evidence of coordination and organisation in my evidence page. You have yet to address those. As for your claim that only one article was closed after you irrelevent, absolutly irrelevent. Administrators lock articles because of an edit war, when they lock it means there is an edit war, and all of the articles I have cited you engaged in those edit wars. When most articles that you have edited lock, there is no way you can accuse anyone else. One, could be coincidence, two, also, three..., hmmm., 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. Try finding any other users beside Adil, you and Atabek with such a correlation between their presence and the locking of articles. Even Artaxiad does not have such a record. And this is not about watchlists either. Fad (ix) 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you who such other users are. User:Eupator and User:TigranTheGreat, plus User:Artaxiad from time to time. All the articles that got protected involved them relentlessly reverting contributions of Azeri editors. Grandmaster 06:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Show me, easy to make claims. Show me that anything major was happening before Adil returned from his Wikibrake. Show me what other editor who closed the first article he touched, the second, and the third, and the forth and the fifth etc. Don't claim, show me. Show me what Azeri article which has not to do with Armenians which was invaded before Adil came, this is not one, two, three, it is 4, 5, etc. Fad (ix) 13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Before Adil joined I was the only regular Azeri contributor. And check how many times the article about Azerbaijan was protected: [92]. Also check the logs for such articles as Nakhichevan [93] Nagorno-Karabakh [94] Caucasian Albania [95], Urartu [96], etc. They all got protected many times before Adil or others joined Wikipedia. Grandmaster 13:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand the word "invaded" that you use. Every user has a right to edit any article he wants, and if anyone prevents him from doing so, it is a violation of WP:OWN. Grandmaster 13:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Argument removed. Thatcher131 22:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Atabek edit war

1) Atabek edit warred in a verry abusive way. see. [97]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Fad (ix) 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Artaxiad 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Opposed with counter evidence of false accusations by Fad (ix) presented at [98]. Atabek 09:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:TigranTheGreat edit warred and trolled

1) User:TigranTheGreat has been engaged in edit warring and trolling [99]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Grandmaster 13:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but you do realise that by being the person most having been blocked for edit warring, any decision based on edit war against Tigran will have a strong repercution on the decisions taken against you. I just hope you realise that. Fad (ix) 22:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Artaxiad Harassment and Incivility

1) In addition, to meat- and sockpuppeting already shown, User:Artaxiad (formerly User:Nareklm) was also caught with harassment/stalking [100] and incivility [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]. The user's contributions to Wikipedia are persistently disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 19:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed. --Dacy69 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this user has been engaged in edit warring, sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, harassment, incivility, deleted Azerbaijan related images (this might be not the complete list of his violations) and it is hard to find anyone who made as many violations as this person. Still he got away with everything, while many people were punished for less than half of what he's done. Grandmaster 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed. Additionally, user:Nareklm (user:Artaxiad) threatened revert wars and more of his sockpuppetry to admin Dmcdevit: "if you guys want to play this game i will to, im not stupid i know how to find these things out, and i promise you its not going to be nice rv wars will start, im not threatening but alot of us are becoming inpatient" [106]

He also expresses his intentions to user:Fadix on 13 February: [107] "Hmm you are right i agree, but we should learn how to fight back because that is what we are known for i have a few tactics but i can't list them here, you remember that email?" A few minutes later on the same page he openly states [108]: "we need more hyerer here" (that is, we need more Armenian meatpuppets - Hyerer's. He also constantly harasses me and others, claiming to be government agents, government employees (? which is hardly a bad thing had it been true), affiliated with political parties (which once again is hardly a bad thing had it been true), etc. --AdilBaguirov 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I made it clear it wasn't a threat second stop reading my talk page, thats stalking. Artaxiad 21:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting how Adil, Grandmaster and Atabek accuse me of stalking when they read my talk page constantly and follow my edits in other peoples talk pages. Artaxiad 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also stop saying random false things, I never said we need more Armenian sock puppets so don't put words in my mouth. Artaxiad 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all very funny -- and who is reading my talk page as if its his bedtime reading material? Who responds, on my talk page, to a third-party, within a minute of him posting smth? No one is interested in your talk page -- everyone is only interested in your attempts to suppress information, that are counterproductive. --AdilBaguirov 23:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Who replies ? I did and?... Artaxiad 23:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fadix has stalked and made personal attacks against other editors

