Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey, use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Hajji Piruz

I am in the process of posting my evidence, it may take awhile.

Responses

It is very important that these responses be read carefully

Response to Atabek's "evidence"

Before proceeding, it is important to know that Atabek habitually falsifies evidence in order to manipulate the opinions of third party users. Examine his diff's carefully, he often gives descriptions of the diff's that do not match what the diff is actually about or saying. The "evidence" posted on this arbcom on this very page are nothing but, for lack of a better word, lies. I have responded to Atabek's "evidence" on the talk page.

Response to Grandmaster

Before proceeding, it is important to know that Grandmaster has not posted any (convincing) evidence against me, most of what he says is his own POV not supported by any diff's. I have responded to Grandmaster here.

Response to Dacy69

Before proceeding, it is important to know that Dacy69 has not posted any (convincing) evidence against me, most of what he says is his own POV not supported by any diff's. I have responded to Dacy69 here.

Response to Tariqabjotu

I have responded to Tariqabjotu here.

Atabek

Atabek (talk · contribs) has continuously attacked me by making false accusations, personal attacks, and canvassing to tarnish my image on Wikipedia. He has attempted to divide Wikipedia along ethnic lines, made inappropriate comments, frequently distorts and manipulates Wikipedias rules and policies, and engages in POV and OR. His behavior has not changed the slightest bit since the old arbcom. I'm tired of being subject to such abuse and harassment on an almost a daily basis.

User:Atabek has recently initiated a defamation campaign against me. He has made false accusations, personal attacks, and has even canvassed in order to find an administrator sympathetic to him. He frequently misuses and abuses Wikipedia's rules and policies, and often tries to distort them to fit his situation. He is rude on talk pages, doesnt read other users posts, and does not show willingness to have an ounce of respect for other users. In just the past few weeks, he has gone to several different administrators (canvassing), made countless false accusations, and several personal attacks. I am afraid that his canvassing has already given me a bad image in the eyes of several administrators.

This user was initially proposed to be blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year; his behavior has not changed in the slightest since the last arbcom ended. For evidence of Atabek's past behavior see the following sections of the previous arbcom:

• Blind Reverts and Coordination of his Reverts with Azeri users against Armenian users by User:Atabek
• Atabek comes in and touch the articles, the duo was not enough
• Socks and meat puppets
• Atabek POV pushing
• Generalisation attack and instigating comments by User:AdilBaguirov/User:Atabek
• The term "terrorism" and User:Atabek

Canvassing

First it should be noted that Atabek went on a canvassing spree and made the same false accusations on several administrator talk pages, on the administrators noticeboard, and several other places, in order to find someone sympathetic to him:

• User:Thatcher131: [2]
• User:Tariqabjotu: [3]
• User:Dmcdevit: [4]
• User:Bobak: [5]
• Administrators noticeboard

Canvassing for the RFC:

• Dacy69
• Grandmaster

Canvassing before the arbcom even started:

• Newyorkbrad
• Picaroon9288
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• Admin's noticeboard

Atabek has started or been involved in seven check users, just itching to get some users blocked (interestingly, he has added my name to most of these check usrers):

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

False accusations

1. on User:Tariqabjotu's talk page

• Many of the false accusations can be viewed on User:Tariqabjotu's talk page, the link is posted above. The following quotes are all by User:Atabek, I have not altered them in any way, shape or form, and come from User:Tariqabjotu's talk page unless stated otherwise. Be aware that these are only some of the instances where he has made such comments (he has made alot on the Safavids talk page too, starting from the section which this link takes you to), it would take me a long time to find all of them as they are spread over many articles, but these should suffice. Some of these false accusations include (I will also post the comments):

1. Vandalism: "I am writing this to complain about User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani), who has recently vandalized my user page"
2. Supporting a banned user: "User:Azerbaijani also supported anon IP sockpuppets of the banned User:Tajik"
3. POV pushing and OR edits: "This user is only involved in pages related to Azerbaijan, and on all of them POV pushing and wasting contributor's time with unscholarly edits." and on the on the Safavids talk page ("As long as Hajji Piruz (Azerbaijani) and his flock don't stop their unencyclopedic POV and OR edits on this and other pages, looks we will not get anywhere on a scholarly front.")
4. Attacking users: "If he is unable to deal with content issues on various pages, he should request assistance of arbitration or dispute resolution, instead of attacking users." --- "It's part of his larger scale attack upon myself and several other users on practically all talk pages."
5. Personal attacks: "So you're the one to apologize here for vandalizing my page and actually attacking me personally."
6. Blackmail: "You're the one attacking, blackmailing, and harassing me, I have no interest in communicating with you outside content discussions."
7. Intimidation: "...is nothing more than intimidation and harassment of personality." and on User:Bobak's talk page ("...obviously intimidating me...")
8. Edit warring and spoiling consensus version of articles: on User:Thatcher131's talk page ("The anon IP edits are often endorsed only by User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani), who is engaged in heavy edit warring after ArbCom on several pages and tries hard to spoil consensus version.") and on User:Dmcdevit's talk page ("These provocations of User:Hajji Piruz, a.k.a. User:Azerbaijani, have to be stopped. It took us so long to achieve consensus at Safavid dynasty, many of us ended up in ArbCom because of it, and finally had stable version for the past month or so.")
9. Use of meat and sock puppets: on User:Dmcdevit's talk page ("I don't have physical evidence, but based on behavior and support of User:Hajji Piruz, formerly User:Azerbaijani, he is obviously meatpuppeting/coordinating with these groups.")
10. No useful contributions to Wikipedia: on User:Bobak's talk page ("To be frank, dealing with this user is a waste of time for me, he is only after hunting and blackmailing certain users rather than contributing anything useful to the articles.") and on the Safavids talk page ("It will ease up your "work", since your other useful contributions to Wikipedia articles, apart from embitterment or ethnic POV, are close to 0."

• Now notice how he denies all of this later on: "I didn't make accusations against Hajji Piruz" and "So why don't you, please, ask Hajji Piruz to first read these before he tries to intimidate me on my user page, and before him further accusing me of attacking him"

• Atabek now insists that he never accused me of anything and that it is me who is making false accusations and attacking him, even though all the evidence points to the contrary.

• I have asked him 18+ times to bring evidence to support his claims against me. So far, he has brought nothing that proves any of his allegatoins, yet he still continues to go around making these accusations. At what point, I ask you, does this become a personal attack?

Refuting his false allegations

Now I will proceed to comment on and disprove some of his (based on the numbering of the accusations above, for numbers 2 through 9, Atabek did not show one piece of evidence to support his accusations):

1) Atabek claims I vandalized his user page. I made three small edits to his user page, and one was a remedy of a minor mistake I had made. Here is the diff of all three: [13]

Atabek claims that that is vandalism. In what way is that vandalism? Its not. Atabek has had a confirmed sockpuppet, User:Tengri, which has no been blocked indefinetly: [14].

The Category Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers clearly states: "This category shows users which have been found to have created multiple accounts, or sockpuppets, to abuse Wikipedia policies, or are strongly suspected to have done so."

Clearly, I did nothing wrong by adding the category to his user page, and my edits certainly were not vandalism. Upon insisting that my edits on his user page were vandalism and the continued false accusations, Tariqabjotu responded on his talk page saying "No he is not. Did you even look at what you were reverting?" [15]

Later on he attempts to manipulate and distort Wikipedia's policies regarding user pages to fit his stance, but I will address that in another section, along with his other abuses of Wikipedia's rules and policies.

2) Atabek claims I was supporting a banned user on the Safavids article. First of all, whether the IP user was a former banned user or not is questionable, but the only edits of that anon that I supported were the anons grammatical, spelling, and Wikilinking edits, all of which were perfectly legitimate and improved the article. Atabek reverted the anon blindly and did not heed anyones comments on the talk page. This prompted User:Bushytails to make several comments on the Safavids article, criticizing Atabeks behavior: [16] , [17] , and [18]

The Ironic thing is that I was actually trying to help him and his buddies out by telling another usre to discuss his/her edits first before making edits to the controversial article: "I left Ariana a message asking him to discuss his edits from now on for this article: [19]" on Safavid dynasty talk page

As with 2, Atabek has never produced a single shred of evidence to support any of his allegations 3,4,5,6,7,8,9. Again, I repeat, Atabek has never brought any evidence proving any of his allegations against me. He has still not done so. The best he has ever managed to do is show diff's which prove nothing he claims, yet he distorts them anyway in his descriptions to admins and users. I have asked him 18+ times for him to either bring his evidence or stop making false accusations against me.

10) Atabek has claimed that I have made no useful contributions to Wikipedia at all, yet a simple look at my user page contradicts that. So far, I have created 47 articles, two templates, and three categories. On top of that, I have made significant contributions to six articles, one template, and countless contributions overall.

Attempting to divide Wikipedia along ethnic/national lines

Atabek has attempted to divide Wikipedia along ethnic lines. He has several times told me or implied to me that I should not edit Azerbaijan related articles.

1. On Tariabjotu's talk page he implies that I cannot edit articles related to Azerbaijan (interestingly, his accusation is contradicted by my edits, I edit Caucasian and Iranian related articles): "This user is only involved in pages related to Azerbaijan"[20]

Disruptive editing

Looking at Atabek's contributinos it becomes clear that this user contributes nothing but edit warring to Wikipedia, although in all fairness, he has created several articles, but other than that, his other edits have been disruptive. He has edit/revert warred on many articles, some of which include:

• History of the name Azerbaijan (removal of sourced information by Atabek: [21])
• Qajars
• Safavids ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27])
• Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy
• Ethnic minorities in Iran
• Yeprem Khan
• Ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan
• Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis
• Azerbaijani people
• Church of Kish
• Iran-Azerbaijan relations

For example, I will post some of his disruptive edits from the Safavids article. The following are disruptive edits on the Safavids article.

