Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hajji Piruz (talk | contribs) at 20:02, 27 June 2007 (→Response to Dacy69). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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" post 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:

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:

Canvassing for the RFC:

Canvassing before the arbcom even started:

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):

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:

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: [21] He then asks Kansasbear to redo his edit: "Kansas Bear, you can make your architecture edits over this version." [22]

2)Atabek reverted the legitimate edits by an anonomous user which actually improved the article, and calls it vandalism: [23]

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."[24]

"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."[25]

"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...[26]

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"[27]
  2. "I am working on Pan-Aryan collage meanwhile. Thanks."[28]

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": [29]
  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): [30]
  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." [31]
  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."[32]
  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." [33]
  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" [34]

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"." [35]

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."[36]

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."[37]

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."[38]
  2. Too much to post here: [39]

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." [40]
  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."[41]
  3. "I see is to simply ignore this user, not engage in any conversation with him."[42]
  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"[43]
  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." [44]

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.[45]
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?" [46] (Tariqabjotu's last comment is in regards to Atabeks comment which is in the middle)

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:

Canvassing

Canvassing for his image:

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?"[47]
  2. "You should have some decency." [48]
  3. "I think people with medium level of intelligence understand what I am talking about when we speak about historical myths, perceptions, traditions." [49]

Personal attack against User:Pejman47

  1. Implies that Pejman47 is not smart: "Hm. You have mistyped Washington Quarterly - I hope it is by mistake."[50]

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."[51]
  2. Threatening to spam Iran-related articles: [52], [53], [54]
  3. Threatening admin intervention and arbcom if he doesnt get his demands: [55]
  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: [56]

Disruptive behavior

Looking at Dacy69's contributions, it becomes evident that most of what he does is edit/revert war and 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:

Grandmaster

Elsanaturk

Parishan

Zondi

Batabat

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 [57], 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

Personal attacks, harassment, intimidation, bad faith by Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani

  • After the previous ArbCom [58], User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani started his first attack upon me by this edit [59] on my own user page, when WP:USER states that he should have discussed and reached an approval before editing my user page. This action was an intimidation with a purpose of provoking me, and in fact, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani clearly spelled it out his 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" -- [60].
  • "it seems as though the initial plea not to allow him to get away with a revert parole was warrented." -- [61].
  • "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" -- [63].
  • "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" -- [64].
  • 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" -- [65].
  • Accusing me of vandalism:
  • "Atabek, your last edit on this article could be considered vandalism." -- [66].
  • 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." -- [67].

Battling along ethnic and national lines by Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani

  • "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" - [68].
  • 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." - [69].
  • Inviting Armenian contributor User:VartanM to contribute to RfC, which has nothing to do with Armenia [70]. With all assumptions of good faith, this seems nothing other than attempt to broaden the conflict.

Revert Warring and Wikistalking by Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani

Supporting and taking advantage of socks and meats by Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani

False and baseless accusations by User:Hajji Piruz

Frustrated by disruptive behavior of User:Hajji Piruz, I requested help [82] 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 [83]. I have also requested help from User:Thatcher131 as the manager of the last ArbCom case [84]. I don't understand why contacting several administrators about an unresolved issue would be considered a violation. After all, I did so with a purpose of resolving situation not violating rules by myself.

Opening an endless thread at User:Tariqabjotu's talk page and accusing me of canvassing, User:Hajji Piruz has started an RfC against myself. User:Hajji Piruz was first advised to open a CEM case, and when I simply asked a 3rd party user for advise [85], User:Hajji Piruz 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. Again, I don't understand why contacting another administrator, with questions or resolution attempts is considered a violation, while wikistalking, bad faith assumptions, baiting users into bans, massive edit warring, and meatpuppeteering like User:Hajji Piruz does, is not.

Further attacks, harassment and baiting by User:Hajji Piruz

Continuing on, User:Hajji Piruz then convinced User:Tariqabjotu to file an RfC against myself [86], an effort which nevertheless failed to yield sufficient public support. Even some 3rd party users have noted that User:Hajji Piruz was clearly intimidating me and provoking a conflict [87]. User:Hajji Piruz has even requested an RfC comment about myself from a sock for whom he made the talk page [88].

User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani is now trying to continue on with his goal in ArbCom, wasting the committee's valuable time. Instead of advised WP:AGF.

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)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Parishan

{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.

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 nvassing 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. [89] User:Hajji Piruz clearly stated the desired outcome in the RfC he started on Atabek, which is getting Atabek permanently banned. [90]

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. [91]

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.

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, [92] but his edit was reverted nonetheless with the same accusation of soapboxing: [93] 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. [94] 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: [95]

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

User:Hetoum I is known for being engaged in vandalism of my user page about one year ago. At that time he was using the name of User:Hetoum. 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 [96] [97] and left this message: [98] Nlu removed the tags only on a condition that Hetoum would stop edit warring and vandalizing: [99] [100] 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: [101] [102] Hetoum vandalized user pages of other Azerbaijani contributors as well: [103] using the same IP to edit his own user page: [104]

Edit warring and personal attacks by User: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 [105] and: Look stay on topic and stop barking like a dog at me, and on top of that making crap up. [106] As result, the page Church of Kish got protected. I raised the issue at WP:ANI: [107] 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, [108] [109] and the page got protected again.

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. [110]

User:MarshallBagramyan

User:MarshallBagramyan 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. Only then Marshall stopped edit warring. 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. [111]

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: [112] 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. [113] I think it was a mistake to place some users on parole and let others go, as those not on parole instantly took advantage of the situation and resumed edit warring. I would propose as a better solution placing all topic related pages on parole, that would be a more effective measure.

User:Behmod/User:Pam55

I would like to ask the arbitrators to review the situation with the account of User:Pam55. Checkuser proved that Pam55 was a sock of User:Behmod: 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. [114] 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: [115] Blocking admin User:Alison said that Pam55 never tried to contact her with regard to the block or pursue formal unblock procedure: [116] I think that unblocking Pam55 was a mistake, it is either a sock or meatpuppet and as such should be banned.

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 - [117] 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 - [118]. 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 [119], [120] 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 [121]

user:Hajji Piruz harassment

This is false report about me [122].

user:AlexanderPar

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2/Evidence&oldid=141028052"