1) User:Fadix displayed and continuously confirmed [109] his inability to move beyond failed stalking and personal attacks on contributors, instead of concentrating on the topics and content of articles [110].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Upon request, I am ready to furnish administrators with all available evidence to dismiss the false stalking claim by User:Fadix that I am an "official representative of the position of the position of Azerbaijan republic in the United States" [111]. It shall also be noted, that this harassment by User:Fadix is a continuation of stalking by User:Artaxiad, and the two users openly coordinate their disruptive activity [112]. Atabek 18:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no proposed enforcement there. What you propose, a block, a ban what? This [113] is not an article. Furthermore, unless you are a sock of either Adil, Dacy69 or Tabib, I have not said there that you were an official representative, I have linked you as a meat puppet of Dacy69. As for the supposed coordination, this is not accurate; the diff you provide is quoted out of context. Artaxiad has created a category of Turkish terrorism as a retaliation to the creation of the category Armenian terrorism. To which I have answered: [114] , and then further answered him. [115]. Those were removed by Artaxiad. As a consequence of Artaxiad and you spreading of the conflict by involving Turkish members I have added a proposition for a temporary injunction against both of you as can be seen above. Then, Artaxiad submitted the category to speedy deletion, which was successfully deleted, he announced this to my talkpage, and then I told him to contribute on articles not involved as your diff. shows. Let me deal with this situation relate to Adil disruptions and him telling me that it is difficult to not answer back. Fad (ix) 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My proposal asks for restraining of your activity, involving personal attacks and harassment It's up to arbitrators to decide what form that restraining should take, and unlike you, I don't make proposals to ban users of sole ethnicity. Regarding your claims, actually, the same applies to case of User:AdilBaguirov, please, furnish the proofs that he is "official representative of the position of the Republic of Azerbaijan in the U.S.", and show his "official affiliation" with the government as a proof of your claim. Same applies to User:Dacy69, please, provide the evidence for him being again "official representative of the position of the Republic of Azerbaijan in the U.S.". If you're unable to do that, then cease your ad hominem now. Atabek 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not accurate, why do you remove the term "position" it changes the entire meaning. I said that they are the official representatives of the position of the republic of Azerbaijan in the US, which is true. As for ethnicity, that is funny, tell me what contributions you have made on Armenian related articles which were not negative. How many such contributions have I made in Azeri articles? You could repeat this all over again, it won't make it more true. Fad (ix) 19:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I have moved this to a proposed finding of fact and removed some arguments that were getting personal. Thatcher131 01:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Topic probation

1) All articles relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and associated geopolitical disputes are placed under probation. Any uninvolved administrator may, upon good cause shown, ban any user from editing a related page. "Related page" is subject to the administrator's discretion. If, after three months, normality has returned to this topic area, the probation may be suspended.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on a similar remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming. Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is establishing a "list" of administrators empowered to ban, to reduce confusion. I think ten would be the maximum. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support, but disagree with the "list" idea. The remedy Mackensen linked from had no such idea; it is hard to arbitrary pick 10 administrators too. Wikipedia:Mentorship however... - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Topic probation

1.1) All articles relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and associated geopolitical disputes are placed under probation. "Related page" is subject to the administrator's discretion. An appropriate notice must first be given on the talk page. After appropriate notice has been given, any uninvolved administrator may ban any user from editing the article for good cause. If, after three months, normality has returned to this topic area, the probation may be suspended by motion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases. Articles under probation and article bans issued must be listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is not enought I think, I believe locking the central articles for 3 months is better, changes would only be done by 3 uninvolved administrators after parties have discussed in the talkpage. The changes will be decided by those three administrators after a 2-1 agree. Fad (ix) 03:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On matters of content, admins are just normal editors, and no more authority to decide whether an edit is acceptable then any three random editors. Admins can enforce civility, and prevent disruption and edit warring, but don't (or at least should not) rule on content. Content disagreements should be taken to RFC or mediation. Thatcher131 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I was clear. Admins, I mean those experienced enought would easily know what is POV wordings. Blind probation does not work. I know of what I am talking I see what is happening. Suppose that two people are in conflict insteed of bringing this conflict in the articles mainspace, they do it in the talkpage. Probations like "you have to justify your edit" is vague. Everyone can write something and provide few sources. Then user B will revert counter justifying, then C... it does not work at all. Limit of 1 rv neither, it will encourage uses of sock, the uses of open proxies etc..., and back to square one. First thing is to settle the question of users who have done nothing than disturbing, then forcing users to use the talk page, if problem happens at least the talk page and not the mainspace will be taken as hostage. Fad (ix) 03:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Revised. The proposal is so broad that editors could feel sandbagged if they are suddenly banned from an article that is tangentially related to the conflict. Some provision for specific notice is needed. I also wonder whether this will work at all given the difficulty of finding help at WP:AE. Also, needs an enforcement provision (brief then escalating blocks, probably) Thatcher131 02:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Proposal