1)Atabek reverted the edits of User:Kansas Bear, which included the addition of an entire section, just to undo small changes by another user: [28] He then asks Kansasbear to redo his edit: "Kansas Bear, you can make your architecture edits over this version." [29]

2)Atabek reverted the legitimate edits by an anonomous user which actually improved the article, and calls it vandalism: [30]

That prompted User:Bushytails to involve himself and make several comments:

"Atabek: Vandalism has a rather well-defined meaning... and fixing errors in an article isn't it. Looking at the contributions by User:82.83.145.243, most of them, within my admittedly limited knowledge of this topic, are perfectly reasonable edits, improving spelling, fixing links, re-wording things, and generally working to improve the article. Even if you disagree with them, they're certainly not vandalism. Unless I see a shred of evidence that you're reverting them for a good reason, I'll probably revert back to them, as the article looked better before you reverted it."[31]

"Umm. How, exactly, is moving where the language the population spoke down ten words a bad faith edit?...If that's the worst edit you think he did, it's hard to see that you're doing anything other than arguing for the sake of arguing. Don't make this end up in WP:LAME."[32]

"Nope, not aware of anything. I just saw atabek make some suspicious reverts while I was patrolling recent changes, and had never heard of any of these users or this article until then. From what I can tell, most of the changes made by the anon user were perfectly acceptable, and without some proof they're disruptive, should not have been reverted. I notice another user has since improved some of the grammar problems, originally fixed by the anon user, and re-added when atabek reverted it...[33]

Threats of Wiki-retaliation

Atabek threaten to attack Iran related articles:

1. "Then we should prepare a collage picture of Adolf Hitler with Swastika and images of Holocaust and post it on all Iran related pages"[34]
2. "I am working on Pan-Aryan collage meanwhile. Thanks."[35]

Personal attacks

Atabek has made many personal attacks. Here I will list a few of them. These include attacks against me and other users:

1. I had attempted to resolve the dispute on Atabek's talk page, but he simply removed my comments and called them "garbage": [36]
2. Puts my former name in quotation marks (this was one of the reasons why I had to have my name changed from Azerbaijani to Hajji Piruz, to avoid the constant personal attacks): [37]
3. Another personal attack against me: "Actually, you're no authority (neither admin nor mediator) to make or not make something sure about users treating each other. But anyways, good luck with ambitions, I shall simply ignore you, since you just don't understand much." [38]
4. "As long as Hajji Piruz (Azerbaijani) and his flock don't stop their unencyclopedic POV and OR edits on this and other pages, looks we will not get anywhere on a scholarly front."[39]
5. Notice the sarcasm (hes obviously implying that I'm stupid): "Meanwhile, a note to Hajji Piruz, the word grammar is written with "a" not "e". Thought might be helpful for future editing and/or posting complaint notes. Thanks." [40]
6. "Hajji Piruz, why don't you make a little template with "do not make personal attacks, and keep your POV or OR to yourself" :) and then reinsert it instead of typing. It will ease up your "work" [41]

Personal attack against User:Alborz Fallah:

1. "Apparently, there are too many pseudo-Azeris claiming the Azeri identity yet not quite resembling (in cultural and linguistic sense) the modern definition of Azerbaijani. Throwing the words like "yashasin" or "chox saghol" or "yaxshi" does not yet suffice to be called "Azeri"." [42]

Personal attack against User:VartanM:

1. "And it's very sad that some cannot move beyond bigotted positions to recognize the facts or gain some credibility in their stance. ASALA failed for the same reason."[43]

Comparing Iran to Nazi Germany based on his own historical revisionism, POV, and OR:

1. "Especially with denial of Holocaust by Ahmadinejad and adoption of Swastika by Hitler, the connection is very very close."[44]

Racial comments

Atabek has made several race related comments:

1. "General pattern demonstrated by Iranian/Persian groups to attack and remove, dereference and POV every article related to Turkic groups shall also be noted as nothing more than hateful and disturbing development."[45]
2. Too much to post here: [46]

Disrespect and refusal to constructively discuss the issues

Atabek has shown no willingness to respect me or even discuss any of our issues.

Statements by Atabek (I did not alter these in any way, shape, or form, these are excerpts from some of his comments):

1. In response to me telling him that I did not want him to harass the new user User:German-Orientalist: "Actually, you're no authority (neither admin nor mediator) to make or not make something sure about users treating each other. But anyways, good luck with ambitions, I shall simply ignore you, since you just don't understand much." [47]
2. "As long as he does not dare to edit my user space ever again without my permission, I have no interest to listening to or to bothering with him."[48]
3. "I see is to simply ignore this user, not engage in any conversation with him."[49]
4. Atabek attempting to get users to ignore me: "Dacy and others, I figured it's pretty much useless to explain anything to Hajji Piruz, he will continue on POV pushing, harassing and attacking other users to get his point through stubbornly. So let's discuss and make our edits in a constructive manner but avoiding engagement with useless OR, user targetting, and wasteful POV of Hajji Piruz"[50]
5. "To be frank, dealing with this user is a waste of time for me, he is only after hunting and blackmailing certain users rather than contributing anything useful to the articles." [51]

Manipulation and distortion of Wikipedia's rules and policies: AGF and User page

Atabek has not only violated Wikipedia's rules and policies, but he has also attempted several times to spin Wikipedia's rules and policies in order to fit his own situation and to put me in a bad light. I will only talk about WP:AGF and Wikipedia:User page as they have been used a lot by Atabek recently.

• Atabek continuously tells me to assume good faith. He tells me this whenever he reports me to an admin, whenever he reverts an article, in almost every discussion we have, etc... He wants me not to dispute anything he does. He is attempting to use this rule in order to prevent anyone from questioning his contributions.

However, a part of WP:AGF that Atabek never quotes nor even acknowledges, is this part:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.[52]

As I have outlined, Atabek has a confirmed sock (User:Tengri), he has lied, and some would consider some of his latest edits to the Safavids article to be vandalism. Despite the fact that AGF does not apply to him, he continuously goes to other users and administrators telling them that I am not assuming good faith with regards to him in an attempt to damage my image here on Wikipedia.

I have told him about this part of of the policy several times, yet he continues to use AGF in an attempt to tarnish my name.

• With regards to Wikipedia:User page, Atabek attempted to "prove" that I vandalized his user page (which I didnt) by selectively quoting what the rules actually say.

Here is his comment on Tariqabjotu's talk page:

"I would like to apologize to Tariq for overwhelming his talk page with this discussion. But this thread just gives a flavor what many editors have to deal with, where this User:Hajji Piruz, aka User:Azerbaijani is involved. If he needs evidence, here are few excerpts from Wikipedia:User page, which he chose to ignore, while vandalizing my user page:

• "by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others"
• "in general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission"
• "users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests"

Thanks."

None of those rules actually apply to this situation in any way that they could possibly be used by Atabek against me. Remember that Atabek accused me of vandalizing his user page. My edits, as posted above, were far from vandalism. They were neither substantial, nor did Atabek every tell me prior to me editing his user page that I could not. The very same rules he posted in his defense actually prove that I did nothing wrong. Unfortunately, Atabek continued to attempt to use those rules to "prove" that I was committing vandalism.

Also, User:Tariqabjotu has commented on some of Atabek's accusations on Atabek's talk page, telling Atabek that I did not vandalize his userpage: "No he is not. Did you even look at what you were reverting?" [53] (Tariqabjotu's last comment is in regards to Atabeks comment which is in the middle)

Wikistalking

After I edited anti-Iranian sentiment, Atabek, who was never involved in the article in any way, came and voted delete, further disrupting Wikipedia based on national lines: [54]

Dacy69

Dacy69 (talk · contribs) has continuously attacked me by making false accusations, personal attacks, and canvassing to tarnish my image on Wikipedia. He has attempted to divide Wikipedia along ethnic lines, made inappropriate comments, frequently distorts and manipulates Wikipedias rules and policies, and engages in POV and OR. His behavior has not changed the slightest bit since the old arbcom. I'm tired of being subject to such abuse and harassment on an almost a daily basis.

He, along with Atabek, have been working together to harass me. Please see the following sections of the previous arbcom for evidence regarding Dacy69's past behavior:

• Dacy69 comes into the picture
• Dacy69 and his possible socks
• Invasion of non Armenian-Azerbaijani matters articles related to the Armenians
• The term "terrorism" and User:Dacy69/User:Atabek

Canvassing

• Newyorkbrad
• Tariqabjotu
• Alex Bakharev
• Alex Bakharev again

Canvassing for his image:

• Spike Wilbury
• Francis Tyers
• Quadell

Personal attacks

Dacy69 has made many more personal attacks, here are a few:

1. Implies that I am a child: "Don't attribute to me words which I did not say. May I ask you - how old are you?"[55]
2. "You should have some decency." [56]
3. "I think people with medium level of intelligence understand what I am talking about when we speak about historical myths, perceptions, traditions." [57]

Personal attack against User:Pejman47

1. Implies that Pejman47 is not smart: "Hm. You have mistyped Washington Quarterly - I hope it is by mistake."[58]

Threats of Wiki-retaliation

1. Gives me an ultimatum (either I do what he wants, remove the picture, or he'll insert his own pictures): "Ok, if we gonna use that kind of pictures from as you told pan-turkic site - first: we should not put any our comments, second: I have the right to put other pictures from demonstration, beated people, etc. If this is what we agree - then it is balanced, and you can go ahead, I will put mine."[59]
2. Threatening to spam Iran-related articles: [60], [61], [62]
3. Threatening admin intervention and arbcom if he doesnt get his demands: [63]
4. After I opened the arbcom with Atabek, Dacy69 filed for an arbcom, even though he never went through a process of any mediation or any of the steps that are necessary before arbcom, and listed all the Iranian editors: [64]

Disruptive behavior

Looking at Dacy69's contributions, it becomes evident that most of what he does is edit/revert war and attempts of pushing a certain POV in talk pages. He doesnt contribute much to Wikipedia, although in all fairness he has created a few articles. Here are some of the articles he has edit/revert warred on (Note, these are usually done alongside Atabek and Grandmaster in particular, you can see their reverts on their respesctive sections, also note that he is limited to one revert per week per article, even still, he has managed to edit/revert war):

• Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran
• Ethnic minorities in Iran (edit warring: [65] and [66]
• Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy ([67], [68], [69], [70], 4+ reverts in a 9 day period)
• Safavids (calls edits by an anonomous user vandalism, yet the anon's user were not vandalism: [71] and again, except he implies that the anon changed the consensus version, yet the anon did no such thing, but rather made some fixes and corrections: [72] Also: [73])
• Azerbaijani people (Reverted Back to Zondi, even though Zondi removed a picture that was in the article by consensus unilaterally: [74] Removal of sourced information: [75] Note: Pam was vindicated)
• Church of Kish (this article is highly controversial, Dacy69 has edit warred: [76] and [77])
• Azerbaijan (Iran) ([78], [79])
• Iran-Azerbaijan relations ([80] and [81])
• Khojaly Massacre ([82])

Grandmaster

Grandmaster frequently users POV and OR, especially when it comes to the interpretation of sources. He also revert/edit wars alongside Atabek and Dacy69.

Disruptive behavior

Grandmaster has edit/revert warred on the following articles:

• Shusha (3 reverts in less than a one month period)
• Caucasian Albania

Grandmaster has engaged in POV/OR:

• Azerbaijani people
• Caucasus Albania and Caucasus Albania (two different sections)

Gaming the system and removing vast amounts of information:

• Grandmaster made two reverts only 1 week and 4 minutes a part. His arbcom parole says that he only has one revert per article per week: [83] and [84]

Grandmaster has revert/edit warred:

Elsanaturk

Elsanaturk has been blocked for violating his parole:

1. Elsanaturk (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) blocked for 24 hours for parole violation on History of Baku and personal attacks. [108] Thatcher131 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Parishan

Parishan (talk · contribs)

1. Parishan reverted to a version by Grandmaster, after Grandmaster exhausted his one revert per week per article: [85]
2. Parishan reverted the controversial Church of Kish article, after Zondi and Dacy69 had also reverted on the same day: [86]
3. Parishan reverted the controversial Paytakaran article twice [87] and [88], yet never participated in the discussion: talk page history

Zondi

Zondi has edit/revert warred, alongside Grandmaster, Dacy69, and Atabek, on a highly controversial article between the Armenians and Azeris:

1. Church of Kish
2. Church of Kish Reverted to Dacy69

Despite it being a controversial article, Zondi only made one comment on the talk page which was only one sentence long.