1) If I may propose, as a person well familiar with the roots of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, I don't think that even with all the body of reviewed evidence, ArbCom may solve the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. It has far deeper roots than Wikipedia. Banning of the users is not a solution either, unless those users were involved in a serious abuse of Wikipedia, such as harassment, libel, threats or massive external meatpuppeting with recruitment purposes. Two, three or more people will get banned, despite being contributors, and some time in future, new users will be arriving unaware of this ArbCom case on either side, and similar problems will resurface again. This is not a solution clearly.

I think the best solution would be appointing a number of independent mediators to deal with a set of troubled pages. These mediators will also cooperate with few admins for keeping the order as well as with the contributors for achieving (and enforcing the achieved) consensus. Obviously each mediator should be familiar with the content of pages. I guess even a mediation committee with 1 or 2 contributors from each side could be created and enforced.

2) Regarding Persian users Azerbaijani and Mardavich, who clearly interfered into the conflict on Armenian side, I propose restricting them altogether from creating or editing Azerbaijani- or Armenian-related pages. This may help to solve the problem as far as their involvement in this ArbCom case is concerned. I welcome short comments. Thanks. Atabek 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Banning members is the solution, Armenians or Azeris, whomever was the cause, this was not some content dispute. Armenian Azeri conflict does not justify everything that was done, taking hostage Wikipedia can not be justified under any circumstances. Banning is the solution!!! Mediation works when people are honest with themselves and do not think that mediation is a way to provde they are right. None of the mediation submissions were in good faith, it gave a positive result on the NK, but that was AFTER AdilBaguirov took his wikibrake. Fad (ix) 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Another point, as far as I always thought both Azerbaijani and Mardavich are Iranian Azerbaijani's. The only other Iranian Azerbaijani I have met was also very pro-Iranian. If you consider them as Persian because of their belief fine, but consider that they might be offended, so better you keep that for yourself. Also, how many articles have they edited related to this case and how many reverts they have done? If restriction should be imposed for few reverts, than having closed various article should wirth an indefinit block. Fad (ix) 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a good proposal, I proposed something similar. Indeed, all the members of both ethnic communities were involved in edit warring, Fadix tries to get rid of the most active Azeri contributors by trying to present them as a sole reason for articles getting blocked, while all those articles got protected not because of Azeri editors, but because of User:Eupator and User:TigranTheGreat, who deleted sourced info and prevented other people from editing. Tigran edit warred even with Armenian editor Aivazovsky and got the article on Nakhichevan protected, so clearly you cannot blame all the edit warring on Azerbaijani editors, Armenian editors are responsible for that more than anyone else. So in my opinion we need knowledgeable people to watch the most troubled articles on a regular basis and help resolve content disputes, as well as ensure observation of wiki rules. Grandmaster 06:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Continue seing this as an Azeri chass, good, good. For you everything is about Azeri vs Armenians. Fad (ix) 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Very bad and dangerous proposal. What you want is that a group of people control ("independent mediators" familiar with the topic), to avoid that new people that come in might begin a new dispute. Who will appoint that "mediators"? From where? MedCom's function is to mediate between people and it's always pretty busy; ArbCom, of course, not... And surely this group should have some power to regulate the article's activity, isn't it? No: let's use the institutions and policies we already have, all specialized and consensus-builded, to guard NPOV in articles and do not try to create dubiously-builded parallel systems that might even work against GNU Free Documentation License by avoiding the freedom of modifying. --Neigel von Teighen 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Indefinite ban of AdilBaguirov and Dacy69

1) The indefinite ban of AdilBaguirov and Dacy69

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Those two users along with Atabek have comploted with eachothers to invade Wikipedia and use it as a server for their websites. For further evidence for organisation see. [116] and more particularly the entirity of my evidence. [117] There could be no coincidences, and with the supplementation submitted to the Arbcom which complete it. I have documented that Adil and Dacy are here for one purpouse, and they have done noting significant other than edit warring, POV pushing. Most of the articles they have touched were closed. There can be no adequate excuses for their behavior. I urge the Arbcom to check the preceding cases they took position about. The most recent one Free Republic. [118] Conflict of interest, Advocacy and propaganda, etc. The case here is worst. And the only reason I am not including Atabek is because Grandmaster will claim again Azeri users are in shortage, even though this is not a good reason. Fad (ix) 16:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is just an attempt to get rid of active Azerbaijani contributors, who add accurate info to the articles. It is attested by third party users, such as User:SilkTork, who mediated the dispute at Urartu: Dacy69 has provided appropriate evidence in support of his edits. I have made a comment on the talk page of Urartu explaining that Dacy69 is making appropriate edits and inviting editors to talk to me if they have concerns. [119] Fadix calls their contribution POV pushing, however AMA mediator found no POV push in Dacy69's edits. If someone deserves a permannent ban, it is those who deleted accurate and verifiable and info and prevented others from editing the articles. Grandmaster 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A detail that Grandmaster forgets to mention about SilkTork is that the Urartu article mediation was his first one. Obviously he was trying to please both sides and didn't want to offend anybody. [120]--Vartanm 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe that repeating that I am wanting to get rid of Azerbaijani contributors will just make evidences vanish? SilkTork was wrong, as the point was not about providing evidences, it was about if the evidences brought had any relevency with the article in question. How well I document the arrival of Vinkings in America, it has no place in the article about France. And you know that the administrator who is most involved with Urartu article had just that to say about the conflicts Adil and Dacy brought in the Urartu article with Armenian contributors; RELEVENCY! Eupator had actually undertood the whole point and wanted to remove BOTH, removing what was basically what dab was considering as irrelevent. Adil and Dacy are the official advocates of the Azerbaijani republic in the US. There are various preceding cases about that, and believe me, and mark my words on that, had the Armenian assembly of America sent Armenian scholars known as pushing the official position of the Armenian republic in Wikipedia, I would have been the FIRST to support you to get them banned if by pushing their POV they would have actually caused countless numbers of articles getting blocked. From his arrival to now, Adil has not moved AN INCH. You can call this a chass against Azeri editors, I don't care as I swear on everything that my intentions have noting to do with them being Azeri. When have I ever reported any Azeri members in Administrators noticeboards? But I always requested Adil blockage. Dacy69 and Adil are block material, and my evidence does not leave any reasonable doubt on that. Period. Fad (ix) 21:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and, do you remember when I placed my statment? I have specificallt said that my evidences were about Dacy, Adil and Atabek, I also said that you were like the typical Armenian who had edit warred, much like the other Azeri members. I only added you when you have started dumping every single Armenian in the conflict. And even if I knew your unusual link with Tabib, I tried preventing you to be dumped with the whole bunch. You have created this Armenian-Azeri chass, I was actually trying to prevent it. Fad (ix) 21:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, it's amazing though how you're dreaming about banning particularly Azeri users, while forgetting the Armenian users some which were involved not just in revert warring, but in harassment and massive external meatpuppeting. With yourself continuously trying to even justify your own record of personal attacks with statements like "I would do it again" [121], while forgetting that a violation of WP:NPA is one of the most fundamental disruptions of Wikipedia [122]. Please, come into terms with reality, your proposal obviously reveals the inability to think beyond ethnic lines. The objective of ArbCom is not to find winner or loser in Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, ban AdilBaguirov, etc. and keep you at freedom of abusing the articles. It's to identify and prevent disruptions in editing, which you have clearly demonstrated among others. And please, stop writing lengthy comments to every proposal, there is a talk page for that. I have doubts the lengthy comments on Workshop page will have any contribution in ArbCom decisions. Those only make it harder to read the page.Atabek 21:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Who told you that only Azeri users should be blamed? The reason why I submitted both users for indefinitly block is not on the basis of simple edit warring. The Arbcom is aware of it. Azeri users are more than welcome, you can try making this as an Azeri chass for all I care. And this has nothing, nothing to do with finding winners and loosers. Conducts are judged on behaviors NOT on how many you block from one side and then from the other to balance stuff. The Arbcom will take a decision on conduct not ethnicity. You could accuse me of various things, yet provide any evidences that I have disturbed the mainspace of articles. That there are Azeri users or not, my behaviors on editing articles will be the same. Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk... and few edits. This is how I always worked. When I edit the main, I am very cautious on what I do, when someone revert, I talk, talk, talk. So, call my edits disruptions, I await that you document I have disrupted the mainspace of articles. Go ahead and good luck. Fad (ix) 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the users are to be blocked "not on the basis of simple edit warring", then I am not sure why you made this proposal in the first place. There is no violation you can charge solely Azeri users with (which you did despite denial), while ignoring the Armenian users with similar and more extensive warring, and with one of the users being the most extensive abuser of a variety of core Wikipedia policies. Disruption term is applied to editing on Wikipedia, not just editing "in the mainspace". Attacking a user on the talk page does not help you to come to compromise and obviously prevents a civil and healthy consensus. This also is very relevant to your attempts to "fight off" User:AdilBaguirov's addition of the table at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, citing earlier consensus. I had a similar view earlier, that consensus is "holy", but, no, it can change [[123]]. Atabek 10:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not on the basis of simple edit warring. On the basis that most articles they have touched got protected. You refer again to Armenian editors. Check Armenian editors BEFORE December 10. Check them BEFORE Adil and Dacy69 came, check them BEFORE you come as Dacy69 meatpuppet. No one with that limited time have locked as much articles have edit warred as much. No one. No one here are from the Armenian assembly of America with affiliations on Yerevan. Do I need to continue? Do you really want me to continue? No one here are the director of an Armenian organization who openly say being at war “Against Azerbaijani propaganda” That would be revealing more information’s right? The Arbcom could ban every Armenian and Azeri members here, maybe that would be good. As the new Armenian contributors who would come will contribute just as well, while we will at least have the common Azeribaijani without any affiliation or organization. Now about your question on disruption. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, the mainspace of the articles for that encyclopedia. Unless someone is making death threats or doing nothing other than bashing people, there is nothing as distributive for Wikipedia than a political organization who infiltrate it with a single purposes. Fad (ix) 23:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Argument that was getting personal, removed. Thatcher131 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Topic "protection" procedure proposal