Other:

1. Mirvarid Dilbazi a revert of a legitimate edit that I made [89]
2. Heroes of Azerbaijan Reverted to Dacy69

Zondi has also used personal comments left by users on blogs as a "source":

1. [90]

Batabat

Batabek joined on February 4th and immediatly got involved in articles where Atabek, Dacy69, and Grandmaster were involved in disputes. His contributions are similar to those of a sock/meat puppet. He was originally blocked indefinetly but then unblocked one month later on the assumption of good faith: [91]

Evidence presented by AlexanderPar

Revert parole violations

User:Dacy69, User:Atabek and User:Grandmaster are extremely disruptive editors who deliberately provoke edit-wars by soapboxing, ethnocentrism, and gaming their revert parole. I also believe that the previous ArbCom did not fully examine their disruptive behavior. For example, as noted by an admin [92], it's astonishing that despite User:Dacy69's revert parole restrictions imposed by ArbCom, he still manages to violate 3RR on a page by making 4 reverts in less than a day. Repeated parole violations, and parole gaming, by these users is listed below.

Dacy69

• Violation 1: 30 May 2007 BrendelSignature (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dacy69 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Three-revert rule violation: Violated Abrcom parole in which he/she is only allowed 1 revert per week.)
• Violation 2: 15 June 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dacy69 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Three-revert rule violation: violation of 1rr parole, 3RR rule)

Atabek

• Violation 1: 13 March 2007 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) blocked "Atabek (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring in violation of ArbCom injunction.)
• Violation 2: 22 June 2007 Jossi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Atabek (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Edit warring in violation of ArbCom injunction.))

Grandmaster

• Violation 1: 19:03, 28 February 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "Grandmaster (contribs)" (anon. only) with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of revert parole)
• Violation 2: 17:56, 4 April 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "Grandmaster (contribs)" (anon. only) with an expiry time of 24 hours (edit warring)

Evidence presented by Atabek

Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani

Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani is the main violator in this ArbCom case provoked and initiated by him. After the previous ArbCom [93], User:Azerbaijani with a block log [94] showing 2 blocks for violating ArbCom injunction, changed his username to User:Hajji Piruz. His long list of violations is presented below:

Personal Attacks and Bad Faith

• Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani started his recent round of attacks upon me by this edit [95] on my own user page. Given that WP:USER states that user page edits shall be discussed with the user before editing, this action was an intimidation in bad faith with a purpose of provoking me (opinion also supported by a 3rd party user [96]), and in fact, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani clearly spelled out his bad faith objective:

• "Tariq, you should also know that Atabek was initially supposed to be blocked for a period of 1 year according to the arbcom, but for some reason the administrators changed their mind at the last minute (I think because of lobbying by another user involved in the Arbcom on Atabek's side" -- [97].
• "it seems as though the initial plea not to allow him to get away with a revert parole was warrented." -- [98].

• I have asked Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani to assume good faith [99], yet Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani responded as follows:

• "Your actions in the past have shown that I dont need to AGF in your case (you have used personal attacks, you have edit warred, you have used socks, etc...), so again, this doesnt even apply" -- [100].

• In response to User:Dacy69:

• "You are literally repeating exactly what I have been saying with regards to Atabek, AdilBaguirov, and yourself. Its as if you are copying my comments and posting them as your own" -- [101].

• Again inability to assume good faith:

• "I will post all the evidence regarding Atabek's disruptive behavior, against me and other users, to show that its not only me that he does this to and that its his general behavior...If we're both banned, the so be it, but I'm confident that the admins will see that what I do on Wikipedia in terms of behavior makes me look like an angel compared to what Atabek does, but I could be wrong" -- [102].

• Accusing me of vandalism:

• "Atabek, your last edit on this article could be considered vandalism." -- [103].

• Threatening me with a lawsuit, bad faith and false claims of defamation:

• "He has made false accusations, personal attacks, and has even canvassed in order to find an administrator sympathetic to him. He frequently misuses and abuses Wikipedia's rules and policies, and often tries to distort them to fit his situation. He is rude on talk pages, doesnt read other users posts, and is not willingness to show an ounce of respect for other users....Note that in the real world, what Atabek did is a serious offense and could have ended up with a lawsuit, so I do not want users reading this taking this lightly." -- [104].

• Yet another inability to assume good faith, personal attacks, and disturbing anger on this ArbCom page -- [105]

• "Atabek habitually falsifies evidence"
• "The "evidence" post on this arbcom on this very page are nothing but, for lack of a better word, lies.
• "Response to Atabek's "evidence"" -- assuming in bad faith that evidence presented is fake.

• Generalizing on my talk page opinion on the historically known connection between Nazism, pan-Aryanism, and anti-Semitism, and using my presentation of well publicized Holocaust-denying comments of the Iranian president as an evidence against myself: -- [106]

• "Comparing Iran to Nazi Germany based on his own historical revisionism, POV, and OR".

• More bad faith, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani supporting his evidence in this ArbCom case with that of a banned user from previous ArbCom case -- [107].
• Bad faith again [108] - inability to engage in talk page discussion and justify his point, dismissing a talk page opinion with a single-line, calling POV and OR, and not for the first time.
• Frustrated by disruptive behavior of Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani, I requested help [109] from User:Tariqabjotu. Here, I would like to note that User:Hajji Piruz has similarly targeted another User:Dacy69 on User:Tariqabjotu's talk page earlier [110]. I have also requested help from User:Thatcher131 as the manager of the last ArbCom case [111]. I don't see why contacting several administrators about an unresolved issue is considered a violation. After all, I did so with a purpose of resolving situation not for disruption, while User:Hajji Piruz continued wikistalking, bad faith assumptions, baiting users into bans, massive edit warring, and meatpuppeteering on several pages.
• Opening an endless thread at User:Tariqabjotu's talk page and accusing me of canvassing, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani has started an RfC against myself. He was first advised to open a CEM case, and when I simply asked for a 3rd party user for advise [112], Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani immediately backtracked from CEM idea and further accused me on canvassing. He clearly chose not try this avenue of dispute resolution which I never rejected. The fact that Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani didn't completely explore all dispute resolution strategies and instead chose ArbCom is a clear indication of his unwillingness to resolve disputes and instead waste community's time.
• Continuing on, User:Hajji Piruz then convinced User:Tariqabjotu to file an RfC against myself [113], an effort which nevertheless failed to yield sufficient public support. Even some 3rd party users have noted that Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani was clearly intimidating me and provoking a conflict [114]. User:Hajji Piruz has even requested an RfC comment about myself from a sock for whom he made the talk page [115]. Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani is now trying to continue on with his goal in ArbCom, wasting the committee's valuable time. Instead of advised WP:AGF.

Battling along ethnic and national lines

• "I'm afraid Atabek is going to get his pals (other users from the Republic of Azerbaijan) to flood the RFC with comments supporting Atabek" - [116].
• Ethnic slander, unsourced POV and OR pushing: "The Grey Wolves are linked with Turkey's MHP party and their outfits in the Republic of Azerbaijan...The Grey wolves are the militant terrorist wing of the MHP party, they also operate in several places across Europe, attacking Armenians and Kurds and other "anti-Turks"... It is also clear that the Republic of Azerbaijan wants there to be turmoil in northern Iran." - [117].
• Inviting Armenian contributor User:VartanM to contribute to RfC, which has nothing to do with Armenia [118]. With all assumptions of good faith, this seems nothing other than attempt to broaden the conflict.

Wikistalking

• On Yeprem Khan, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani first ever edit [119] was 3 minutes(!) after my intermediate edit on the page [120]. And his edit was to remove sourced text [121].
• On Caucasus Campaign, he had one OR edit on May 8th, and the next one [122] was 6 hours after my edit on June 13th [123].
• On House of Qajar, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani edited the page [124] only once on December 31st, 2006. His next edit and further revert warring was on June 20th, 2007 [125] about 5.5 hours after my edit. His next step on the same page was a bad faith blind revert [126] immediately after my edit, followed by reverting himself [127]. On this same page, User:Houshyar joined him with blind reverting [128].
• On Aryan page, which User:Hajji Piruz never ever edited before, his first only edit [129], although in good faith content-wise, appears 59 minutes after my first edit of this page.

Revert Warring

• The list of Wiki pages where Hajji Piruz was and still is revert warring is presented below. Given the fact that all pages are related to Azerbaijan, it's clear that the user is engaging in battle along ethnic lines aimed against Azerbaijan and Turkey, Azerbaijani and Turkish people:

• Qajar dynasty
• Safavid dynasty
• Yeprem Khan
• History of the name Azerbaijan
• History of Azerbaijan
• Azerbaijan
• Azerbaijani people
• Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy
• Azerbaijan Democratic Republic
• Ethnic minorities in Iran
• Ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan
• Arran (Azerbaijan)

Supporting socks, meatpuppeting

• Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani actively supported [130] the known IP socks of User:Tajik on Safavid dynasty. Among those socks was User:German-Orientalist, confirmed as a sockpuppet [131], for whom Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani even started a discussion page [132]. Both Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani and to a lesser extent User:Bushytails have taken a stance of supporting edits by these sockpuppets, essentially undermining the enforcement and ArbCom injunctions and decisions. The definition of the word banned means that the user is NOT allowed to edit Wikipedia under any circumstance. In this case, socks were playing with the system, making grammar and wikifying edits and in-between inserting unsourced original research or rewriting introductions in a non-neutral way.

• Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani joined sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer User:Pam55 and User:Behmod in revert warring [133] and here [134] with a difference of 4 minutes [135]. Both accounts were blocked [136] based on CheckUser.

User AlexanderPar

Revert warring, battling along national lines

• Yeprem Khan -- [137], [138], [139] - removing the word-to-word quoted Iranian Armenian source and calling it a Turkish POV. On the same article he was either wikistalking me or meatpuppeting with Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani and Houshyar, as neither AlexanderPar nor Houshyar EVER touched this article before me, and their edits were within 2-3 hours of Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani running up his 1RR limit.
• Qajar dynasty -- [140] reverting and misrepresenting information from a sourced quote.
• Ethnic minorities in Iran -- [141] removing sourced material by citing BBC Persian service, Christian Science Monitor, and Radio Free Europe as unacceptable sources, simply because it does not fit his POV.
• Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy -- [142], [143], [144] removing sourced material on human rights abuses in Iran, claiming Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI) are not reliable sources.
• Arran (Azerbaijan) -- [145] -- page move warring, along with user Behmod - [146] in yet another warring campaign initiated by Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani - [147].
• Azerbaijani people -- [148] removing chunk of well sourced material, simply claiming the user to be likely sockpuppet and accusing of OR.
• Safavid dynasty -- [149] removes legitimate sourced references along the lines of POV/OR, without any detailed discussion on the talk page. And cites removal of one references, while removing another one and a translation of title.

Bad faith

• In his evidence above, User:AlexanderPar has presented the block log of only three contributors, myself, Dacy69, and Grandmaster, while ignoring in bad faith the block logs of Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani.

User:TigranTheGreat

Disruptive editing and battling along national lines

• In [150], TigranTheGreat claims that Khojaly Massacre, which was documented by the New York Times, Agence France Presse, Associated Press, etc. press and video reports, was "fictional":

• These two points, coupled with the draft's contradiction with Azeri claims, would further suggest that the imaginary "Khojali Massacre" was more of a fiction than reality .

• Another quote [151]:

• rephrasing the deleted info. Its quote relevant to he motivations behind the declaration on the fictional "massacre."