1) Azeri-Armenian related topics shall undergo a "protective" procedure to guarrantee WP:NPOV on them. Proposed procedure as follows:

1. "Related pages" will be determined at administrators' discretion.
2. All topic related pages shall be put under Request for Comment to bring new users to edit these articles (something this topic urgently needs).
3. Also, most conflictive pages (decided by ArbCom or sysops) shall be put under 1RR and/or semi-protection for a reasonable amount of time.
4. Any administrator shall have power to indefinitely block any attempt of POV-pushing and/or edit warring after one only warning to the conflictive user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed on behalf of User:Dacy69. Note, please that this solution is based on "institutions" (I don't know how to call them) and procedures allready existing and not ad hoc created as in the "Mediation Proposal" above. The only innovation is the building, not the blocks used. --Neigel von Teighen 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, I like the idea. Fad (ix) 23:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! It seems we have a little consensus here. Yes, I'm being honest: this can be an opportunity to civily solve the case and maybe, give these pages a way to preserve NPOV. --Neigel von Teighen 14:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this alone is not enough though. Fad (ix) 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And what else do you want? --Neigel von Teighen 14:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Appeal prohibition

1) The ArbCom's decision on this dispute shall not be appealable by none party having participating in it, at least for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed to ensure the conflict will not reappear for some time. --Neigel von Teighen 18:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ROOB323 banned indefinitely

1) ROOB323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely for personal attacks, revert warring, and general disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. While his personal attack on Mr. Baguirov is intolerable, an indef block is too severe for a user that has been helpful on Wikipedia. Checking his edit history here (on the edit counter) [124], he's got alot of edits and in the top 10 articles he's edited the most, only 1 is Azeri related (Lachin). Furthermore, the article he's edited the most is about a University (California State). He's helped alot with the time consuming rating of WPAM unassessed articles. He's also helped stop Armenian POV pushers such as user:ArmenianNY (he used to push before, I haven't followed him for awhile now) and user:Ararat arev. He should be warned about personal attacks and WP:COOL but not an indef block. - Fedayee 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Until this arbitration case, practically all his edits were fighting with his various opponents. I see no reason to think that he won't go back to that after the conclusion of the case if he is allowed to continue editing. Picaroon 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Could not tell, as I have not followed him closly, but what I could tell is that he is the only Armenian editor who listened my advice [125] to stop editing until the case close. He stopped editing all together a day later. See edit history. [126] I think he needs tutoring. Fad (ix) 23:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't even edited in 2 weeks, such harsh blocks are not appropriate if an Armenian user gets blocked so should a Azeri user, since there very similar cases. Artaxiad 04:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Any more proofs needed that the User:Artaxiad is looking at this ArbCom case not as a disruption of Wikipedia, but as another battleground between Armenians and Azerbaijanis? Atabek 10:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the whole Armenian side is disruptive and the other party is not? Artaxiad 16:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not what he is saying. Fad (ix) 16:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can respond for myself. From what I can see, Artaxiad, Fadix and Eupator are three users which are absolutely impossible to compromise with. Any edit that I make is removed, reverted (Artaxiad, Eupator) or simply talk stoned (Fadix) with or without thinking or compromising. In general, Aivazovsky has been a bit softer, though also stonewalling two or three compromise versions by simply avoiding discussion, especially when the references don't serve his views.

Apart from these four, who can be classified as more generally disruptive than just being incidentally Armenian, I would not look at this as pure interethnic edit war. After all, there are others both Armenian and non-Armenian who join discussions, editing, agree or disagree with myself or others, but are nevertheless open to discussion and mutual compromising rather than engaging in outright war, incivility, personal attacks, harassment or stalking. Atabek 22:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User Artaxiad's Harassment Comments Must be Deleted from Wikipedia

1) Here [127] is one more evidence of User:Artaxiad attempting to reveal and false attribute my identity. I request all these harassment facts by User:Artaxiad to be identified and removed. With substantial amount of false spying activity by User:Fadix [128] and User:Artaxiad, innocent people can come in danger. It shall be well understood that Artaxiad's activity is disruptive not only in Wikipedia but also involves simply "hunting" after unrelated people and using Wikipedia as a medium for "spreading the word" for further harassment by Fadix. I leave the discretion again to arbitrators with understanding that they realize the full responsibility for decisions taken. Thanks. Atabek 09:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Innocent people? Look all those ever cited have real life advocacy and run various websites with those materials and publish in real life. Do you take anyone as naive that they'll believe that a real life and virtual advocate who for years does the same thing he has been doing here will be threatned? Hunting? Check Arbitration rullings and how many have had hard rullings against them because they were real life party in the conflict? Just recently again, Adil had added materials linked with those he associate himself, Khojali for example, Azer.com. Etc. Call that threats or harassement, there is no one you will convince that any of those acts have put anyone lives in danger or caused any sort of harm. Fad (ix) 18:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, innocent people means people who are not involved in current Wikipedia editing conflict or in ArbCom case, and whose Artaxiad's "creative" activity is trying to associate here. Neither Artaxiad nor you have any proof whatsoever to link myself to anyone, so your speculations are nothing more than harassment directed against other people. And most importantly, your ad hominem contributes nothing to ArbCom case. If you hard time on comprehending this basic Wikipedia rule of harassment, let me remind you, that you do not take responsibility for the activity of other contributors or readers, thus you should not be making statements of confidence about other people not coming in danger. You obviously cannot take responsibility for murder of Kemal Arikan by Harout Sassounian neither will take responsibility for murders committed by numerous ASALA and JCAG attacks. Thus, remain calm and follow the rules as strictly as you must. It's your duty as Wikipedia contributor, as is the duty of Artaxiad, to follow Wikipedia rules, which strictly prohibit harassment. Thanks. Atabek 06:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: As above, I have significantly trimmed this argument. If some editors believe they have personal information about other editors that is important to the case, they should communicate it privately to the Committee. If other editors wish to have personal or alleged personal information removed, they should contact a clerk (for the arbitration case) or request for oversight for other areas. Thatcher131 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Parties shall not abuse Administrators notice board