• Apart from insult along ethnic lines, reviewing just one video of the victims [152] raises questions about basic humanism of a person claiming this as "fictional".

False accusations

In his evidence, TigranTheGreat [153], falsely claims:

• That I created Turkophobia, when the history of the page says otherwise [154]
• That User:Batabat is myself, when it was shown [155] and [156] that Batabat is not related to me or any other active user.

Evidence presented by User:BehnamFarid

"Azeri", as opposed to "Azari", does not refer to a known language spoken in Iran. Similarly, "Azerbaijan", as opposed to "Azarbaijan", does not refer to a known place in Iran.

My statement is that the word "Azeri" (and by extension "Azerbaijan") has no Persian root and must not be used in texts relating to the language spoken by the people of Azarbaijan, Iran. Instead, the correct word "Azari" ("Azarbaijan") must be used. I have set out my arguments in my discussions with User:Parishan, the text of which can be found in User talk:Parishan. My arguments are based on the following five points:

(1) No Iranian known to me, throughout my entire life, refers/has referred to "Azari" as "Azeri". Although I am not a resident in Iran, I have had my primary and secondary educations in that country. I know therefore both the Persian language and the culture of Iran. It is relevant to point out that two of my Persian Literature teachers in highschool were Azarbaijanis and I cannot recall to have heard from them either "Azeri" or "Azerbaijan".

(2) The word "Azari" is meaningful in Persian. As I have stated in User talk:Parishan, Azar, a variant of Atash, meaning Fire, is a Persian word. Further, the name of the 9th month in the Persian calendar is Azar --- in general, and insofar as known to us, all words in Persian related to fire, the sun, etc., have their roots in the Avestan language and Zoroastrian texts.

(3) The word "Azer" not only has no root, or even meaning, in Persian, it contains the word zer, which corresponds to one of the ugliest sounds one is capable of making in Persian. A child who unreasonably cries is said to do zer-zer (not if that child is the child of one's friend or neighbour --- saying that a friend's child is doing zer-zer is an affront to the dignity of the friend and will not be tolerated). For completeness, the word zar, or zarr, is the Persian word for gold.

Those who know the Persian language and culture must be aware of the fact that cultural mores prevent one from using a disrespectful word in a serious context. For instance, in referring to a person riding on a donkey (Khar in Persian), one will not use the word donkey in the same sentence where the name of that person occurs; doing otherwise is considered disrespectful and unacceptable. Thus if X is a person whom one respects, one will not say: "X was riding on a donkey (Khar)"; one uses the euphemism Chahar-pa (the four-feet) instead of Khar. One thus says: "X was riding on a Chahar-pa". In general, juxtaposition of the name of an individual with the name of an animal is considered as signifying disrespect, if not utter contempt.

Given these facts, it is inconceivable to me that an Iranian would pronounce "Azari" as "Azeri", which is likely to invoke the thought of the word zer-zer in one's mind upon hearing the word. An Iranian adept in the art of constructing puns, would not let the opportunity go without making an hurtful pun rhyming with Azeri on hearing this word. I cannot imagine a situation in which a child in a school yard would pronounce the word "Azeri" without his life in that school becoming a misery. I hope these examples make abundantly clear to those unfamilar with the Iranian culture how harshly one is treated on pronouncing a word considered as sounding strange or unpleasant, and to my best judgement "Azeri" falls in the category of strange-sounding words.

(4) Iranian folklore has it that "Azari" and "Azarbaijan" refer to the vitality and exuberance of the Azarbaijani people ("Azari" in Persian also refers to the people of Azarbaijan). These characteristics conform with the characteristics of fire (Azar) as understood in Persian; a passionate person, a firebrand, is in Persian often referred to as Azari or Atashi. This folkloric tradition would be entirely undermined if "Azari" and "Azarbaijan" were pronounced as "Azeri" and "Azerbaijan" which, as I have mentioned above, refer to no known words in Persian.

(5) Secondary sources, such as Mirraim Webster Dictionary, cannot be considered as being authoritative in determining the official spelling of the word "Azari" as "Azeri". Similarly as regards "Azarbaijan". It is my considered opinion that in disregarding the above-mentioned four points and choosing "Azeri" as the official English spelling of the word "Azari", on account of the recommendation by Mirriam Webster Dictionary, one will be exposed to the charge of tending towards cultural domination. In this connection, I should like to point out that the words in question, "Azari" and "Azarbaijan", contain all the letters/sounds known to the English language. If this language did not contain the letter "a", I would have conceded the spellings "Azeri" and "Azerbaijan" as acceptable.

User:Parishan, who on his personal Wikipedia page presents his personal knowledge of Persian as average (متوسط, motevasset), relies entirely on secondary sources in considering "Azeri" to be the correct word for "Azari". In spite of this fact, and contrary to my repeated requests, User:Parishan has presistently changed "Azari" into "Azeri" in one of my recent Wikipedia contributions.

In judging how proficient User:Parishan may be in Persian, it may be relevant to consider the following. The Persian word Parishan can be translated as "distressed, dishevelled, distracted, disturbed, frenzied, insane, mad, maniacal, etc." Perhaps User:Parishan has chosen this name for the sake of being provocative, however one could equally strongly argue that this individual may not have known the negative meanings that this word carries with it, similar to his lack of appreciation for the grave differences between "Azeri" and "Azari". For completeness, I should add that a poet may refer to himself or herself as Parishan, or may choose it as a pen-name, but that is very rare and only may concern those who write mystic poetry, in Sufi traditions; this has its origin in the Sufi belief that for attaining the essence of knowledge, one must first lose one's mind and one's faculty of reasoning (to become bee-khod, without self). But as I have indicated, it may be that User:Parishan is insufficiently adept in Persian language to realise that in general Parishan is not a name that one chooses for oneself. In the same vein, User:Parishan may not realise how ugly the word "Azeri" rings in the ears of an Iranian.

I should like to close my arguments by pointing out that in the postscript to his last but one correspondence with me User:Parishan wrote the following:

"But guess what: no one cares what the word sounds like in Persian, since the information presented is in English and only in English. And in English, incidentally, we, English-speakers, do have the word Azeri and we do use it on a variety of occasions."

I just wonder on whose behalf User:Parishan may have been making such offensive remarks. The question also arises as to the sincerity with which this statement has been made: if no English-speaking person cares, why is User:Parishan so insistent on choosing "Azeri" instead of "Azari"? One may also ask why User:Parishan may have deemed that I may have been communicating with him in any other language but English; what is the word "we" aiming at? If I were to be harsh and unforgiving, I would consider such language as racist slur.

I rest my case here. --BF 03:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Parishan

Regarding the above comment I do not have much to say, other than that User:BehnamFarid was being totally unreceptive to neutral sources presented by me and in the course of discussion, resorted to criticizing my input to Wikipedia. Vehemently denying the existence of the word Azeri and Azerbaijan in English, he constantly referred to the spelling and phonetic rules of the Persian language, which are no indicator of the said rules of English. He totally disregarded links to the Oxford and Merriam-Webster Dictionaries claiming that those dictionaries are "dictates of some unknown lexicographer in some dank office somewhere" and that they were compiled by "uneducated careless hacks" who have "no independent mind." The pronunciation nuances of source languages are often not fully reflected in loanwords in the English language. All my attempts to bring this fact to BehnamFarid's attention were ignored, which led me to put that statement into more straightforward wording. Even though we were discussing the English and only English spelling of the word Azeri and the discussion was similarly taking place in English, BehnamFarid's referrals were accompanied by constant attacks on my knowledge of Persian, which he had never had a chance to test or to ascertain in any way (nevertheless he openly described it as "shallow", "insufficient" and "incomplete" and continues to do so in his evidence). Thus every single detail of our discussion seemed to have been looked at by BehnamFarid through the prism of the Persian language. BehnamFarid then described my contribution to Wikipedia as "roaming [...] articles and applying [...] incomplete knowledge of a perticular language" and suggested that I "just write something new and creative for Wikipedia". When I replied that he had no right to question my dedication and that I personally consider my contribution to Wikipedia meaningful and helpful based on a number of reasons (long history of Wikipedia edits, appreciation from other users in a form of Wiki-barnstars, etc.), he described my attitude as "highly anti-intellectual." [157] BehnamFarid continued his disruptive editing of the same nature on Forough Farrokhzad, where he openly discredited my reasoning claiming that, unlike him, I was not a "neighbour next-door" of the person whom the article is dedicated to. Based on this, BehnamFarid outrageously concluded that my input had no credibility, despite the fact that there is no link between the spelling of the English word Azeri and the acquaintanceship with the given personality. [158] When I reverted the article stating my reasons, he reverted it back leaving no comment in either the edit summary, or the talk page, obviously provoking me to break the three-revert rule, and have me out of his way. [159] Subsequently BehnamFarid left a message on my talkpage threatening to get me expelled from Wikipedia by raising "the matter to the highest level in Wikipedia, which will be either your place or my place", if I (User:Parishan) continue to make edits in the Iranians-related articles.[160] As you see, he continues personal attacks on me and my intellectual capabilities to the point of using Persian lexicography to question and criticize my choice of username – something I choose to refrain from commeting on leaving it to the Arbitrators to consider. Parishan 06:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Hajji Piruz

In response to Hajji Piruz's allegation, I can refer to the talkpage of Paytakaran that shows my active involvement in the discussion from the very beginning: [161]. Hajji Piruz thus presents frivolous evidence. I don't find it necessary to go through his other claims with regards to me, since they seem to be based on mere assumptions. Parishan 06:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tariqabjotu

Right now, I'm merely going to give evidence regarding Hajji Piruz and Atabek. As I hinted in my statement prior to this RfArb's official opening, the issue seems to be assumption of bad faith. Editors keep claiming others are advancing their points-of-view (sometimes along ethnic lines). There are sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry claims abound and a mere unwillingless to stop escalation.

Hajji Piruz often assumes bad faith, divides along ethnic lines

Hajji Piruz has assumed bad faith on multiple occasions, especially in regards to Atabek's intentions. It seems Piruz can be reasonable during discussion, but everytime he's responding to or talking about Atabek, he unvariably accuses him of malicious intent:

• "Atabek comes around only once in awhile, he doesnt know whats going on in several articles, but only joins in to make personal attacks" June 5
• "This user only gets himself involved in articles to either attack users or make non-helpful edits." June 5
• "Tariq, you should also know that Atabek was initially supposed to be blocked for a period of 1 year according to the arbcom, but for some reason the administrators changed their mind at the last minute (I think because of lobbying by another user involved in the Arbcom on Atabek's side)" June 7
• "Hello, I'm afraid Atabek is going to get his pals (other users from the Republic of Azerbaijan) to flood theRFC with comments supporting Atabek... Elsanaturk blindly apporves of Atabek and points the finger at me despite the fact that I am the only one who posted evidence." June 8
• "Are you trying to sabatoge the RfC?" June 8
• "Your the one making trying to split up wikipedia along national lines by telling users not to edit Azerbaijan articles and getting all of your friends from the republic of help you out." June 8
• "Your POV and OR interpretations of sources violates Wikipedia's rules and is hampering what we're supposed to be doing here in Wikipedia." June 11
• (responding to Atabek) "Dont make POV edits (such as changing sentences to fit your POV, changing words to reflect your POV, etc...), and dont change the article drastically without discussion." June 14
• "you are preventing the categorization of this article with your POV editing and OR." June 17
• "You cannot use the excuse that this article is FA simply to keep the article in your POV." June 18
• (responding to Atabek) "I have lost count of how many times you and your friends did check user on me" June 20
• "What about you, Dacy69 and your other pals? Dont you all edit several of the same articles?" June 22
• "You guys are trying to suppress information, its pretty obvious." June 22

Atabek sometimes assumes bad faith

Although I believe Atabek's assumptions of bad faith have been to a lesser degree than Piruz's, they are still present:

• (regarding Hajji Piruz) "This user follows all my edits and engages in edit wars on practically every page related to Azerbaijan which I edit." June 5
• [Removes Hajji Piruz's attempt to contact him on his talk page, calling it "garbage"] June 5
• "I don't have physical evidence, but based on behavior and support of User:Hajji Piruz, formerly User:Azerbaijani, he is obviously meatpuppeting/coordinating with these groups." June 6

Hajji Piruz is presenting frivolous evidence

It's sad I have to bring this up, but there is way too much evidence coming from Piruz. Some of it is largely irrelevant to the case and/or dated prior to the previous arbitration. Regardless, there is just way too much evidence coming from his direction. It needs to be summarized and excessively lengthy quotes need to be shortened, with only pertinent parts noted.

• Under his racial comments section, he presents a link to a comment from February 2007, prior to the first arbitration proceeding
• His first section on Atabek simply links to allegations from the previous arbitration proceeding
• Under his canvassing section, Piruz links to a few requests for checkusers that were not started by Atabek. Some of them merely have comments by Atabek, and at least one is a checkuser request alleging Atabek was one of the sockpuppets.
• Under Piruz's editing section, he cites comments by Bushytails (talk · contribs) (not involved this disrupt), suggesting they were caused by Atabek's actions
• Piruz says "Also, User:Tariqabjotu has commented on some of Atabek's accusations on Atabek's talk page, telling Atabek that the anon on the Safavids article is not me and tell him that I am not attacking, blackmailing, or harassing: No he is not. Did you even look at what you were reverting?" That is a misinterpretation of my comment; I did not say tell Atabek that the anon on the Safavids article was not Piruz; I said that Piruz did not "vandalize" Atabek's userpage.

Evidence presented by Grandmaster

User:Hajji Piruz

The problems on Iran - Azerbaijan related pages are mostly caused by one person - User:Hajji Piruz. This person has been edit warring almost on every Azerbaijan related article, making controversial edits and enlisting other Iranian users to support his edits. Hajji Piruz was wikistalking User:Atabek for quite some time, and editing Atabek’s personal page by Piruz and adding Atabek to the category of sockpuppeteers was a culmination of this campaign. [162] User:Hajji Piruz clearly stated the desired outcome in the RfC he started on Atabek, which is getting Atabek permanently banned. [163]

Assumption of bad faith by Hajji Piruz

Comment made by Hajji Piruz:

Grandmaster, you need to put your nationalistic, POV, and OR editing behind you. [164]

Supporting the banned User:Tajik by Hajji Piruz

The evidence of disruptive editing by Atabek provided by Hajji Piruz is false. It is enough to check “disruptive” edits of Atabek to Safavid dynasty to see that he only reverted IPs that belonged to the banned user Tajik per WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits, as banned users are not entitled to edit Wikipedia in any form. Checkuser proved that all the IPs editing Safavid dynasty and the account of User:German-Orientalist belonged to Tajik: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik. User:Bushytails obviously was not aware that the IPs were socks of Tajik, but for some reason Hajji Piruz posted here this user’s comments, which do not prove any guilt of Atabek. It is enough to compare the IP mentioned by User:Bushytails and the checkuser results on Tajik to see that User:82.83.145.243 is an established sock of Tajik.

Disruptive editing by Hajji Piruz

I know that arbcom does not deal with content disputes, but I would like to demonstrate how Hajji Piruz’s editing disrupts Wikipedia. As his conribs log shows, Piruz is mostly engaged in editing the articles about Azerbaijan republic and Azerbaijani people. Very often he makes controversial edits without consensus with other involved parties, and if his edits are reverted, somehow there’s always a number of Iranian users, who rv the page to Piruz’s version. Usually it is the same group of editors, i.e. User:Pejman47, User:AlexanderPar, User:Houshyar and User:Behmod/User:Pam55, who are not restricted by the arbcom parole. For example, Azerbaijani people is a featured article, mostly written by User:Tombseye, who brought it up to the FA standard by providing for all major points of view on the subject. I understand that we need to be bold in editing and don’t have to agree every edit with other people, but when it comes to a large revision of an FA article, a certain caution should be exercised to preserve its quality. Piruz made a large rewrite of one of the sections, inserting controversial claims without reaching consensus with other editors. His edit even contained such outrageous claims as “However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are not ethnically Turkic, but are mainly descendants of the Caucasian and Iranic peoples who lived in the area prior to Turkification”. [165] It is enough to check any credible encyclopedia to see that Azerbaijanis are Turkic people: [166] It would be logical to consult with the person who largely wrote the article and other involved editors before making such dramatic changes that damage the quality of the FA article. But Piruz failed to do so and his edit led to another edit war on that article, where socks like Pam55 were also used to make rvs.

Piruz goes around Azerbaijan related articles and removes the word “Azerbaijan” as the name of the country, replacing it with a reference to Azerbaijani people or something else: [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] I fail to see the point in such editing, maybe arbitrators can.

Such disruptive manner of editing results in constant conflicts with other involved editors, and not necessarily those from Azerbaijan. Hajji Piruz (formerly Azerbaijani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) was also blocked for violation of the arbcom parole: [172]

Hajji Piruz moved the article Arran (Azerbaijan) to a new title without any discussion or consensus on talk: [173] Since the move was not agreed on talk, this led to a move war, where Piruz was supported by Behmod and AlexanderPar, who moved the page in support of Hajji Piruz.

User:AlexanderPar

User:AlexanderPar edit wars and deletes any references that do not match the official position of Iranian government, accusing those who tries to add such information of “soapboxing”. For instance, he deleted the quotes from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International a number of times, even when they were added by such perfectly neutral members of wiki community as User:Francis Tyers (who is neither Azeri nor Iranian). Francis explained many times that those sources were reliable, [174] but his edit was reverted nonetheless with the same accusation of soapboxing: [175] Moreover, AlexanderPar even reverted along the way the edit by the admin User:Alex Bakharev, who tried to present the different positions in a more balanced form. In its current form Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy article is pretty far from WP:NPOV standards, as it suppresses the info about ethnic tensions in Iran and presents them as nothing but foreign conspiracy. As of now, AlexanderPar keeps deleting HRW quotes from other articles under various pretexts. [176] As one can see, this user violates WP:NPOV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. As result of edit warring, this user has recently been blocked: [177]

Also, in response to AlexanderPar’s evidence, I never violated the arbcom parole, and all previous violations have been dealt with during the previous arbcom. It is enough to check the timing.

User:Hetoum I and User:VartanM

User page vandalism by User:Hetoum I

Hetoum I (talk · contribs) was engaged in vandalism of my user page about one year ago. At that time he was using the name of Hetoum (talk · contribs). Overall, Hetoum vandalized my user page 18 (!) times, inserting obscene images and insulting comments. The fact was established by the admin User:Nlu, who placed multiple sockpuppeteer tags on Hetoum's user page [178] [179] and left this message: [180] Nlu removed the tags only on a condition that Hetoum would stop edit warring and vandalizing: [181] [182] I think admins Nlu and User:Khoikhoi can provide additional info about this. It was not really difficult to establish that Hetoum was the puppeteer since he was using the same IP to vandalize my page and edit his own: [183] [184] He posted a message at another user's talk page from the same IP address that he used to vandalize my user page, and said that his name on Wiki was Hetoum: [185] [186] Hetoum vandalized user pages of other Azerbaijani contributors as well: [187] using the same IP to edit his own user page: [188]

Edit warring and personal attacks by Hetoum I

Soon after the Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case Hetoum (who by that time changed his name to User:Hetoum I) returned to editing pages related to this topic, edit warring and making personal attacks on other users, contributing under both his registered name and anon IP, making comments like: nice try loser, quit vandalism [189] and: Look stay on topic and stop barking like a dog at me, and on top of that making crap up. [190] As result, the page Church of Kish got protected. I raised the issue at WP:ANI: [191] Hetoum has an active support of User:VartanM, who keeps reverting the same page to Hetoum's version. When the page was unprotected, Hetoum and VartanM resumed edit warring, each breaking the 3RR rule, [192] [193] and the page got protected again. Thus, Church of Kish got protected three times within one month because of edit warring of Hetoum and VartanM. [194]

Attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines by User:Hetoum I

This is the comment Hetoum left at WP:ANI:

Unfortunately, I have been ganged up on and unfairly attacked by at least 4 Azerbaijani editors for making corrections to the factually inaccurate article on the Armenian church at Kish, keeping in line with Azerbaijani vandalism and historical revisionism of the Armenian past. [195]

Edit warring by VartanM

VartanM (talk · contribs) was involved in edit warring on a number of articles, Church of Kish, House of Hasan-Jalalyan, Paytakaran, Varoujan Garabedian and Ganja being just a few of them. User:VartanM has previously been blocked for 3RR violation: [196]

Vartan was edit warring on Ganja, restoring the edits of User:Pulu-Pughi, which is a sock of a banned user. The section readded by Vartan was created by sock of the banned user, [197] and banned users are not entitled to edit Wikipedia articles. Their edits should be reverted regardless of their quality, see WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. But more importantly, the info that the sock added was factually inaccurate, as I explained in much detail on talk of the article. The sources make perfectly clear that the city was founded by Arabs, while the sock distorted them in an attempt to create a different impression. Despite that, Vartan was reverting the article to the version of the sock [198] [199] together with User:Tricethin, another sock of a banned user: [200], ignoring the talk page, until admin User:Golbez removed that section [201]

Vartan claims that he was reverting only socks on Church of Kish, which is not true. He made at least three reverts of well-established users within just one day, [202] [203] [204] and eventually the article got protected. A sock account User:TheTruth4578 reverted in support of Hetoum and Vartan.

User:Meowy

Meowy (talk · contribs) was invited to join editing the Church of Kish article by Hetoum. [205] Meowy’s response to the invitation already displayed a battleground approach: [206] And this is the comment this user left on talk of Talk:Church of Kish: [207] As one can see, nothing but personal attacks, hatred and battling along the national lines. Meowy has a history of being blocked for 3RR violation and harassment of other Wikipedia editors: [208] And his aggressive comment is not the first instance of such behavior, it is enough to check the discussion he was involved on another article: [209] After arbcom accepted this case Meowy has been once again blocked for 3RR violation, this time for 60 hours: [210] However, this user is still unable to assume good faith and keeps on trying to use Wikipedia for battling along the national lines: [211] Comments like this show that he thinks Wikipedia is a place where he fights against “propaganda”: Since I'm sure we are both are fighting for accuracy and against propaganda, maybe you should let that bit go, especially since there will be plenty of real propaganda to fight against. [212]

User:MarshallBagramyan

MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs) has been actively edit warring on a number Armenia - Azerbaijan related pages. On Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan he was removing sources that contradicted his claim that deportation of Persian shah Abbas affected only Armenian population, until the admin Khoikhoi restored those sources. [213] Only then Marshall stopped edit warring. Marshall was barely staying within the 3RR limit, making 3 rvs a day: [214] [215] [216] He was even refusing to discuss the sources that I presented on talk of the article, threatening me with an RFC. He said:

I'm not going to answer any further, the only answers you'll obtain about this is from a RfC filled against you. You are wasting my time. [217]

On Armenian Revolutionary Federation Marshall was removing the sources about involvement of ARF in ethnic massacres and assassination of Russian officials in the beginning of the 20th century. Only when admin User:Thatcher131 evaluated the sources and confirmed that Marshall should not be removing verifiable info Marshall stopped his edit warring: [218] The same behavior continues on other articles this user is involved in, he even removes the tags that are attached to indicate that the contents of the article are disputed. [219] MarshallBagramyan has recently been blocked for 3RR violation: [220]

User:Behmod/User:Pam55

I would like to ask the arbitrators to review the situation with the account of Pam55 (talk · contribs). Checkuser proved that Pam55 was a sock of Behmod (talk · contribs): Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pam55. Subsequently, both Pam55 and Behmod were banned indefinitely by admin User:Alison. However, later admin Alex Bakharev unblocked both accounts, stating that they belong to the students in the same university. [221] The account of User:Pam55 was used to make reverts to controversial articles like Azerbaijani people, History of the name Azerbaijan or 300 (film). It is highly improbable that a new user would accidentally become aware of the disputes on those articles and appeared right in time to rv in favor of a certain POV. I raised the issue at WP:ANI: [222] Blocking admin User:Alison said that Pam55 never tried to contact her with regard to the block or pursue formal unblock procedure: [223] and disagreed with lifting of the block: [224] I think that unblocking Pam55 was a mistake, it is either a sock or meatpuppet and as such should be banned.

User:Hakob

Hakob (talk · contribs) appears to be a meatpuppet, who turns up to rv the articles in favor of a certain POV. Usually he provides no rationale for his reverts and takes no part in discussions. There are many examples of such unexplained reverts since the end of the last arbcom: [225] [226] [227] [228]

User:Fedayee

Fedayee (talk · contribs) is presenting frivolous evidence. Edit warring of User:MarshallBagramyan is very well documented by the admins. Fedayee claims that Marshall “set the record straight” in his response to Thatcher131, however it was just an awkward attempt by Marshall to justify his edit warring. It did not change Thatcher’s opinion about the incident. We can ask Thatcher to provide his opinion, if required. As for Marshall’s block, User:Dmcdevit explained why he blocked Marshall: [229] Marshall should not have edit warred. There’s no evidence of the account of User:Drastamat having anything to do with AdilBaguirov. As for Fedayee himself, he was also involved in edit warring and blocked for violation of his parole only 2 days after the end of the previous arbcom: [230]

Evidence presented by Dacy69

Some Thoughts about Previous Arbcom

Very briefly I would like to touch upon previous Arbcom. As a whole I believe it had some positive efeccts as it has disciplined many editors but not all. However, I argued that we need 2-3 admins who will monitor the situation and deliver their judgement upon request on disputed issues. It has not happened. So, some editors involved in previous dispute opted to create sock accounts and continue disruptive editing. I would like to draw admins attention to one positive example when the involvement of admin user:Thatcher131 helped to resolve a dispute arisen on page Armenian Revolutionary Federation - [231] This is what we needed. Punishment of editors will not work as some go for creating socks and continue edit warring.

Some Thoughts about Current Arbcom

While I see again the main focus this Arbcom will be behaviour of editors it is utterly improtant that Arbcom will deliver its judgment about content dispute. I still would insist that we need kind of expert board consisting 2-3 admins who will help resolve disputes, RfC and mediations. Some judgement on content dispute should be enforced. For example, some editors like user:Hajji Piruz and user:AlexanderPar keep removing Amnesty International references arguing that it should not be used in Wikipedia. Some editors involved in incivility should be quickly punished. I was insulted several time after previous Arbcom but my refrence to ANI had no effect.

user:Hajji Piruz (formerly user:Azerbaijani) disruptive activity in Wikipedia

Indeed this second Arbcom case was reopened because of disruptive activity of user:Hajji Piruz. He is the only one who has most severe violations of a number of Wikipedia rules. He keep flooding Wikipedia with battles along national lines, making false accusation which resembles me activity of banned user:Fadix. Interestingly, in his evidence section he refered to user:Fadix false accusation about me which was dismissed by previous Arbcom. This and previous Arbcom has only one intersection - this is user:Hajji Piruz. It is unfortunate that he have to distinquish editors by ethnic affiliation but this is how many views and divide Wikipedia (I rememeber when I touched article Urartu many Armenian editors started asking question what is my ethnic affiliation). Lately, user:Hajji Piruz put on my personal page ethnic category - [232]. But after all, ethnic affiliation will shed lights on many issues. For example, user:Hajji Piruz having adopted initially name "Azerbaijani" (!) supported Armenian editors with disputes with Azeri editors and lately, after first Arbcom was closed he started atatcking many Azeri editors. This is, I believe, strategy (again I regret to put ethnic affiliation here) of two groups of editors - Armenians and Iranians to attack Azeri editors. First case resulted in ban of one Azeri editors. And now they target 3 other active contributors - me, user:Atabek and user:Grandmaster, though I acknowledge on my part that on two occasions I was provoked and involved in edit warring.

user:Hajji Piruz incivility

In generall, this editor has habit to quickly accusing other editors in POV pushing, can't work towards consensus and sometimes insult editors. 2 times he insulted me [233], [234] This is the case where you can trace a whole dispute. While editors try resolve dispute wihtout any personal attackuser:Hajji Piruz came first with accusation of POV pushing [235]

user:Hajji Piruz harassment

This was false report about me [236] - this link has gone from ANI page but that link can serve as a proof for his attempts to harras me [237] and user:Tariqabjotu replied to user:Hajji Piruz "He didn't undo an edit to a page; he removed a word. You're missing the intended meaning of the policy" but user:Hajji Piruz who perfectly knows rules, as he states in his section, continue harras me and getting second reply: "No; you're clearly aware that Dacy just removed that word." and third "Shocking as this may be, your persistent comments here are not going to change my mind. -- tariqabjotu 16:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)"

user:Hajji Piruz organized edit warring

Since user:Hajji Piruz on revert parole he is usually involved in dispute on talkpage an let several (I suspect meatpuppeteers) other editors to revert edits even if these edits are multisourced.

• On page Iranian Azerbaijan while he argued with me on talkpage about my this edit based on multiple references [238] user:Pejman47, user:AlexanderPar and user:Behmod kept removing information. I filed RfC and agreed with proposal of admin user:Alex Bakharev. However, abovementioned editors kept arguing. Despite initial proposal about creating separate page about anti-azeri cartoon incident in Iran user:Hajji Piruz user:Houshyar changed name of the article without discussion.
• On page Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy you can trace history [239] - first user:Hajji Piruz in violation of RfC proposal created this article which should have had different name and started edit warring which was lately supported by almost the same group of users
• On page Ethnic minorities in Iran the same story - [240]. I started editing this page on June 12. user:Hajji Piruz came lately and user:Houshyar and user:AlexanderPar kept removing sourced information

I am aware also that my edit was also supported by user:Atabek, user:Grandmaster and some others - even neutral, non-Azeri editors like user:Francis Tyers and user:Ahwaz. But this is the situation - user:Hajji Piruz, user:AlexanderPar and others kept removing neutral, third party, reliable sources like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, thus trying to promote Iranian government POV. On my part editors long ago involved in editing articles related to Azerbaijan.

user:Hajji Piruz accussation towards me

I am not going to waste my and admins time in responding all allegations of this user. This resembles me strategy of blocked user:Fadix who flooded project and talkpage as well with lengthy "evidences". The strategy is aimed at bringing as much as possible accussation in the from of subtitles like "canvassing", "personall attacks" hoping that admins don't have time to go thru each and every details and diffs. But I trust admins. Last time user:Fadix strategy did not work. I just want to illustrate a couple of user:Hajji Piruz allegations about me.

• First his evidence of my canvasing [241] - yes, I complained about his false report and indeed see my evidences above. I don't know - whether it falls under category of canvassing when i ask admins to check false accusation regarding editor.
• Or this another his "evidence" against me [242] when I ask admin Alex Bakharev made further comments on RfC where he stepped forward to help us to resolve the problem.

He also listed pages where my edit in his view was disruptive. I invite to check my contributions to some of them and see my multisourced text (which was in many cases reverted because it was not fitted Iranian government POV).

• Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran - [243]
• Ethnic minorities in Iran - [244]
• Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy - [245], [246],
• Church of Kish - [247]
• Azerbaijan (Iran) - [248]
• Iran-Azerbaijan relations - [249], [250], [251]

I am not going to comment other accusations. Admins will judge. I only admit that I was provocked to edit reverts on 2 occasions. Therefore, I will ask Arbcom to deliver their judgement about my edit and use of sources like Amnesty International and others.

And last, not least, I invite to check my contribution to Wikipedia which in view of user:Hajji Piruz is limited to a few articles. Many my edits was approved by third party, I created several articles which was nominated for DYK and on number occasions my edits was non-disputable, of course, then people assumed good faith without making accussation along ethnic lines.

user:AlexanderPar disrputive edit warring

This user was involved in edit warring in blatant and aggressive ways, removing a big chunk of text without explanation and discussion on talkpage. For newcomer (account was opened in the end of April) user:AlexanderPar was very skillfull and well-aware of rules. Here examples:

• On page Ethnic minorities in Iran he start removing information on June 15 and several days involved in edit warring leaving no comments on talkpage. Only on June 26 (!), after several appeals he left comment on talkpage.
• On page Iran-Azerbaijan relations he made a number of rv's again without any comments on talkpage. he is avoiding usually any discussion, provoke edit warring and quickly reports violation. However, once he was also blocked for vandalism and violation of 3rr rule [252]
• On page Ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan which he created while was at edit warring on page Ethnic minorities in Iran (I assume good faith not retaliation) he made again a number of rvs without any single comment on talkpage.
• user:AlexanderPar refuses to assume good faith and engages in personal attacks - [253]. Again here the question of the use of references which should be addressed during this Arbcom.

• I am also seeking opinion of Arbcom about removal this information [254] by user:AlexanderPar. He argues that these sources cite people affiliated with US government. First of all, not all sources related with government. Moreover, the article cites other US official which support Iranian government view but this user and user:Hajji Piruz does not want the presence of other sources which is opposite to Iranian government view. See section [255] and talkpage [256]

user:Pejman47 edit warring

I suspect that this user and user:AlexanderPar are socks. Look how identical their edits, more precisely, removal of edits with the same comments [257] - [258]. Anyway, he is also involved in edit warring on page Iranian Azerbaijan and Ethnic minorities in Iran making rvs. user:Pejman47 arrived at page Iranian Azerbaijan to revert me after user:Alborz Fallah who, an hour earlier, reverted me on another page Iran-Azerbaijan relations.

user:Alborz Fallah edit warring, threat of retaliation and insulting comments along ethnic lines

This user made this comment [259] while my edit on page Iranian Azerbaijan was being deleted. He said "do you think the history page of Azerbaijan republic needs a new section about the human right reports about Talesh and/or Kurds or about the Nardaran clashes?!" he implied if I was going to coninue to write about human rights in Iran, the same should be done with regard to Azerbaijan. I welcome such editing and indeed lately user:AlexanderPar created page Ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan. But user:Alborz Fallah comment is clearly hinted at retaliation.

Moreover, this is another his insulting comment about Azerbaijani language [260]: "about literary Azerbaijani language , although that is not relevant to the discussion , that's a new language(in written form) and it's written literature is not so sophisticated , then I prefer not to pay so much tribute to that". first of all, language is not new and its written form have at least 4-5 centuries tradition in the form of Arabic script. but even it is new it should be respected as other languages.

Besides, he was also involved in edit warring on page Iranian Azerbaijan and others.

He has clear political agenda [261] and his deliberation about Azerbaijan-Iranian politics clearly shows political attitude which has nothing to do with academic approach to Wikipedia articles (requiring statement of facts and opinion of well-established scholarly sources)

NOTE This user wrote on his page "Dacy69 accuses me of being involved in edit warring on Azerbaijan-Iran page[262]. But if one looks at the page he has linked:[263] I have not made a single edit to the main page. This is frivolous evidence."

I wrote in my evidences that Alborz was involved to page Iranian Azerbaijan. I did not say anything about this - [264] - I just said that this page was created by user:AlexanderPar and it came in my view as a result of retaliation. Read my evidences carefully.

user:Houshyar edit warring

In evidences presented above I showed that this user was involved in edit warring and I suspect he was also meatpuppet of user:Hajji Piruz. On page Ethnic minorities in Iran he reverted a chunk of text refering to the necessity of discussion while he avoided discussion (in some cases he limited it to short comment) [[265]]. The same strategy he used on other pages. it is usually rv without any discussion [266]

user:Hetoum I incivility

user:Hetoum I was involved in edit war on page Church of Kish, POV pushing by using non-neutral sources and incivility. This is his insult which I reported 2 times to ANI but without any reaction from admins [267]

user:Fedayee accussation

user:Fedayee presented a volume of evidence with diffs about a dispute which arisen on Armenian Revolutionary Federation which we resolved through RfC. I ask Arbcom mebers to look at this RfC and then compare allegations of user:Fedayee -[268]. I worked step by step towards resolution. The problem was and is, as it was during the previous Arbcom case, that some users try to guard certain pages. They fail to assume good faith. user:Thatcher131 helped to resolve this dispute and it will be relevant if he will make his judgement who was wrong and to what extend. During this case I was several times attacked. On my side - yes - Fedayee said that I told that he doesn't know history of that period. Can it be compared with personal attacks? This dispute was for reason of assuming bad faith and ethnic bias - read this "Do you do anything else on Wikipedia asides from peddling your your churlish comments on Armenian-related articles?"[269]

Further, user:Fedayee said that I declined a source on the ground of ethnicity of the author. Yes, I did and this is in line with NPOV and has nothing to do with ethnic prejudice. For certain articles we should try to use neutral sources, in this case written by people of non-Armenian and non-Azeri background.

I end my comment here to adhere to limits though Fedayee's lengthy allegations require much more deliberations

Evidence presented by User:Alborz Fallah

‘’Dacy69 accuses me of being involved in edit warring on Azerbaijan-Iran page[270]. But if one looks at the page he has linked:[271] I have not made a single edit to the main page. This is frivolous evidence. My other accusation supposed to be mentioned here : "Besides, he was also involved in edit warring on page Iranian Azerbaijan" ; but I have never ever edited a single time in this page : edit history!

Dacy69 has violated his 1rr twice after the previous Arbcomm. Actually in one day he managed to violate it four times.[272]

Also his aggressive behavior was shown in the talk page of the article. I told Dacy69: ‘’ More than that , your idea about doubting "degree of integration of Azerbaijanis in Iranian society" is not a part of your source (Karl Rahder's) text- Although that source itself is a personal view! -and adding your personal point of view to the text is out of editorial ethics!’’. The user, without getting any consensus, added his personal view. As per my comment on the modern Azerbaijani language, it was in response to Atabek. I am not adding any personal views and I will quote Swietchowski. Swietchowski, is a well known western scholar on the matters of Azerbaijan. According to him, only around 1880’s did Azeri become popular in the Caucus: ‘’the hold on of Persian as the chief literary language in Azerbaijan was broken, followed by rejection of classical Azerbaijani, an artificially heavily Iranized idiom that had long been in use along with Persian, though in a secondary position’’. Thus my comment that it was a new language is simply restatement of scholar. Also my other comment was that human rights issue does not have anything to do with a history section. It should be in its own relevant article. Dacy69 did not try any sort of mediation or dialogue with me and added me to Arbcomm for no apparent reason. I'm myself an Azeri : an Iranian-Azeri .I don't think that's a potential to be attacked by my fellow co-ethnics from Azerbaijan republic : here in my talk [273] Dacy69 writes in Azeri : "Menin sene yazigim gelir ona gore ki, sen oz tarixinden, kokunden, edebiyyatdan xebersiszen " That means " I'm sorry for you because you don't know anything about your own history , culture and litrature " …. As an Iranian – Azeri , I have my own points of view about my ethnical (Azeri) and national (Iranian) culture , and that shouldn't be interperitated as "treason to Azeri culture" and to be responded as personal attacks and getting it to Arbcomm. Although I think , after our conversations [274] Atabek is going to change his point of views in a positive manner, but I think reviewing his previous statements [275] about calling my country as "country with abysmal human rights record" can help to understand the atmosphere in that conversations.
thanks

Evidence presented by User:Behmod

Responses

• Regarding the case Pam/Behmod; Former investigations by admins have shown that they are actually different users from the same university (A university with 50000 students and staff, more than 600 of them are Iranians and Azeris, I personally know some other Wiki-editors) and I have no hesitation for any new investigation at anytime and I am open to discuss this issue again with admins at any time. As I explained in my statement, it is obvious that they are different users and they have several edits at the same time and they are interested in many different articles.

• User:Dacy69 states:

"On page Iranian Azerbaijan … about my edit (which is) based on multiple references [276] user:Behmod...kept removing information"

However, I never touched this edit. It is obvious if you check the history of Dacy69's edit [277]

Evidence presented by Hetoum I

At this point, I am still at odds as to why I have been named a party to this case. Apparently, user Grandmaster said, since this is called Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 that I may be involved in it. In general, the addition of VartanM and Meowy to this case seem to be solely on disagreement only on the Church of Kish page. It is limited to the article only, and there has not even been talk of dispute resolution.

Allegations of Vandalism

Further, Grandmaster points to vandalism to his page over a year ago. These edits date from a while back, before I took wiki seriously, and since promising Nlu to leave the page alone, it has been so. Are those events not worthy to be presented at the last arbitration become worthy when I end up disagreeing with Grandmaster?

Allegations of Edit Warring

Further, I am accused of edit warring on Kish. I wonder if Grandmaster also told I was reverting the sockpuppets of the banned user AdilBaguirov, whose sockpuppets have been banned as well. Further, Grandmaster conveniently leaves out the 4 editors who meatpuppeted for him on the Church of Kish article. I assume good faith here. If it was another editor who would disagree with me and went to the talk page it would be one thing. It is another thing that 4 editors are reverting in sync and show little contribution on the talk page, like repeating comments of other users from over a week ago.

Allegations of Incivility and turning Wiki into battleground along national lines

Also, I have been accused of being incivil. I apologize for this. It was not appropriate, I answered this way when Grandmaster brought the ethnic background of authors or sources to dismiss them and request their exclusion(he didn't even request, he gave himself the right to remove them). Their comments range from reverting and repeating a comment added on the talk page a week ago to calling Armenian authorship unreliable lies whenever they do not like what they see.

And what about the double standarts on the Kish page? It is not ok to use an Armenian source, but it is for non-qualified institutions from Azerbaycan?

Antagonizing and Harassing Armenian Users

I try to look up and assume good faith, but actions like these and adding POV to articles like revising Armenian identity of Movses Kagankatvatsi with wordings of statement of facts patched with original research from obscure sources. This and dismissal of sources along the ethnic lines border harassment and antagonizing.

Evidence presented by TigranTheGreat

Responses

In his evidence, User:Atabek has decided to accuse me for stating my position on the Azeri allegations surrounding the events in Khojalu: [278]. To me, this is indeed an unprecedented attempt to use the Arbitration proceedings to suppress a user's opinion.

Wikipedia rules encourage users to admit their bias--this is the best way to recognize each others' POV's, and move on to a neutral solution. Users should be allowed to express their opinions on a subject matter, if it is relevant to issues at hand.

In this case, my position, which reflects the position of the Armenian side in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, is that the so-called "Khojali Massacre," as presented by the Azeri side, is a fabrication used by Azerbaijan and Turkey as a propaganda tool against Armenia. Just because the propanda was successful in convincing some organizations, does not mean that individual users must somehow change their opinions. Nor does it mean that the opposing position should be excluded from the article--that would go against Wikipedia rules of NPOV.

In this case, I added some information to the article that was relevant to my position--namely, information raising questions about the an international resolution [279]. User:Francis_Tyers reverted it as being "irrelevant." [280]. To demonstrate *why* the new information was relevant to my position, I obviously had to state my position on the subject--that the event, as presented by the pro-Azeri sources, is indeed a fabrication. Such discussions of various positions in the Talk pages are standard, and Atabek's attempt to suppress it is indeed surprising.

I would also like to note that Atabek is using personal attacks in his accusations against me, saying that I lack "basic humanity" just because I do not accept his view [281].

Atabek

Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia [282], creates and adds: Varoujan Garabedian [283], Harry Sassounian [284]. When User:Fadix asked him at the time if he was going to create articles for each individual this was his reply. The cathegory was deleted. So later Atabek creates a FORK category evading concensus and without discussing with those who opposed the first category. After creating Turkophobia on May 4, he readds Harry Sassounian [285], readds Varoujan Garabedian [286], readds Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia [287]. Broadening with the new FORK, he proceeds adding also Khojaly Massacre [288], Monte Melkonian [289], Harold Nicolson [290], Midnight Express (film) [291]

Atabek has attempted to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines which also includes threat of Wiki retaliation

"Then we should prepare a collage picture of Adolf Hitler with Swastika and images of Holocaust and post it on all Iran related pages"[292],

Also: "Apparently, there are too many pseudo-Azeris claiming the Azeri identity yet not quite resembling (in cultural and linguistic sense) the modern definition of Azerbaijani. Throwing the words like "yashasin" or "chox saghol" or "yaxshi" does not yet suffice to be called "Azeri"." [293]

And: "General pattern demonstrated by Iranian/Persian groups to attack and remove, dereference and POV every article related to Turkic groups shall also be noted as nothing more than hateful and disturbing development."[294] This is unexcusable and unacceptable for a user who was so close of being banned.

I am including Batabat with Atabek because he is still suspected to be the same person by some users. To remind the arbitration committee, Batabat was blocked [295] previously because he was suspected of being a sock but he was unblocked later. Here we see Atabek voting 9 minutes after Batabat. [296]. And here we see Batabat voting after Atabek [297]. Recently (out of nowhere) on June 13, Batabat re-appeared to support Dacy69. [298] From the first edit of Batabat we already see disruptive behavior when he edits another user's edit in the talkpage of an article to make him say the contrary of what he was saying. [299] The question I want the arbitration to answer, is that Batabat I suspect to be the sockpuppet of someone. Who's sockpuppet is he if he is indeed a sockpuppet?

Personal Attacks by Atabek

In his evidence, User:Atabek states:

• Apart from insult along ethnic lines, reviewing just one video of the victims [300] raises questions about basic humanism of a person claiming this as "fictional".

Suggesting that I "lack basic humanism" simply for stating a position different from his own is a personal attack by Atabek against me.

Artaxiad

Artaxiad who was banned during the last case has abusivally evaded his block, see: [301]

AdilBaguirov

AdilBaguirov who was banned during the last case has abusivally evaded his block, see: [302]

Among many reasons why AdilBaguirov has used socks, is also to have other members who were not restricted with the one revert per week restriction to be blocked. Marshall reverting what he saw obviously as sock was reported by one of those socks. [303] and successfully blocked. More recently Meowy was blocked after Grandmaster reported him for 3RR [304]. While according to checkusers Ehud Lesar who reverted Meowy and caused the block is not Adil, there are reasons to believe he is AdilBaguirov.

Ehud Lesar pretends to be Jew acording to his userpage. [305] He also claims to be part of the Israel Wiki Project while his contribution on Jews is basically limited on things related to Azerbaijan. It seem as a cover. Besides, AdilBaguirov has already pretended to be Jewish with his account Weiszman. Both Weiszman and Ehud Lesar to have some similar editing patterns. First, both started contributing the same month. [306], [307]. In Ehud Lesar case, after his first edit which was on 28 March he stopped editing all together while Weiszman was contributing. Ehud Lesar only resumed edition after Weiszman was banned.

Hours after Ehud Lesar started editing the Church of Kish Qurultay register, while at first his edits seemed in good faith soon after he made edits on the Armenian reference on the Pan-Turkism and extended the edit war on the Denial of the Armenian Genocide. [308]

Aivazovsky

Aivazovsky has violated his revert parole six times. [309]. Obviously, temporary sanctions are not enough to stop disruptive editing by this user. Perhaps indefinite ban will be more appropriate.--TigranTheGreat 09:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Makalp

This person who is probably the most disruptive and who is not banned is Makalp (of course given that Atabek so close of being banned has still continued with his disruption, we can classify him just as much disruptive), I will not even waste my time providing all his disruptions, I have randomnly selected a date range and provide a sample of his disruptions not so long ago and will not bother upgrading. The arbitration will see it when it scrutinizes his behavior.

• [310] Here he is contacting Baristarim to help him off with his revert war and to broaden the revert war, clearly a disruption by his part.

• [311] Here he is reverting dubiously again and also asks Aivazovsky to see talk page, to which he didn't add anything new...bizarre.

• [312] Here, because he is in denial with the content, actually deleted the entire hard-worked information on the page and redirected it to another article.

• [313] Here, he is trying to speedy delete something Hetoum has been working on to improve the Van Resistance article without giving a warning to Hetoum about it and whatever his problem is with the article.

• [314] Here he takes off an entire section that has been sourced by verifiable sources.

• [315] Here he reverts the hard work of Khoikhoi to NPOV the article and to eliminate undue weight. No explanation is given.

• [316] Here he removes sourced material with an edit summary claiming that "it's an attack"

• [317], [318] This one, like most of his edits, are nationalistically driven in order to create a "battleground of nationalistic lines"

• [319] His reverts are not only nationalistically driven, here he reverts a grammar mistake...

• [320] Reverts of referenced material (including BBC) without any discussion, not even an edit summary.

• [321] Here he dubiously changed Armenia into Azerbaijan, knowing that tensions between the two exist here on Wiki already.

• [322] Again, he adds the same thing he is adding everywhere, breaking WP:POINT

• [323] Makalp here RANDOMLY stalks Aivazovsky and threatens to check his edit on Armenians. This kind of behaviour not only fails to assume good faith (it's like Aivazovsky's out to do trouble) but it is discouraging.

• [324] Here Makalp vandalizes Van Resistance by inserting bad spelling of all things. Odd.

• [325] Here he reverts to a version without the rightful Armenian name of the article's subject (this is kind of like an agenda of his) and calls Vartan's rv "stupid."

Evidence presented by Pam55

False accusations by Grandmaster

I beleive admins should consider behaviors of User:Grandmaster and others who are supporting his false accusations. They keep accusing me of being a meetpuppet and sockpuppet while userchecks by admin Voice of All and further investigations by admins Alex Bakharev and Alison have shown that User:Pam55 and User:Behmod are different users [[326]].

In his evidence, Grandmaster have provided misleading information to support his false accusations:

• He claims that I never contacted admin Alison while I was mistakenly blocked, though, it is totally wrong. Although at that time I was in the vacation and away from home, I tried to contact Alison and requested to unblock me [[327]] .

• He also claims that admin [[User:Alison]|Alison] did not agreed with unblocking me which is also wrong. [[328]]. Actually, I was unblocked by Alison: [[329]] , and [[330]].

I should add that these users have low level of tolerance and consider everybody who once edits their entries or revert their POVs as a enemy. They even did not let me as a newbie to have more than 20 edits and brought me in this Arbcom.

Pam55 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Fedayee

Dacy69

I am amazed that user:Grandmaster will include the incident on the Armenian Revolutionary Federation article between user:Dacy69 and Bagramyan when the main responsible person for the incident was user:Dacy69. Furthermore, user:Grandmaster’s description is inaccurate... I was there and the answer itself becomes evidence against user:Dacy69.

After the first Arbitration closed on April 11, 2007 [331], user:Dacy69 resumed his editing on that article two days later [332] by re-introducing a controversial source by a man named Papazian, which had previously caused the revert wars and closing of the article, as well as the banning of Fadix since this piece of evidence was his answer. Ironically, before the edit, user:Dacy69 claimed he will be using other sources [333] but added the Papazian source regardless. Marshall intervened to prevent another conflict but was later reported to user:Thatcher131 [334], and then user:Kirill Lokshin [335]. user:Dacy69 then made a good move by requesting a RFC [336] but also didn’t fail to report Marshall back to user:Thatcher131 [337]. Then he reported me and Bagramyan to the Administrators' notice board [338]. At one point after user:Grandmaster’s and user:Dacy69’s abusive reports (I will cover Grandmaster separately), Bagramyan viewed these continuous reports as harassment and he complained about both Dacy69’s and Grandmaster’s abusive reporting [339], [340].

What user:Grandmaster fails to report on what went wrong at the Armenian Revolutionary Federation article is that user:Dacy69 constantly refused to assume good faith by throwing words such as: You are just desperately trying to protect this page from truth.[341] “The truth” which according to him was the participation of ARF in terrorist activity and extermination of civilians [342]. Also, he intellectually intimidated other editors, user:Hajji Piruz has reported above some examples on user:Dacy69’s questioning of other users’ intellectual capacity. Here, I'll add few more examples myself: Editors who refuses to go for DR perhaps have poor reasoning or simply are afraid and protecting pages just like they own them. [343]. Fedayee - You don't know the history of that period well. [344]

During the discussing he still continued discrediting scholars (I will cover his more recent disruptions separately) because of their ethnicity: Well, how Armenian origin author Bournatian is reliable. [345]. Also, regardless of the complaints during the last arbitration case, particularly by user:Fadix, user:Dacy69 has still continued claiming those opposing him as his opponents: Opponents think that some sources are politically charged. I agree to remove some of them - like Papazian. But the opponent editors seems are not willing to accept any edit in this line from me. [346]I made edit, opponents questions its reliability. I am ready to prove it. That's it. I have 5 references. I am ready to stand behind them and support them with additional references. [347] This kind of “battleground mentality” has no place in Wikipedia.

Also, user:Grandmaster posted this from user:Thatcher131. Again, Grandmaster uses other users’ opinions as a testament of misbehaviour regarding those who he still considers as his opponents. What user:Grandmaster failed to say is that user:Thatcher131 was not aware that user:Dacy69’s provided sources were not supporting what he claimed. Marshall answered user:Thatcher131 here setting the record straight. user:Grandmaster distorts this as if Marshall blindly reverted user:Dacy69, when he did nothing such, as full explanations of his action were given, like this.

Furthermore, user:Grandmaster’s evidence is bogus as seen here and the events which he relates to should actually place most of the blame on user:Dacy69, who refused to assume good faith and just after the first arbitration closed, resumed his disruptive activity. He (user:Grandmaster) even claimed that only after user:Thatcher131 evaluated the source did Marshall stop edit warring. First, that he edit warred is totally user:Grandmaster’s POV, but in the event that he did edit war, user:Grandmaster’s description is not accurate. In reality, user:Dacy69 made major changes to his edits, as can be seen here and it was only then that, using user:Grandmaster’s words, did Marshall stop edit warring.

He (Grandmaster) dares to include the 3RR violation by Bagramyan who was reverting banned user:AdilBaguirov’s multiple socks. I will cover user:AdilBaguirov individually because I find user:TigranTheGreat’s evidence is just not enough, I just raised the issue to show that while Grandmaster has reported users to have them banned because they were reverting socks (the evidence will be included on user:Grandmaster’s section, not to mention that he himself reverted suspected socks)... he hypocritically defended user:Dacy69 on various occasions for the same reason as to why Marshall was blocked in the first place [348], [349], [350]. I think user:Dacy69 is a little too quick in suspecting and then getting away with it, while others have been even blocked and all the same time, he'll report excessively, which includes the following: [351], [352], [353], [354], [355], [356], [357], [358], [359] - Fedayee 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by VartanM

In response to Grandmaster's accusation of my edit warring, I would like the Arbitration Committee to note that on Church of Kish article, before the edit war started, I requested page protection[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=139250408#Church_of_Kish_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clo s.29], and I was reverting a suspected socks, which later turned out to be AdilBaguirov [360] who was banned by this committee for 1 year. On House of Hasan-Jalalyan I only reverted twice[361] [362](not counting AdilBaguirov socks), the other user involved was Parishan who kept removing sourced information based on the source being Armenian. On Paytakaran my revert was to a mediated version, the revert war was then continued by Aynabend(Ulvi l) and Parishan who acted as meatpuppets to Grandmaster by reverting to his version. On Varoujan Garabedian article Atabek's edit was violating WP:BLP[363] and he was conducting WP:OR when he added terrorist category to the article[364]. On Ganja article first Grandmaster removed a well sourced information about Armenian history of Ganja [365] then Parishan[366] and Aynabend[367](note the misleading edit summary the text had 3 refrences) followed him by revert warring. My first and only block occurred during my first month as a Wikpedia user and I was not fully aware of all the Wikipedia rules[368].

Atabek

Atabek is one of most disruptive editors I have ever encountered. He has caused so much damage to Wikipedia I don't even know where to start. Maybe with his disruptive editing in the line of POV pushing which includes redirecting the main article Anti-Turkism [369] to Turkophobia to concord it with the FORK category he has created. Actually he'll find every excuses to introduce ASALA or refer to Armenian terrorism to articles which seems irrelevent. [370]. Here he extend his association of Iranism with nazism to the Aryan article. On Qazakh article he [371] switched Armenian for a list of Armenian writers and add Albanian instead because some suspect just one in the list to be Albanian.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.