1) Parties shall not report those they consider as their opponment to the Administrators notice board, uless in the process they also report those they consider as their "allies." Administrators asigned to the task of following the contribution of the editors concerned shall take the measures when policies and guidelines are abused. If it is found, even in the situations that the member has reported those he considers his "allies" too, that the reporter himself abused a policy, he shall recieve the double of the block of those he has reported.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The Administrators notice board was used by both parties to extend the conflict and abuse it. The reports are not done in good faith, as had it been done, those reporting would also report those they consider as their "allies" for misdoing also as well as themselves. Many times in the process of reporting, the member reporting was blocked too. Which means that the report was not done in good faith.(the member himself was abusing) Fad (ix) 16:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fadix is restricted contributing and taking part in the related subjects

1) Fadix shall not contribute or take part for a period of 3 months in any conflicts involving Azerbaijani and Armenians. With an exception, he is allowed to participate in subjects involving the Armenian Genocide.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think I need to retire for a while, I am tired and have lost patience and know that I will continue being harsh when faced with abuses. It is for the best interest of the community and of myself to not allow me to continue engaging in those articles. I want to work in articles not nationally driven. The reason why I placed an exception, is that I know I am necessary for the articles involving the Armenian Genocide, as could be confirmed by various administrators, those articles will the vandalised if some bad intentioned individuals know that I am not allowed to contribute. Fad (ix) 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this necessary? You can do this by yourself!... This remembers me the request a user did to arbitrate against himself because he didn't understood why was he harrased and honestly thought he could be the problem. --Neigel von Teighen 14:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, I stopped assuming good faith, and after everything that happened I won't be able to control myself and will be still attacking those I find abuse the system. If the Arbcom does decide that I should not have been that harsh, then this becomes necessary. Like I said this is not a self block request. Fad (ix) 16:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"Self-blocks" or self-nominations to be the subject of arbitrations are not generally entertained (compare the related concept that a party may not voluntarily request a block to enforce a wiki-break as stated in the blocking policy. However, if you are feeling stress from editing in a particular subject you are right to state that you intend to take a break from it, for the information of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the need to retire should be understood in the context that it is better for the community that that to happens. If I needed a simple brake, I would take it and not request a block. This all depends of course with the decision the Arbcom takes. Fad (ix) 19:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This was a good joke by Fadix as he continues speak in volume and put false accusation.--Dacy69 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop assuming my intentions. Fad (ix) 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, honestly: this proposal is absolutely unserious. You have been here long enough to know that anyone can take a Wikibreak whenver he or she wants... Yes, during an arbitration too... (but no one will take the job to defend you during your absence, of course, unless you have an AMA advocate or a good friend). --Neigel von Teighen 14:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to take a brake from Wikipedia, I am saying that I don't answer of my acts anymore. I thought I was clear. Fad (ix) 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Parties are restricted to vote in articles or categories for deletion or FA cadidates

1) Wikipedia polling systems have been abused by parties, as such parties should leave neutral contributors vote for a period of 3 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't know how this could be imposed, but like the Udi people case, which was a duplicate, or the FA on the article Nagorno Karabakh War. Parties have ganged in voting for nationality driven reason rather than guidelines and policies which would justify keeping or deleting articles. On Nagorno Karabakh War article, I have refrained voting and requested Azeri and Armenian members to vote and leave neutral contributors in doing so, but this failed. I also believe that such polling systems should be rethinked, I don't know how this could be done, but the situation is getting worst days by days as the number of articles which are created grows. Fad (ix) 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Nagorno-Karabakh War got FA status by the votes of Armenian and Iranian users, as only 4 third party users took part in voting. But I see no real point in this proposal, how can you deprive people of their right to vote on AfD of FA or whatever? Grandmaster 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You know that is not true, as there was no vote based concensus, when that happens, it is because the bureacrat who promoted it discarded the vote of those being parties in the dispute. The neutral users have made criticism, which were fixed and then had no problem with the article, thosefor the article was promoted. Fad (ix) 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral users mostly did not vote, even those who criticised and withdrawn their critisism, check the FA. Only 4 third part users voted. But whatever, I don't see how this can be enforced. Grandmaster 21:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

When someone present the reasons of why they oppose and present the list and that those are fixed and they redraw those critics, it speaks of itself. The FA had become a war front there too, neutral editors were in a position where taking a decision would have wrongly meant they take a position and support one ethnic group. The decision was probably taken in consequence of that, as there was no more criticism by any neutral users, and added to that the neutral users who agreed to its promotion. Grandmaster, just check the number of times I have voted and compare my vote with the position of most neutral users, how many time it was else? Compare that with yourself. The article clearly was fit for FA, and I did not vote regardless. Fad (ix) 21:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a good argument. In most cases my vote was shared by most users, third party or otherwise. But in certain votes our two camps voted against each other. A good example is Khachkar destruction article, where the Armenian users voted to keep the article when I nominated it for deletion, [129] and 5 days later renominated it for deletion when they did not like the edits Azerbaijani users made to the article. [130] The AfD is still open. As for FA, we cannot judge the motives of other people, it is a fact that only 4 third party users voted, of them one opposed. Grandmaster 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true at all, and you know it. All of your votes were nationaly driven Grandmaster, all. In various case, I have refrained voting, and you know it, in various case I took the decision to note vote but only comment, this was when I knew that the vote would be based on two camps voting one against the other, based on nationality. Also, you are still talking in the absolute when you use "camps", Grandmaster, there should be no camps, no camps, Grandmaster, I have supported various Turkish editors on Armenian, Greek and Assyrian subjects, when they made good arguments, I even voted with them in instances. You on the other hand, have always made this a matter of nationality. When Adil added something which you knew not fitting there, and we discussed previously about it, and he was being reverted, you reverted to his version. When Baku who was a newbie at the time, was screwing articles with POV statments unsourced claims, you even reverted to his version. For hell sake Grandmaster, Udi article was an obvious delete, obvious Grandmaster, Nagorno Karabakh War article was an obvious FA candidate, Grandmaster Marshal made the Khojali section seem more one sided than the main, to gain Azeri support and in vain. The guy had all the reasons in the world to get angry, when he did everything to present both positions and what he got from you guys was a ganged and organized oppose, without any relevent mention on the specific things to improve. Khachkar destruction. First I did not vote, the second time I did vote, because that article had become another place for edit warring, I suggested its deletion to another member for the best interest of Wikipedia. I used common sense, there too. Fad (ix) 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Clear Definition of Category Terrorism and its purpose

1) Contributors need to be explained when it's appropriate to use the category of terrorism on a page, and when it's not.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Particularly this question arises in case of ASALA. The organization and its members clearly engaged, were charged, convicted and sentenced for numerous bombing attacks killing civilians en masse as well as in pointed assassinations. Monte Melkonian was one of the leading members of ASALA, was convicted of assassinations and attacks. So clearly, my attempt to insert Category terrorism to these two pages is very relevant and is based on facts and reports [131], [132], [133]. If this is not permissible, then I would like to see a clearer distinction of when and when not can category terrorism be used. If it's inappropriate to use even the category on ASALA, why is it then appropriate to openly use the definition of Armenian Genocide, which as opposed to proven activity of ASALA and Monte Melkonian, is a disputed claim made by a single side of conflict. Atabek 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: ArbCom does not deal with article content. This is a question for RFC or mediation. If editors can not peaceably arrive at a decision, Arbitration may result in article or user bans. Thatcher131 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Karki (Azerbaijan)

Karki (Azerbaijan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a town which is part of Azerbaijan, but located within Armenia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kalbajar

Kalbajar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Edit warring seen by, Grandmaster, [134], [135] ,[136] lots of POV editing going on in the article see history for more information. Instead of using the talk page, he has reverted admins attempted comprises. Artaxiad 01:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing your analysis, but I hope arbitrators will be able to check for themselves what was happening there and what was actually reverted and by whom. Grandmaster 05:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Artsvashen

Artsvashen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not much activity seen on Artsvashen, Atabek removes alot of information though, [137] Artaxiad 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the same quote from "Andrew Andersen" from Bashkend, which was identified as unscholarly POV on Talk:Qazakh page, and is already addressed for removal by all current compromise proposals there. So the quote as well as mentioning of "Andersen" at Bashkend is out of place. I inserted the fact tags to substantiate the claims with actual scholarly sources. If those are not provided, the POV text is due to be removed by April 1st. Follow the talk page at which, as usual, User:Artaxiad didn't care to leave any comments regarding his edits.Atabek 18:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Qazakh

Qazakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Aivazovsky is stonewalling the current compromise proposals at Talk:Qazakh, without any interest in discussing for compromise and keeping the page blocked. Atabek 18:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Military occupation

Military occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: