From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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/?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:

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: [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: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." [42]

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." [43]

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." [44]
  2. Too much to post here: [45]

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." [46]
  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." [47]
  3. "I see is to simply ignore this user, not engage in any conversation with him." [48]
  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" [49]
  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." [50]

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. [51]
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?" [52] (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: [53]

Assumptions of bad faith by Atabek

  • Bagramyan, were you present with Melkonian in Karabakh to know where he was? Or is this another one of those self-convincing claims? [54]
  • any attempt to add any form of the regional census table is being prevented now for the reasons of hiding the ground truth. [55]
  • It would not hurt if you once read the references on the page before reverting them. [56]
  • Vartanm, seems like you are disregarding references, edit warring and POV pushing regardless of our attempts to discuss edits [57]
  • Puts my former name in quotation marks (a reason why I had to have my name changed, for that continually type of harrassment): "Azerbaijani", why don't you calm down your anger a bit [58]
  • The move is the result of POV-pushing [59]
  • So I don't see a basis here for POV pushing using [60]
  • Do you even review what you're reverting? [61]
  • It seems that the contributor has a hidden agenda of targeting specifically Republic of Azerbaijan on every topic, sometimes sounding rather radical even for an ordinary Iranian contributor, all of which are not so hostile about this particular country. [62]
  • Your removal and purturbation (title changing) of originally sourced information from the article is essentially an attempt to misrepresent information. [63]
  • All these campaigns and wars on Azerbaijan-related pages, POV, OR pushing, etc. seem to be leading in the same direction - anti-Turkism. And the question is: why so much hatred? What's the purpose and who is the benefactor? [64]
  • Edit summary (it was made clear to Atabek that my edits were not vandalism): User:Azerbaijani a.k.a. Hajji Pirouz vandalizing my page [65]
  • My accusers, mainly User:Vartanm and User:MarshallBagramyan are the two users constantly edit warring and taking advantage of the fact of being left out of ArbCom...You may want to check their edit warring history, and I think both must be placed on the revert parole through ArbCom. Their editting pattern is not at all any different from those who were banned or restricted on either side. [66]
  • Hajji Piruz is baiting using sock User:Naharar, an account which was established today...I am victim of intimidation by User:Hajji Piruz, he is wikistalking every single one of my edits and trying to get me blocked. It's a subject of current ArbCom. [67]
  • And you seem to be another provocative sockpuppet [68]


More: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]

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?" [80]
  2. "You should have some decency." [81]
  3. "I think people with medium level of intelligence understand what I am talking about when we speak about historical myths, perceptions, traditions." [82]

Personal attack against User:Pejman47

  1. Implies that Pejman47 is not smart: "Hm. You have mistyped Washington Quarterly - I hope it is by mistake." [83]

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." [84]
  2. Threatening to spam Iran-related articles: [85], [86], [87]
  3. Threatening admin intervention and arbcom if he doesnt get his demands: [88]
  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: [89]

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):

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:

Grandmaster has engaged in POV/OR:

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: [108] and [109]

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: [110]
  2. Parishan reverted the controversial Church of Kish article, after Zondi and Dacy69 had also reverted on the same day: [111]
  3. Parishan reverted the controversial Paytakaran article twice [112] and [113], 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 [114]
  2. Heroes of Azerbaijan Reverted to Dacy69

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

  1. [115]

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: [116]

User:Aynabend AKA User:Ulvi I.

His contributions show that he only comes around once in awhile and that is mostly to revert or vote in AFD's, etc... Only edits about a dozen times or less times (rough estimation) a month, and most of these is to either revert or involve himself in discussions supporting User:Grandmaster, User:Atabek, User:Parishan, etc... Recently (since late May) he has been involved in reverting on controversial articles such as Safavids, Church of Kish, and House of Hasan-Jalalyan, coming around a few times a month to do this.

User:AdilBaguirov

This section is Under Construction

AdilBaguirovhas continually created throwaway sock puppet accounts in violation of his one year block. His actions have disrupted Wikipedia. Sometimes he comes to support Atabek, Grandmaster, or Dacy69, other times he has made reverts or partial reverts to versions by Atabek, Grandmaster, or Dacy69, and at other times he has made his own edits to articles.

His list of socks includes: User:DrAlban, User:Zhirtibay, User:Otvetniyudar, User:Aramgutan, User:Naharar, User:HachikTumanyan, User:AlexParKinson, and User:Talyshli (I'm probably forgetting some).

Everytime one sock got banned he would simply create another throwaway account and continue to revert war. He has impersonated being English, Armenian, Uzbek, Kazak, Jewish, and Iranian.

Yeprem Khan article: Atabek reverts [117] and then Naharar comes into the picture and reverts to Atabek while also making other edits on top [118], [119], [120]

Qajar article: Atabek makes edits [121] then Naharar comes into the picture again [122], [123], [124], [125], [126] followed by Elsanaturk [127]

Ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan: Naharar again made these edits [128], [129], [130]

Gandzasar Monastery: AdilBaguirov started a revert war using Armagutan [131], [132], [133], and then once Armagutan was banned, Otvetnivudar continues [134], [135], [136]

Church of Kish: DrAlban (reverts back to a version by Atabek) [137], [138], [139] followed by Otvetnivudar [140] followed by Zhirtibay [141].

House of Hasan-Jalalyan: Armagutan [142], [143], [144], After Armagutan gets banned Otvetniyudar continues [145], [146], [147], and then HachikTumanyan [148], [149]

Justin McCarthy (American historian): Aramgutan [150], [151], [152], followed by Otvetnivudar [153], [154], [155] followed by HachikTumanyan [156], [157]

Syunik: Otvetnivudar [158], [159], [160]

Movses Kagankatvatsi: Interestingly, AdilBaguirov at first adds his own edits on top of Atabek and Grandmasters edits, and reverts to his own version but then he suddenly starts to revert to Grandmasters version instead of his own, which he had initially been doing. Hachiktoumanyan [161] followed by DrAlban [162], [163], [164] (reverts back to Grandmasters version [165]), followed by Zhirtibay [166] (reverts to Grandmasters version [167]), [168] (reverts to Grandmasters version [169])

Ethnic Minorities in Iran: AlexParkinson [170] (a revert to Ahwaz, who was involved in the article alongside Dacy69, version [171])

Iranian origin of the Azerbaijanis: AlexParkinson [172]

Iran-Azerbaijan relations: AlexParkinson [173] (a revert back to Atabeks version [174])

Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy: AlexParkinson [175] (reverts back to Dacy69's version [176])

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 [177], 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 [178], User:Azerbaijani with a block log [179] 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 [180] 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 [181]), 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" -- [182].
  • "it seems as though the initial plea not to allow him to get away with a revert parole was warrented." -- [183].
  • "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" -- [185].
  • "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" -- [186].
  • 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" -- [187].
  • Accusing me of vandalism:
  • "Atabek, your last edit on this article could be considered vandalism." -- [188].
  • 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." -- [189].
  • Yet another inability to assume good faith, personal attacks, and disturbing anger on this ArbCom page -- [190]
  • "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: -- [191]
  • "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 -- [192].
  • Bad faith again [193] - 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 [194] 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 [195]. I have also requested help from User:Thatcher131 as the manager of the last ArbCom case [196]. 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 [197], 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 [198], 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 [199]. User:Hajji Piruz has even requested an RfC comment about myself from a sock for whom he made the talk page [200]. 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.
  • [201], bad faith accusation of Wikistalking. I noticed the AfD nomination while reviewing the WP:AfD log [202], and voted. My vote was 7 hours after that of Hajji Piruz on a general administrative page and had nothing to do with his edit, while his Wikistalking is usually minutes after mine on topical pages which he never touched before, immediately following and/or reverting my edits.
  • [203] - again assuming bad faith, pushing OR, after his edit, in which he removed some 5 different legitimate sources [204]
  • [205] - more bad faith: "Atabek does this all the time. I was going to post evidence on how he baits people and then posts frivolous evidence with false descriptions. These guys, along with Dacy69, gang up on me, as well as other users, in order to push their point of view"

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" - [206].
  • 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." - [207].
  • Inviting Armenian contributor User:VartanM to contribute to RfC, which has nothing to do with Armenia [208]. With all assumptions of good faith, this seems nothing other than attempt to broaden the conflict.
  • Engaging in battle along national lines even on the page related to Azerbaijani cinematography(!) [209], with hateful [210] and provocative [211] comments.

Wikistalking

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:

Supporting socks, meatpuppeting

  • Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani actively supported [223] the known IP socks of User:Tajik on Safavid dynasty. Among those socks was User:German-Orientalist, confirmed as a sockpuppet [224], for whom Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani even started a discussion page [225]. 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.

Other (miscellaneous)

  • [230] - User:Hajji Piruz was warned by an administrator for "vandalizing" (in administrator's interpretation) the 3RR page.

Personal Attacks by banned User:Tajik

User:Tajik who is banned by ArbCom on a case unrelated to me [231] has used socks and engaged in edit wars at Safavid dynasty. The list of his numerous socks was identified and blocked [232]. Yet, User:Tajik has further accused me [233] of "starting edit war with User:Hajji Piruz", when it wasn't me but User:Hajji Piruz who edited my userpage, filed an RfC and initiated the ArbCom case. Banned User:Tajik further calls me "a snake", "racist", "anti-Persian" and accuses me of "vandalism" [234]. I cannot understand the point of his attack, when he was banned due to an ArbCom case unrelated to me. This increasingly seems like an organized attack against myself, involving User:Hajji Piruz and User:Tajik.

User AlexanderPar

Revert warring, battling along national lines, violating WP:NPOV

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:VartanM

Revert warring and NPOV violations

  • Continuing the discussion started by the sock of banned User:Fadix, and yet unable to dispute the scholarly references at Talk:Khachen, User:VartanM joins User:Fedayee in simply removing the entire content of article with 7-8 referenced scholarly articles by two sentences and bunch of POV/OR websites links [248].
  • On Varoujan Garabedian, User:VartanM was persistently removing legitimate references. His last attempt [249], actually removes the reference to Agence France Presse article, just because it's, ironically, linked to Armenian(!) website, citing Garabedian as a terrorist.
  • On the same page [250], [251], devoted to an individual who was convicted and served almost 2 decades sentence for a terrorist attack in France, killing 8 people at Orly Airport, User:VartanM is POV pushing to prove that Terrorism category does not apply. If this category does not apply to Garabedian, I don't see why this category exists at all. He was also trying [252] to remove the link to the U.S. State Department report, again claiming the source illegitimate.
  • On Karabakh claims the word "occupy" unacceptable [253], despite U.N. Security Council resolution stating so and WP:WTA not prohibiting the usage of this word.
  • On Monte Melkonian, removing [254] Turkophobia/Anti-Turkism category from the page of a person who committed terrorist acts against Turks, as the Armenian source [255], book written by Melkonian's own brother, confirms :
"Having inadvertently assassinated the wife and children of a Turkish diplomat, first time out, as a freedom fighter in Greece, as a member of ASALA, he had come to regret carelessness and sloppiness in action."

Incivil Comments

  • [256] - accusing editors of nazism.
  • [257] - accusing User:Makalp of vandalism for removing unencyclopedic website link.
  • [258] - attacking user's edit by telling him to learn English and reverting.
  • [259] - adding WP:OR and calling User:Makalp's edit - a vandalism.
  • [260] - threatening User:Denizz against removing his unsourced WP:OR.
  • [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279] - On June 13, 2007 between 20:23 and 20:52 - within 29 minutes, User:VartanM made 19 reverts on a dozen pages, and in 18 of those cases called User:Makalp's edits as "vandalism"
  • [280] -- "You're understanding of Wikipedia is all wrong, I am observing on your behavior, assuming good faith doesn't include observations but rather concerns to not jump to judgments on ones behavior, without obvious malicious acts."
  • [281] - replacing only a single word "terrorist" in the description of a recognized terrorist organization ASALA, and calling the prior edit a "vandalism".

Bad Faith

  • [282] - falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry and inserting a tag on my talk page.
  • [283] - claims that he knows that I do not have socks, yet still includes my name in CheckUser report.
  • [284] VartanM claims:
  • "Khachen family tree as seen from past to present are scholarly recognized as Armenian. Atabek will even remove that Khach in Armenian means cross"
Apart from plain WP:SOAP (Khachen family (Mihranids) was actually Parthian per Hajji Piruz), VartanM simply assumes bad faith by predicting what I will do ("hach" actually means "cross" in Turkish).
  • [285] - more bad faith along ethnic lines: "You are mudding it down, by direct source attribution for everytime there is something on Armenians you placed it in second order, as if its some opinion, and if there is somehting about Albanians and Azerbaijan, both of which words you abuse, you presented as facts."

Personal Attacks

  • "Atabek, your accusation that I blind reverted this article is idiotic".
  • [287] -- reverts the edit by casual yet established long-time contributor, calling it a "vandalism".
  • [288]
Edit warring on Anti-Turkism over the topic of massacres in Eastern Anatolia in 1915 leaves the following comment:
* "Thanks for sharing your views Atabek, but this is not the Atabekipedia, can't deny the well known fact"
  • After yet another revert removing several references [289], User:VartanM further attacks on the talk page [290] - "Your mud slinging and wiki-retaliation will leave no doubt in anyones eyes, including the arbitrators, that your presence on Wikipedia is not in good faith. That there is one option left to stop your disruptions"
  • [291] - User:VartanM comments:
  • "You have to apply your non expert abilities on someone else." - clear assumption of bad faith and personal attack.

WP:SOAP along national lines

[292] - claims that I deny Armenian Genocide in his evidence, as if denial of the allegations of genocide (per UN Convention) in Ottoman Empire is supposed to be a disruption. Actually the fact that it's insisted upon as Armenian Genocide is a violation of NPOV, because 1) there was no international court tribunal that ever identified victims or charged those responsible as a crime of genocide; 2) the DRA troops participated in warfare in Eastern Anatolia during that time under the command of General Dro and many others Armenian commanders; 3) among victims of massacres were not only Armenians, but also Turks and Kurds; 4) majority of sources claiming it genocide are authored by Armenians, while the independent sources are divided in their opinions. So the most NPOV definition that can be used here is Armenian Massacres.

User:TigranTheGreat

Disruptive editing and battling along national lines

  • In [293], 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 .
  • 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 [295] raises questions about basic humanism of a person claiming this as "fictional".

Bad Faith

In his evidence, TigranTheGreat [296], falsely claims:

  • That I created Turkophobia, when the history of the page says otherwise [297]
  • That User:Batabat is myself, when it was shown [298] and [299] that Batabat is not related to me or any other active user.

User:Aivazovsky

Bad faith and comments along national lines

In his posting on User talk:TigranTheGreat, User:Aivazovsky assumes bad faith and claims [ [300] that I "baited" him to violate his parole (doing so over 5 times since his 1RR parole [301]) on Azerbaijan. He further invited User:TigranTheGreat to "consider a different approach instead of a compromise with Azeri users" [302] which was clearly a comment made in bad faith along national lines.

User:Hetoum I

Engaged in disruptive editing, threats [303] against User:Ghirlandajo, and calling contributor's legitimate edits as vandalism [304].

User:OnlySpeak

The entire history of user, who registered on July 31st, shows only disruptive reverts:

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

Responce to BehnamFarid

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." [309] 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. [310] 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. [311] 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. [312] As you see, he continues personal attacks on me and my intellectual capabilities in his evidence 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) reply

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: [313]. 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) reply

Response to VartanM

My involvement in Paytakaran is justified since I actively participated in the discussion of the article, like i stated above: [314]. My removal of the Armenian source was based on my assumption that Armenian sources are not the best ones when it comes to controversial topics like House of Hasan-Jalalyan that remain a matter of huge debate between the Armenian and Azerbaijani academia. I provided the appropriate explanation here: [315], however my edit was undone by User:VartanM followed by him accusing me of "nacism" (which must have meant Nazism) [316] that in my opinion is beyond unacceptable.

VartanM himself has been making statements with hidden chauvinistic messages. On Talk:Huseyn Seyidzadeh he was asking me to provide a third-party source concerning the biography of this Azerbaijani film director. When I replied that there is currently only one source on the Internet where Seyidzadeh's biography is presented in relatively thorough detail, and it is an Azerbaijani website, he said he understood why I could not find anything relevant, and that was because "not everyone can be Parajanov's." Film director Sergei Parajanov's Armenian origins together with that remark, coming from an Armenian user (according to the information in his profile), are a hidden indication by VartanM that Azerbaijan allegedly is naturally incapable of being home to notable film directors. Parishan 06:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Response to MarshallBagramyan

Regarding my revert on Paytakaran, I as an active participant of the discussion did it simply because User:Hakob referred to the discussion when reverting the page, yet he had never made a comment in it.

The accusation of me violating WP:Point is completely baseless. On August 3 (which is also the date of its publication), I happened to have read an interview with the Azerbaijani historian Rovshan Mustafayev, who claimed Ferenc Szálasi was Armenian [317] (the interview is in Russian). In order to confirm this information, I searched it on Google and among the first 4 results I came across a neutral source: [318], The Alternative by Julian Semenov (also in Russian), where Ferenc Szálasi is described as the "leader of Hungarian fascists <...>, a naturalized Armenian; a man of strong will and fanatical sense of motivation." Evidently, no other ancestries are listed. Based on this, I searched the Wikipedia article on this political figure, and added the category upon making sure it had not been present there. Parishan 04:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Response to TigranTheGreat

...is in fact unnecessary, since this user does not seem to read comments on talkpages or make sense of the essence of the articles that he claims were inappropriately edited by me. The portions that follow the ‡ symbol were added later, upon TigranTheGreat's further explanation on August 18:

  • The addition of an Azeri name into Lake Sevan was justified by the fact that throughout the Middle Ages and up until the 1930s the lake was known by its Azeri name - Goycha (lit. diminutive of blue). The name Sevan did not appear on geographical maps until the early Soviet era. Besides, the lands adjacent to the lake from the east and southeast were historically populated by Azeris until the early 1990s. He compares the latter with Jews in Germany. I guess, he would not mind then if I start questioning the presence of the Armenian name in the Karabakh article, and all the other articles about Azerbaijani regions that have historically been population by Armenians, because, according to TigranTheGreat, that is not sufficient to include the Armenian name. ‡ There are thousands of sources proving the fact that Azeris populated this region for centuries. I have no intention of presenting any, as this is not a discussion board. TigranTheGreat displays total lack of knowledge on the history and formation of Azeris, especially due to his 'Turkified Circassians' comment (Circassians never widely populated South Caucasus). Regardless of the origin of Azeris and their ethnonym, the language was always present in the region and was commonly used to refer to the lake. It may have had thousands of other names, but this name was in wide use, made obvious by a strong ethnic Azeri presence in the region.
  • Sayat-Nova was known for writing in Armenian, Azeri, Georgian and Persian. Hence his poetry was not associated with the Armenian language only. Why shouldn't the names in those other languages be there? ‡ 'Eastern Turkish', in which TigranTheGreat claims Sayat-Nova wrote, is not a language. Nowhere, except for some post-1991 propaganda Armenian sources, has Azeri been ever referred to as 'Eastern Turkish.' In fact, many pre-Soviet European travellers, including Aleksandr Bestuzhev, did a great job distinguishing between Turkish and Azeri.
  • Kars, Igdir, Mount Ararat and the territories around them are populated among all by ethnic Azeris. If the Kurdish and Armenian names are there, why shouldn't the Azeri name be? Apparently TigranTheGreat had not done enough research before questioning himself and others, why I added those names. ‡ Those Azeris may have been natives, they may have been later migrants - it does not matter. The fact is, they have resided there in large numbers for centuries, and their language is currently spoken in the area. This is enough evidence to include the Azeri name into the article.
  • TigranTheGreat's argument about Jerusalem is simply ridiculous. The article is called Names of Jerusalem, it includes its names in as many languages as possible. The languages in the article include Urdu, Hindi and Old Norse that are not at all traditional to the region. If that's the case, why shouldn't the Azeri name be there? Clearly not because TigranTheGreat does not like it that way. Or he might report me for adding the Azeri names into John (name), Joseph (name), Names of the Greeks, Names of tea, etc. ‡ From TigranTheGreat's explanation, I still do not see why the Azeri name should not be there. There are more than one pair of names that match in pronunciation. Is this argument serious enough? I don't think so. In fact, it seems to me that what TigranTheGreat is bothered by the mere presence of the Azeri name in so many articles.
  • Kochari is an Azerbaijani dance, regardless of its roots. Its wide popularity among Azeris is an argument serious enough to include that name into the article. Before haunting my every edit, TigranTheGreat should have at least used the means as basic as Google to understand my motive. ‡ The word kochari perfectly translates from Azeri, unlike for instrance from Armenian. In literary Turkish, the word is also spelled differently (göçeri with köçeri being a dialectical variation), which makes the Azeri name the closest of all to the origins of the name. It seems to me, Azeri of all languages should be present there.
  • I feel obliged to help TigranTheGreat with the translation of the Russian source I provided for Lingua franca, despite him reporting being fluent in it. The source says: "Кумыкский язык является “международным” почти всего Северного Кавказа (от Каспийского моря до Кабарды включительно), азербайджанский господствует в большей части Закавказья (кроме Черноморского побережья) и, кроме того, в Турецкой Армении, Курдистане и в Северной Персии." (translation: "The Kumyk language is 'international' in almost all of the North Caucasus (from the Caspian Sea to Kabarda inclusively), and Azeri dominates in most of the Transcaucasia (except the Black Sea coast) and, besides that, in the Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan and northern Persia."). The article was published in the 1930s by the renowned linguist Nikolai Trubetzkoy, so there is no need to attack the source. ‡ The source is perfectly credible: Trubetzkoy's works were widely recognized in Russia and Western Europe. As for the status of Azeri, it seems from TigranTheGreat's comment, that he does not fully understand the meaning of the expression lingua franca.
  • Sona, in fact, is a quite popular Azeri female name. For instance, it was the name of the wife of millionaire Zeynalabdin Tagiyev and daughter of general Balakishi Arablinski. The word sona ( IPA: [soˈna]) means beauty in the Azeri language, according to the dictionary. ‡ In Armenian, the name could be a derivative of anything. In Azeri, it carries a specific meaning and is unrelated to Armenian. The source is presented above. I doubt that TigranTheGreat's personal dissatisfaction with the origins of this Azeri name is a noteworthy argument.
  • In the article about Hayhurums, I did mention that the provided opinions belong to Azerbaijani historians. ‡ In the 'short paragraph', there were overall five historians mentioned; three of them ( Vladimir Minorsky, Ivan Meshchaninov, Veniamin Kobychev) are not Azerbaijani.
  • I removed the information about the Armenian Genocide from Azeris in Turkey, because the former has virtually nothing to do with the topic of the article. I do not see the relevance of what TigranTheGreat refers to as "edit-warring" with Khoikhoi, as the following discussion with Khoikhoi led to the removing of that information anyway.
  • In the Greater Armenia (political concept) article, when I removed the information about the Armenian Genocide and said "concept emerged before 1915", I meant the concept of the Greater Armenia, not the concept of genocide (it is obvious from the word before, which TigranTheGreat seems to confuse with the word after). The concept of the Greater Armenia had nothing to with what happened in 1915, and Armenian ideologists in general came up with it long before 1915. There is no logical point in mentioning that event in the article. ‡ Stating it would be the same as talking about the Renaissance era in Europe and mentioning that in the 1940s World War II here took place. Parishan 17:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The rephrasing of "historical Armenian region" into "predominantly Armenian region" in Nagorno-Karabakh does not violate any rules. The region is predominantly Armenian. Whether it is historical Armenian is subject to debate, especially since TigranTheGreat's only argument is that "NK population was for centuries Armenian" (yet above, we did see him protesting against including the Azeri name of the Lake Sevan into the article, despite the fact that Azeris also lived around it for centuries. Methinks this is what in English we refer to as "double standards.") ‡ Nagorno-Karabakh was associated with Armenians? Good. So was Lake Sevan in relation to Azeris, as seen in every official statistical data on the region. Parishan 02:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • ‡‡ It is nice to see such friendly mutual assistance among some users. As TigranTheGreat promised to "answer this time and only this", there is now somebody else answering for him. This time Fedayee, who is also going to "answer once", has jumped in. So I wonder who will be next. Too bad, the quality of his justification does not differ much from TigranTheGreat's and is bursting with original research. Some examples such as:
  1. "they were mostly associating themselves with the Ottoman Turks"
  2. "Azerbaijani and Turkish are in reality Turkish... It is like two different dialects, could in certain extent be compared with Eastern and Western Armenian"
  3. "those Turkic elements living there have never associated themselves to an ethnicity from the East, but rather to the Ottoman Turks"
  4. "He claims that their language is currently spoken in the area, this is plain wrong"

are nothing but original research, similar to TigranTheGreat's, which I also chose not to comment on.

  • "no Azerbaijani's having lived there for centuries because neither were others calling those Turkic populations as Azerbaijani's neither were them themselves were calling themselves as Azerbaijani" - so what? Eskimos did not call themselves Eskimo, and were not referred as such before the Europeans reached the Americas, yet we cannot claim that "no Eskimos ever lived in Alaska before 1492." The Armenian vs. Phrygian analogy is plain nonsense because the people that populated the territories adjacent to Sevan did not change one bit in terms of ethnicity and language since the times of the Safavids due to lack of new ethnic flows into the region. For more information on this, see the Azerbaijani people article. On the other hand, the Ottoman Turkish rule in the region did not last more than a few decades (and even if it did, so what? With all the similarities, it is still a different language). This is enough to include the Azeri name, different from Turkish and not a derivative of the latter, into the article.
  • I spelled Sayat-Nova's name in the alphabet that was used for Azeri back in his day, and added a modern Roman version because that is what Azeri uses nowadays. The accusations should be laid on whoever removed the Arabic Azeri spelling.
  • More speculation on the Names of Jerusalem. At least, Fedayee admits that the inclusion of some languages "could be debated." Then how would he account for the inclusion of Persian, Urdu and Hindi names according to his little "relevance to Jerusalem" scale? Isn't that a bit too many names to "be debated"? Or is it just the Azeri one, that's causing him a problem? If I ever had any doubts, right now I am positive that for both TigranTheGreat and Fedayee this is nothing but the fear of Azerbaijan-related information "taking over" Wikipedia.
  • Another problem is caused by Kochari. Both TigranTheGreat and Fedayee provided completely OR-related arguments that the dance "comes from the Black Sea." The article has a sourced statement that the dance originated in Kars. Kars, like I stated above, is a region populated by Azeris, as well as Kurds, Turks, Turkmen and others. I guess it is hard for some to accept the fact that the dance is an important element of Azerbaijani culture.
  • As for Sona, it is an Azeri word and name (it may not be Turkic in origin, but let's not forget Azeri does not necessarily mean Turkic). I mean, what more than an Azeri-English dictionary article am I expected to provide to get this simple fact across?

The point is, as a Wikipedian I am free to add relevant, reliable and sourced information to wherever it applies. If somebody had added the Armenian or any other name of xyz into an article at some point in the past, that should not stop me from adding Azeri, French, German, Persian, Zulu, or whatever other version I am able to add into that particular article. This is common sense. I am not doing anything wrong. If TigranTheGreat and Fedayee have got problems with that, well, that just tells me how much prejudice and hostility they possess against anything that starts with Azer-. Parishan 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

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. [319] User:Hajji Piruz clearly stated the desired outcome in the RfC he started on Atabek, which is getting Atabek permanently banned. [320]

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. [321]

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”. [322] It is enough to check any credible encyclopedia to see that Azerbaijanis are Turkic people: [323] 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: [324] [325] [326] [327] [328] 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. Hajji Piruz (formerly Azerbaijani ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) was blocked twice for violation of the arbcom parole: [329] [330] [331]

Hajji Piruz moved the article Arran (Azerbaijan) to a new title without any discussion or consensus on talk: [332] 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, [333] but his edit was reverted nonetheless with the same accusation of soapboxing: [334] 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. [335] 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: [336] This user is also mentioned in a parallel arbcom case here: [337]

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:Pejman47

A quick look at contributions of Pejman47 ( talk · contribs) shows that most of his contributions are reverts in controversial articles in favor of a certain national POV. This user makes almost no use of the talk pages to explain his reverts, and often supports Hajji Piruz by reverting when the latter runs out of his rv limit. The account of Peyman.a ( talk · contribs) appears to be his previous account, which was used to edit war on the History of Azerbaijan article. Disruptive behavior of Pejman47 was raised by a Wikipedia admin at WP:ANI: [338] and by consensus of the admins he was blocked for 3RR gaming: [339] This is the comment made by Pejman47: “I have done my 3rr today, take care till tomorrow!” Also, Pejman47's talk page is full of complaints from other users about this user's reverting.

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 [340] [341] and left this message: [342] Nlu removed the tags only on a condition that Hetoum would stop edit warring and vandalizing: [343] [344] 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: [345] [346] 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: [347] [348] Hetoum vandalized user pages of other Azerbaijani contributors as well: [349] using the same IP to edit his own user page: [350]

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 [351] and: Look stay on topic and stop barking like a dog at me, and on top of that making crap up. [352] As result, the page Church of Kish got protected. I raised the issue at WP:ANI: [353] 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, [354] [355] 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. [356]

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. [357]

Assumption of bad faith and refusal to pursue WP:DR

After Church of Kish got protected third time because of edit warring by Hetoum, I suggested that he tried WP:DR, [358] but he refused, claiming that there’s no dispute and his opponents were engaged in vandalism: [359] An admin advised him to pursue dispute resolution: [360]

Edit warring by VartanM

VartanM ( talk · contribs) (formerly Vartanm ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) 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: [361]

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, [362] 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 [363] [364] together with User:Tricethin, another sock of a banned user: [365], ignoring the talk page, until admin User:Golbez removed that section [366]

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, [367] [368] [369] and eventually the article got protected. Sock accounts TheTruth4578 ( talk · contribs) and 202.41.187.247 ( talk · contribs) reverted in support of Hetoum and Vartan.

User:Meowy

Meowy ( talk · contribs) was invited to join editing the Church of Kish article by Hetoum. [370] Meowy’s response to the invitation already displayed a battleground approach: [371] And this is the comment this user left on talk of Talk:Church of Kish: [372] 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: [373] 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: [374] After arbcom accepted this case Meowy has been once again blocked for 3RR violation, this time for 60 hours: [375] However, this user is still unable to assume good faith and keeps on trying to use Wikipedia for battling along the national lines: [376] 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. [377] More incivility and ethnic battling by Meowy, this time the target of the personal attack is a Wikipedia admin: [378]

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. [379] Only then Marshall stopped edit warring. Marshall was barely staying within the 3RR limit, making 3 rvs a day: [380] [381] [382] 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. [383]

As of now, Marshall continues edit warring on Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan, deleting information from the article without consensus with other editors. Here he deleted a large section from historical background section, leaving only information about Armenian population and deleting any mention that Turkic and other population was deported as well. [384] [385] This info was restored by the admin Khoikhoi after repeated attempts of Marshall to delete it, now Marshall does it again.

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: [386] 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. [387] MarshallBagramyan has recently been blocked for 3RR violation: [388]

Assumption of bad faith by MarshallBagramyan: [389]

Latest example of edit warring by MarshallBagramyan is the article about Movses Kaghankatvatsi. Here Marshall removed the quote from Vladimir Minorsky, a world renowned expert on the region, replacing it with some obscure Armenian source: [390] Here he removed the quote from Minorsky again, keeping only the reference to the source: [391] Here Marshall again removed any mention of alternative version of the ethnic origin of Kaghankatvatsi: [392]

When I added the accurate quote from Robert Hewsen listing all the ancestors of Hasan-Jalal [393], Marshall started edit warring to remove it: [394], [395], [396] This is an obvious attempt to suppress verifiable info by this user, and he makes no effort to discuss his deletion with other involved editors on talk. I described below how this user misquoted the source that he tries to delete now.

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. [397] 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: [398] Blocking admin User:Alison said that Pam55 never tried to contact her with regard to the block or pursue formal unblock procedure: [399] and disagreed with lifting of the block: [400] 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: [401] [402] [403] [404]

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: [405] 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: [406]

Response to accusation of “provocation” by Fedayee

Fedayee claims that I’m guilty of provoking User:Hetoum I, but I don’t think I ever provoked anyone by dismissing unreliable sources. For the record, the source that Hetoum was trying to use as a sole reference for complete rewrite of the article about Church of Kish (Samvel Karapetian) is a blatant Armenian nationalist, which is documented in the book of Thomas de Waal. Karapetian denies the right of Azerbaijani people to live in the territory of Azerbaijan, calls them nomads and interlopers, claims that Caucasian Albania was just a geographic name for the territory populated by Armenians, etc. De Waal even calls him “ultranationalist”. How can such an author be a reliable source, especially when Hetoum was dismissing third party sources that did not agree with Karapetian? I don’t think I made any provocation by questioning reliability of this source. And I was not the only one, third party users also suggested relying on third party sources. I always remained civil and made no personal comments about Hetoum or anyone else. Hetoum on the other hand has a history of disruptive editing before he started editing the Church of Kish, he was previously engaged in vandalism of personal pages of Azerbaijani editors, which is well documented. As soon as he started editing this particular article, he made personal attacks on other editors, divisive comments along the ethnic lines, and got the article protected 3 times. As of now, the article still remains protected, because as soon as protection is removed Hetoum resumes edit warring. I urge the arbitrators to investigate the disruptive activity of Hetoum in Wikipedia.

User:Babakexorramdin

Babakexorramdin ( talk · contribs) was editing an FA article Iranian peoples in a very aggressive style, edit warring, making personal attacks, assuming bad faith and including his original research. He added Turkic Azerbaijanis and Uzbeks in the list of Iranian people and removed Iranian-speaking Hazaras from that list, citing no reliable sources to support his claims. When I tried to correct this, he rvd the article accusing me of vandalism: [407] [408] He assumes bad faith, making comments like: You , DUE TO POLITICAL RESAONS OF ANTI_IRANIANISM, are violating and vandalizing our pages. [409] This is his latest comment: [410] Note that Tombseye is the person who largely wrote that article and improved it to FA status. I raised the issue at WP:ANI: [411] And this is a comment he left on my talk: [412]

Frivolous evidence by Hetoum, TigranTheGreat and Fedayee

Evidence provided by Hetoum I, TigranTheGreat and Fedayee is so frivolous that I’m not going to waste much space to respond. Hetoum and Fedayee apparently do not know what Wikistalking is. Editing the same articles in good faith is not stalking, and it is not against the rules. The guideline says:

Following an editor to another article to continue disruption
The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them.

Is there any evidence of me actually harassing anyone? If not, then what’s the point in bringing the evidence that supposed to prove that I checked someone’s contributions? That’s not against the rules. But it was just a coincidence that we happened to edit a couple of the same articles. As for my comment at User:DGG's talk, I do not think there was anything wrong with presenting the opinion of the other side of the dispute and seeking the advice of an admin. DGG himself did not mind me asking his opinion, so I do not think there were any problems whatsoever. [413]

As for Tigran’s accusations, each and every evidence presented by him is frivolous. For example, he says that here [414] I removed any reference to Armenia, but I just fixed the article that was full of incorrect information. Hajji Piruz provided wrong info, Albanian king Vachagan was not Mihranid, he was from the previous Arsacid dynasty, and Mihranid dynasty was founded by Mihran, after whom it was named. The only mention of Armenia was this: The family came to an end with the assassination of Varaz-Trdat II by Nerseh Pilippean (822-23) and their kingdom was incorporated into Armenia, and it was wrong information, as there was no state called Armenia in the 9th century. Hajji Piruz only wanted to say that the next Arransah was Sahl ibn Smbat, whom some believe to be of Armenian origin, but that does not make his state Armenia. In any case, this is just a content dispute, as all other evidence presented by Tigran.

Another evidence by Tigran says: " Nothing is Armenian obviously" and " Here obviously since nothing is Armenian, neither this". Of course the ruling dynasty of Albania was not of Armenian origin, they were Parthian Arcasids. This is a well documented fact. And this is a good example of how User:MarshallBagramyan grossly misquoted the source. Let’s check how he did it. Here he makes an edit about the ancestry of Hasan-Jalal: [415]

Note that the reference is made to Thomas de Waal, who in turn refers to Robert Hewsen, a top international expert on Caucasian Albania. Marshall’s edit says: His (Hasan-Jalal's) ancestry stretched back several centuries which included the Armenian Bagratuni kings in Ani to the Arsacid Dynasty of Armenia. However, the original statement of Robert Hewsen as quoted by de Waal says: [Hasan-Jalal's] descent can be traced back to the fourth century and involves the following houses: In the male line, (1) the princes (who later became kings) of Siunik. Through various princesses, who married his ancestors, Hasan-Jalal was descended from (2) the kings of Armenia or the Bagratuni dynasty, centered at Ani; (3) the Armenian kings of Vaspurakan of the Artsuni dynasty, centered in the region of Van; 4) the princes of Gardman; (5) the Sassanid dynasty of Persia, and (6) the Arsacids, the second royal house of Albania, itself a branch of the kings of ancient Parthia. (see Thomas De Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War, page 157).

Note that Marshall only picked the Armenian connections of Hasan-Jalal and omitted any Albanian and Persian/Parthian connections mentioned by de Waal/Hewsen (I underlined them). But such selective quoting was not enough. In this edit [416] he introduces a claim that the kings of Albania were Armenian with a reference to some obscure Armenian source, while completely ignoring the statement of Hewsen (which btw can be verified from a number of other reliable third party sources) from the source that Marshall already selectively quoted that the kings of Albania were Iranian Arsacids, a branch of the ruling dynasty of Parthia. If this is not a deliberate suppression of facts, then what it is? And attempts of Tigran to use my correction of this false info as an evidence against me are misleading and very sad. And a good example of POV editing on that article is inclusion into infobox by Marshall and Tigran of Armenia, a state that did not exist in the 13th century, while removing any mention of the actual states this principality was part of: [417] [418] This map photographed by Aynabend in Louvre clearly shows the region was part of Mongol state: [419] Interestingly, Tigran tries to use agaisnt me my attempt to fix his POV edits.

Some of Tigran’s "evidence" is simply funny, such as this:

  • Here he (Grandmaster) changes the in a memorandom writes to wrote in the Memorandum on the Country of Azerbaijan in 1863. This addition is clearly misleading suggesting there was a country called Azerbaijan when those years the term country had a broader definition and as can be seen from the quotation provided the term was not used as we would do in modern times.

But I only added the actual name of the document, which is called "Extracts from a Memorandum on the Country of Azerbaijan by Keith E. Abbott, Esq., H.M. Consul-General in Persia. [Communicated by the Foreign Office.] Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of London, Vol. 8, No. 6. (1863 - 1864), pp.275-279". If Tigran has problems with it, he can address them to the British consul, who wrote that document back in 1863. This document is available at JSTOR at this location: [420] So Tigran accuses me of adding the accurate name of the document to the article and makes assumptions of my disruptive editing on this basis :)

Another one:

  • Suggesting a user to meatpuppet for him. [421] because he is on 1RR restriction.

If you check the whole thread, you can see that this user suggested that I move the article to another title (which survived 2 AFDs), and I did not want to get involved in a page move war and said that I preferred that someone else moved the page. It is nowhere near “Suggesting a user to meatpuppet for him”, I did not even ask him to do it personally.

Another funny evidence:

  • Here he adds from the authors quote that it is today populated by Azeri Turks but removes that once it was to Caucasian Albania. For the first time he removes Albania, but I will leave arbitrators to judge as to why (personally I would think that for him Albania has only a place in combination to any mention of Armenia). He claims it is the same thing repeated twice, but the other was from another scholar and the information about the Azeri Turks wasn't missing in that article already neither.

He claims that I removed mention of Caucasian Albania, which I did not. Anyone can check and see that Caucasian Albania is there. I just added a full context of the quote, and removed the second instance of the same quote, added by Hajji Piruz. While Tigran claims that the quotes are from 2 different scholars, in fact both quotes are from the same scholar Tadeusz Swietochowski, the only difference being that the larger quote comes from a very detailed book, and the short one from a brief encyclopedia article. For some reason Hajji Piruz decided to add a second instance of the same quote which missed one line contained in the larger one, and edit warred to keep it there. Tigran is not aware what the dispute is about, and fails to properly read what was added and removed, but decided to use this as an evidence nonetheless. I leave up to the arbitrators to judge bad faith assumptions, made by Tigran on the basis of imaginary removal by me of the mention of Caucasian Albania, while such removal never happened.

The same with all other examples. I’m ready to provide detailed explanation for every evidence cited by Tigran, if arbitrators wish so, otherwise I’m not going to waste page space on refuting groundless accusations. I just note that these are not disruptive behavior on my part, but only content disputes, where I acted in good faith to fix inaccurate information.

Response to MarshallBagramyan

Marshall’s presentation of the dispute on Paytakaran (and other disputes as well) is not accurate. I made my edits only after User:The Transhumanist left the article, and the mediation stopped. I never did any unilateral edits while the mediation was underway, in fact, the mediation was initiated by myself, and I always cooperated. I made a few general edits as the mediator left the page taking a couple of month of wikibreak, and the other party to the dispute was not contributing to the talk, but User:Eupator immediately reverted my edits.

Claims that the version Eupator reverted to was agreed by all is not accurate. I never agreed to that version, because it contained factually inaccurate interpretation of Strabo, to which I objected many times. This is the version of TT, he proposed it based on his understanding of consensus, but he got a few things wrong. [422] It was a good faith attempt to improve the article, and overall The Transhumanisnt did an outstanding work on mediation of the dispute, which I very much appreciated and I expressed my appreciation many times on the talk page. However, this was not a version agreed upon by everyone as Marshall claims. I objected to that version the day it was made: [423]

So claims of consensus are baseless, it never existed. When Eupator reverted my edits to that article, it led to an edit war. Eupator violated his parole on Paytakaran making two rvs within one week: [424] [425] and was blocked by the admins: [426]

I was always surprised how some people selectively quote the sources, omitting important parts for the reasons one can only guess. We have a good example with House of Hasan-Jalalyan. The same happened on Paytakaran. I requested a quote from a primary source included in the article. [427] For more than a month no one responded, eventually I found that source myself, and it turned out that it was quoted very selectively, omitting an important statement about the region being part of Atropatene at the time the source was written. Of course, I was frustrated with the way some users handle sources and fail to provide the full context of the quote despite numerous requests. [428]

As for User:Hakob, unlike all other editors to this article, Hakob never made any contribution to this article or its talk prior to these reverts: [429] [430]

It does not leave a good impression when someone appears out of nowhere and blindly reverts contribs of other users, making no use of the talk page whatsoever. It is interesting that Hakob acknowledges in his edit summary that he was not a party to the discussion on talk: [431]

And another unexplained rv by Hakob: [432]

The only comment Hakob ever made on talk was threatening me with RFC and citing no sources to back up his position and declaring that he was going to leave the article, when his only contribution to it were 4 blind reverts cited above. Accusations that I drove Hakob out of that article are baseless, he was not contributing to that article to begin with. He only turned up to make a few rvs, and when that raised suspicions of other users, he delivered an angry speech at the talk of the article and declared that he was leaving.

Accusations of sock and meatpuppetry were flying back and forth, and here’s one made by Eupator: [433] Btw, the claims of Marshall that I forced Eupator out of the article are not true, Eupator did not leave despite his declaration. Here he is accusing Ulvi of meatpuppetry, when the latter tried to present the maps he took pictures of in Louvre, just one month after Eupator announced he would never contribute to that article. [434]

However, I would also like to note that Paytakaran article has been stable for the last 2 months, which is a good sign. All involved editors took some time off, which probably was the right thing to do.

As for Utik, it is a well documented fact that the region was part of Caucasian Albania as well. While I’m being accused of removing any mention of Armenia (which I never did, btw, I only added alternative versions of national affiliation supported by notable scholars, preserving the mention of Armenia), I can demonstrate that those accusing me tried to remove information related to Caucasian Albania from the articles. In case of Paytakaran, Utik and other ancient provinces I only tried to add properly referenced information that those regions were part of Caucasian Albania as well, to which some users vehemently objected. I do not understand such hostile reaction to mere statement of a fact that the region belonged at various times to 2 or more different states. Some users do not allow inclusion of any information about certain regions being parts of various states and not just Armenia. But in case of Utik references are abundant. Even 7th century Armenian geography says that Albanians owned the region:

Ути, к западу от Аракса между Арцахом и рекою Курой, имеет 7 областей, которыми владеют албанцы, i.e. Uti, to the west from Araxes between Artsakh and the river of Kura, has 7 districts, which are in possession of Albanians. [435]

It is very interesting that this source was again quoted selectively by omitting the part about Albanians, which I included: [436] and which was reverted by Eupator along with my other edits accompanied with an incivil edit summary: [437]

I can quote numerous examples of how any mention of Caucasian Albania was removed from the articles by certain users, but for now refrain from doing it.

Allegations of Marshal with regard to Meliks are nothing but bad faith assumptions. I proposed to merge two articles about the same subject, and my proposal had support of third party users. See this: [438]

The only one objecting was Eupator, claiming that this title was exclusive to the Armenian people in the Caucasus, and thus merge got no consensus. I left it at that. I don’t see how a merge proposal could be considered disruptive. And I added some information about how some of the meliks came to be in Karabakh, why such information cannot be added, if it is very well sourced?

The issue with Khachkar destruction article was covered by the previous arbcom case, so I see no point in bringing it up again. Whatever Adil, Fadix and others did at the time is not relevant here.

Accusation of VartanM that I edit warred are baseless. Being restricted by parole to 1 rv per week, I’m unable to wage any revert wars with users like VartanM or Hakob, who have no rv restrictions. Plus, I never violated my parole, so there was no edit warring on my part. As for the mediator, he left on 23 March and returned on 22 April, so I was not sure whether the mediation was over or not, because he said he was leaving for two weeks, but actually took a longer time off. In the meantime another person tried to take over the mediation, but it was difficult for everyone to start it all over again and explain what the dispute was about, so his mediation effort never materialized. So I made a few edits, but they were reverted. Btw, it happened on 18 April, before the end of the previous arbcom. As for the accusation with regard to Movses, I provided a full quote from the source in Russian, and translated the part that I thought was relevant. I was sure that Vartan spoke Russian like most of other Armenian and Azerbaijani users, and the full quote was there for him to check, I never tried to conceal anything, if I did, I would not be providing the whole quote in the first place.

User:Fadix

Fadix violated the arbcom decision about his ban and used a sock account of User:Anatolmethanol to evade his ban, as he admitted on this evidence page [439]. Basically he was baiting other users to report them to the arbitrators. Fadix’s sock has been banned, and his ban reset by the admins, see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fadix

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 - [440] 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.

Development of this Arbcom case clearly shows what I wrote below - there is concerted efforts from two groups of editors against third one. We should not distinguish editors by ethnic affiliation but this is unfortunate situation when we have to look at evidences having in mind that since many comments and personal attacks made along the ethnic line.

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 - [441]. 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 [442], [443] This is the case where you can trace a whole dispute. While editors try resolve dispute wihtout any personal attack user:Hajji Piruz came first with accusation of POV pushing [444]

user:Hajji Piruz harassment

This was false report about me [445] - this link has gone from ANI page but that link can serve as a proof for his attempts to harras me [446] 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.

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 [450] - 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 [451] 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).


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 [461]
  • 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 - [462]. 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 [463] 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 [464] and talkpage [465]

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 [466] - [467]. 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 [468] 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 [469]: "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 [470] 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 [471]. But if one looks at the page he has linked: [472] 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 - [473] - 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) [ [474]]. The same strategy he used on other pages. it is usually rv without any discussion [475]

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 [476]

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 - [477]. 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?" [478]

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 [479]. But if one looks at the page he has linked: [480] 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. [481]

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 [482] 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 [483] Atabek is going to change his point of views in a positive manner, but I think reviewing his previous statements [484] 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.


"On page Iranian Azerbaijan … about my edit (which is) based on multiple references [485] user:Behmod...kept removing information"

However, I never touched this edit. It is obvious if you check the history of Dacy69's edit [486]

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.


Grandmaster Wikistalks me

Grandmaster stalks me.

Here I created a page and as soon as user:Grandmaster wakes up he request facts.

Here, I needed advice from an experienced user so I decide to ask my question to user:DGG [487] When user:DGG ask to be more specific, here I give my example. [488]. Few hours later user:Grandmaster intervened not allowing me to speak, when he already constantly reports me. If I wanted Grandmaster's opinion I would have asked to him.

Here I edit, Church of Kish two days later Grandmaster finds the article(he never edited it before) and reverts.

Most recently, he stalked me here

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: [489]. 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 [490]. User:Francis_Tyers reverted it as being "irrelevant." [491]. 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 [492].


Atabek

Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia [493], creates and adds: Varoujan Garabedian [494], Harry Sassounian [495]. 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 [496], readds Varoujan Garabedian [497], readds Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia [498]. Broadening with the new FORK, he proceeds adding also Khojaly Massacre [499], Monte Melkonian [500], Harold Nicolson [501], Midnight Express (film) [502]

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" [503],

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"." [504]

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." [505] 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 [506] previously because he was suspected of being a sock but he was unblocked later. Here we see Atabek voting 9 minutes after Batabat. [507]. And here we see Batabat voting after Atabek [508]. Recently (out of nowhere) on June 13, Batabat re-appeared to support Dacy69. [509] 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. [510] 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 [511] 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: [512]

AdilBaguirov

AdilBaguirov who was banned during the last case has abusivally evaded his block, see: [513]

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. [514] and successfully blocked. More recently Meowy was blocked after Grandmaster reported him for 3RR [515]. 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. [516] 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. [517], [518]. 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. [519]

Aivazovsky

Aivazovsky has violated his revert parole six times. [520]. 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) reply

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.

  • [521] 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.
  • [522] Here he is reverting dubiously again and also asks Aivazovsky to see talk page, to which he didn't add anything new...bizarre.
  • [523] 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.
  • [524] 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.
  • [525] Here he takes off an entire section that has been sourced by verifiable sources.
  • [526] Here he reverts the hard work of Khoikhoi to NPOV the article and to eliminate undue weight. No explanation is given.
  • [527] Here he removes sourced material with an edit summary claiming that "it's an attack"
  • [528], [529] This one, like most of his edits, are nationalistically driven in order to create a "battleground of nationalistic lines"
  • [530] His reverts are not only nationalistically driven, here he reverts a grammar mistake...
  • [531] Reverts of referenced material (including BBC) without any discussion, not even an edit summary.
  • [532] Here he dubiously changed Armenia into Azerbaijan, knowing that tensions between the two exist here on Wiki already.
  • [533] Again, he adds the same thing he is adding everywhere, breaking WP:POINT
  • [534] 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.
  • [535] Here Makalp vandalizes Van Resistance by inserting bad spelling of all things. Odd.
  • [536] 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."


Parishan

User:Parishan is POV pushing across a wide array of articles. While Grandmaster removes Armenia and Armenians, Parishan on the other hand adds Azerbaijani terms in articles which already have Armenian terms. He does it without trying to understand why the Armenian terms are there.

I did not include many examples on the grey area.

  • Starts an Armenia section in the anti-Semitism article.

Then he starts his campaign of searching any mention of Armenia or Armenians to proceed by adding Azerbaijani or Azerbaijan. We see for each addition that the Armenian term was already there.

  • Here he adds the Azerbaijani term for Mount Ararat just because the Armenian term was there. That the Armenian term was there is obvious. Why Azerbaijani?
    • Parishan claims that the territory was populated by ethnic Azeris… WRONG! It was not, the territory was indeed populated by Turkified Circassians, Kurds, Turkmen and other Turkic elements, but there was no element identifying themselves as Azerbaijani. The modern Azerbaijani term is Turkish, and the Turkish term shall remain. No justification what so ever to have a modern Azerbaijani term by claiming that there was Azerbaijani living there when those people identified themselves as Turks of the Ottoman Empire.
  • Here he adds the Azerbaijani term, which is basically the Turkish term which is already there.
  • Here he adds the Azerbaijani term for lavash, which is identical to the Turkish term which is already there.
  • Here adds the Georgian and Azerbaijani name for the Armenian composer Sayat Nova. When Sayat Nova lived the Azerbaijani, the alphabet was yet not invented, besides he's Armenian. Obviously Parishan has searched every irrelevant article which the Armenian characters were there to add Azerbaijani characters.
    • Sayat Nova was writing in Armenian, Eastern Turkish, Georgian and Persian, no matter which other languages his poetry was associated with, his name was never called “Azerbaijani”, for the simple reason that his name has never been written in Azerbaijani up until recently. The Turkic elements in the East have been using the Persian name, period. If you can provide any Azerbaijani term for his name as evidence, I would like to see a picture of that.
  • Here he adds the Azeri term in Jerusalem. It is the Arabic term written in Azerbaijani characters. Parishan did not even bother understanding why the Armenian term is there. It is because the Armenian quarter is one of the few in old Jerusalem with the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem. This is why only the Hebrew, Arabic, Armenian and only a few other languages which were relevant were there. Parishan will just keep searching everywhere the Armenian term is to add the Azeri modern term. For more information see this, I don't find anything in its photo archive any Azerbaijani element. Here from the Jewish virtual library we see a map of the old city, there is the Muslim Quarter, Christian Quarter, Jewish quarter AND on South of the city the Armenian Quarter which was established back the in 14th century as another independent branch monotheism and holy place of the Armenian Apostolic Church which with the Armenian quarter is included independently. Manuscripts and scriptures refer to the Southern quarter of the Old Jerusalem. Any more justification now Parishan as to why the Armenian term is there? We do not add Armenian terms just for the pleasure!!!
    • So my answer shall be ridiculous… why I reported Parishan’s present conduct was because he was searching the word Armenian to see if he could add Azerbaijani… here his justification doesn't make any sense. The intro of the article reads: Over the millennia, there have been many names of Jerusalem in many different languages. The Jews have seventy (70) different names for Jerusalem. The reason why those languages are presented is to relate to the different names for the place used for a very long time. The Azerbaijani term is the Islamic Arabic term written in modern Azerbaijani characters. The Armenian term on the other hand is derived from back the first to fifth century Armenian pilgrimages to there and the foundation of the independent Armenian Apostolic Church which is a completely independent branch. So in short the Azerbaijani name can not be considered in relation with the intro of the article because it is a modern 20th century pronunciation identical to Arabic. Try understanding why terms are there before researching Armenian words across English Wikipedia.
  • Here he adds the Azeri term for Lake Sevan in… Armenia.
    • Parishan’s answer is plain ridiculous, first the only Turkic foreign name influencing Europe was not Azerbaijani but Ottoman Turkish, by the name Gokchech or shortened, Gokcha, or as travellers have called Goukeka (about Timur time) The name Lake Sevan precedes this word. Willem va Ruysbroeck in his Journey of William of Rubruck (from 1253-55) writes that Armenians call it Sevan, and I don't think Parishan will have hard time finding works on Google books (201 hits restricting for the periods between 1700 to 1900) dating in the 19th century which also call it that. It was called after the Armenian Monastry of Sevan built back in the 5th century, preceding this, in manuscripts it was the Biblical Sea of Gegham, another Armenian name.
  • Here he adds the Azeri term for dance from the black sea. Starting to sound ridiculous, Black sea, the Greek and Armenian term are there because of Pontus (with its Pontus Greek and Armenian influence). Azerbaijani? Azerbaijan is far from there.
    • The origin is important when adding foreign words; the Azerbaijani word derives from more westward and identical.
  • Back with lake Sevan, re-adds it.
  • Back to Sayat Nova, answers back to the argument that it is basically written in Azeri the same way as English by adding the Arabic script Azeri word. I don't know what would be his reaction if we start adding Armenian script for Azeri composers.
  • Back to lake Sevan. He claims that Azeri populated the place for centuries to justify it. Jews populated Germany for centuries maybe we should include the Hebrew name on the intro too. Also his comparaison makes no sense as Armenian terms for Turkish cities are often addsed because of their ethymology, before the foundation of Turkey they were written by their Armenian spelling in English and other languages. Parishan is Wiki-retaliating without even requesting why Armenian terms are present.
  • Continues back, his reason is ridiculous, the Azeris name is Turkish. We do not add foreign names just for the sake of it. There are reasons why Armenian names are added including in modern Encyclopaedia’s like Irannica.
  • Continues with Sayat Nova. If this is not POV pushing I wonder what it is.
  • Here he adds Azeri as a lingua franca, claiming the whole region. When checking the source, we see it comes from a nationalist Azerbaijan magazine, and that the author calls Armenians parasites controlling the economy of the whole region and a hateful people. The author actually claims that the whole region should be merged to one and that Azerbaijani shall become the language and not that it was actually a lingua franca.
    • Parishan is quoting out of context, the article claims that this region should be united; his selective quoting is changing the entire context of it. In any event, this source is not credible, it accuses Armenians of controlling the economy of the entire region, which is wrong, claims them to be parasites, hateful people who could hardly be loved etc., and it comes from a nationalist Azerbaijani magazine. The fact is that Azerbaijani was never used as Langua Franca in 1930, the Georgians were speaking Georgian, the Armenians Armenian and the Azerbaijanis Azerbaijani, the other elements were NOT speaking Azerbaijani unlike what the source say, which is not credible.
  • Sona an Azeri name. Man, this guy really actually searched the term Armenian all over Wikipedia to adds Azeri in parallel. Sona is merely a deformation of the name Sonia, which itself is a deformation of the name Sophia. Nothing particular.
    • This is ridiculous, the word Sona derives from Sonia which derives from Sophia, those were nearly emblematic of the Greco-Slavic worlds, with their church, Queens etc., by that name. The Armenian word was derived from there because of the Orthodox influence in the Armenian culture. It could be popular in Azerbaijani, but nevertheless it is an Armenian derivative for Sonia.
  • Igdir adds Azeri term, which is identical to Turkish. This guy keep adding Azeri term just because the Armenian is there without even bothering to understand why the Armenian term is there.
    • My answer would be the same as the one on Mount Ararat.
  • Adds the Azeri term for Kars (see Igdir).
    • My answer would be the same as the one on Mount Ararat.
  • Finds some Azerbaijani and Caucasian Albanian links to the Hayhurum Armenians, he sources it with an Azerbaijani website from an Azerbaijani nationalist author. No joke, Parishan seems to have really searched every hit the word Armenian gets on Wikipedia and see if he could add the word Azerbaijani. The information he added was ridiculous. No one removed it..., most of the POV pushing going on there in those articles remain there, fooling readers.
    • Two Azerbaijani scholars position is far from being relevant to have a whole paragraph in a short article. In fact, their position is plain ridiculous, and besides it is a fringe and per policy doesn't even go there.
  • Re-adds the Azerbaijani term for Kars and justify by comparing it to the Kurds, which is ridiculous. The Kurds live there, and both Armenians and Kurds called it that way, which word was taken by the West including the Ottoman Empire. The Azeri term is a borrowing, and its alphabet is just recent. Between Kars and Azerbaijan we have a whole state (Armenia). It is ridiculous that Parishan, with bogus reasons, will add Azerbaijani terms just because an Armenian term is there. Not once has he asked to justify why Armenian terms are present before running a Wiki-search to add Azeri terms.
  • Re-adds the Azerbaijani name for Igdir and wonders why it was removed.
  • Re-adds the Azerbaijani term for Lake Sevan
  • Expend the anti-Semitism article’s Armenia section as retaliation to someone having added something on the Azerbaijan section. Checking his version, we see that he expended the Armenia section in a way that it was longer than the section on the entire Soviet Union and almost as long as the longest which was about Poland. He also adds a fact request for the claim that Jews escaped persecution finding asylum in Armenia.
  • Removes the information on the Azerification happening in NK during the Soviet times, with bogus reasons. I will not show how his removal is unjustifiable, since there are dozens of sources about this particular event.

Then, it is the word Shushi which is searched to be replaced by Shusha.

  • Here removes the vacation of the Armenian population during the Genocide and replace it by an Azeri massacre. That the Armenian properties were distributed to immigrants is even documented by Turkish sources, such as the Turkish historian Avioglu. Most immigrants who replaced the Armenian population were brought by the Ottoman Empire to replace the Armenian population. But Parishan doesn't waste his time with ill faithed edits. Because those indeed are ill faithed edits.
    • His answer is ridiculous; the Ottoman has official records on Muslim elements from the Russian Empires immigrating in the entire region where the Armenian population was vacated. Even records such as vaccination etc. The Armenian Genocide has a direct and real relation with the immigration of Azerbaijani's in Turkey, when a significant number of Muslims (above a million) were brought voluntarily to populate Eastern Armenia and take possession of the vacated Armenian properties. Twisting this and turning the official Ottoman policy of repopulating the East as some massacre perpetrated by Armenians which the Azerbaijani's escaped from is POV pushing.
  • Adds the Azeri equivalent for the word Atsakh. The funny part is that the Azerbaijani's DO NOT call it Artsakh but Karabakh. Only Armenians call it Artsakh. Foreign words are used for reasons, we could at this point add Chinese as well or in every languages with the same arguments he uses.
  • Here on the destruction of Khachkars he adds the supposed destruction by Armenians of their own Khachkars. The same stuff which Marshall described. No need to repeat myself on how the sources provided do not match with the claims made.
  • Reinserts the disagreed version claiming the discussion is over. We check in the discussion page to see that he ignored the discussion. The Azeris in Armenia article is a bogus creation which true purposes is actually to say how Armenia was Azerbaijani, and how its true population was evacuated, and how in reality the Armenian elements were resettled there. I think reading the discussion which Parishan ignored would help the arbitrators understand the POV pushing going on there.
  • Removes historically Armenian with a bogus reason. NK population was for centuries Armenian. Reading the article the way they push their POV, no one would know that NK was a historic Armenian location.
    • Don't search contradictions where there aren’t any. NK has been associated with Armenians for a very long period, the only place which was not affected by Abbas depopulation policy because it was too far from the frontier, its history of principalities, even a kingdom, then the Meliks, and then their recorded support to Peter the Great’s army. Historically, Armenian only means that NK was associated with Armenians for a very long time whiles your comparison with Idgir, Kars or Mont Ararat or Lake Sevan doesn't hold water because those places were never associated with the Azerbaijani's. From the same logic, we should associate Trace and the entire Western Turkey to Armenians because Phrygia was situated there.
  • Removes any mention to Armenia and claims POV removed. None of the information he removes was actually inaccurate. Seems that he is as much allergic to the term Armenia as Grandmaster.
  • Re-adds the information on the destruction of Khachkars.
  • Misleads and even adds Muslim before Armenians, no mention to Armenians as he replaced the word Armenians with Christians. This POV pushing is meant to hide the fact that before Shah Abbas’ depopulation of Armenia, its population was by the large Armenian (which should be obvious). And we find many sources confirming it. Here Edward Augustus Freeman when relating to the event: The people thus removed were chiefly Armenian Christians p.229 of his The history and conquests of the Saracens, 6 lectures.
  • Succeeds in removing the requesting of fact of the renamed cities with a link, when searching I have found no support. Again the logic, that Armenia was Azerbaijani before after being Armenized and its 'Azerbaijani' names changed to Armenian.
  • Removes reference to the Armenian Genocide by claiming that the concept existed prior. Bogus reason. All its Western part did suffer from the Genocide, and this no matter if the concept existed prior.
    • Is Parishan questioning our intelligence? The Armenian Genocide’s relation to Greater Armenia was included in various works following 1915. In fact the King Crane Commission, even the relevant materials on the Sevres Treaty made the relation. This was raised when the possibility of an independent Armenia was brought to the table and when they have claimed that 1/10 of historical Armenia (in allusion to a significant portion of Greater Armenia) could be restituted if we take into consideration the demography of the region which suffered massacres and deportations.
  • Again an obvious case of POV pushing, removes that various cited regions were once part of an Armenian state by claiming that they were not part of an Armenian state for the past 1000 years. The obvious problem with him was Nakhichevan. They had problems with saying anything about that stuff in the main of Nakhichevan, logical to think that the land is part of Greater Armenia would have at least been included in the main about Greater Armenia. Seems that Parishan disagrees.

Grandmaster

It is impossible to report here the extent of user:Grandmaster's POV pushing. This only covers some examples, and does not cover the pre "Armenia-Azerbaijan 1 arbitration" period, which contains very severe POV pushing.

  • Here he makes of the Khachkar destruction a "claim" from Armenia and claims that it was from another compromise version from Nakhichevan article. The modification at top was decided solely by him, since there was no such compromise as can be seen from the talkpage of Nakhichevan. While Grandmaster could claim that what he did was source attribution, it was said several times that it was not only Armenia's claim. For example here user:MarshallBagramyan at the end provides four references, one of which is from the Archaeological Institute of America.
  • Here he reverts by claiming to not delete sources without consensus. Weird with all this time he has spent on Wikipedia he didn't learn that it is up to the editor wanting a controversial source in the article to get concensus. Several users already pointed that the source in question does not even refer to Khachkars. Here for instance user:Aivazovsky says it, he even quote from the article the only place the word Khachkar is used. When we check the link to the article, we don't see anything on Khachkars. But user:Grandmaster won't listen.
  • Here he replaced Russian Caucasus with North Azerbaijan, when the entire territory was within Russian Caucasus (Tsarist Russia).
  • Here he removes "alleged" when the entire article wich is about the destruction of Armenian monuments is presented as an alleged event to keep NPOV wording. Grandmaster does not fail on the other hand to remove the term alleged for the accusations of destruction of Azerbaijani monuments by claiming that the quote does not say alleged. Weird, as it wasn't a quote.
  • Suggesting a user to meatpuppet for him. [538] because he is on 1RR restriction.
  • Here again he makes of it a claim made only by Armenia when he was presented various sources which document it is not only Armenia which claims this.
  • Here he adds Caucasian Albania right on top of the history section when that section was covering in chronological order Utik starting with its founding by the Armenians after conquering it, to its loss. Adding the belonged at the time to Caucasian Albania 7th century AD for a province of at least a thousand years older, then that is disruptive editing as the history should have been covered chronologically. He'll never leave the term Armenia without adding something.
  • Here with a summary suggesting adding new material he takes the occasion to change with a wording with worst grammar just to over remind ('existed') that it is in the past when the period is already given, believing he has to do it over and over again for the reader to read the redundency. Also, his way of wording it makes it as if there was other Melikdoms than Armenian in Karabakh.
  • Here claiming to restore back the original bounderies of Arran and doesn't fail to delete any mention to Armenia, while he removes Azerbaijan which sounds neutral, the article itself claims to be about the so-called historic Azerbaijan, so it is mentioned everywhere else. So again, he removes mention to Armenia.
  • Here he changes the in a memorandom writes to wrote in the Memorandum on the Country of Azerbaijan in 1863. This addition is clearly misleading suggesting there was a country called Azerbaijan when those years the term country had a broader definition and as can be seen from the quotation provided the term was not used as we would do in modern times.
  • Here he removes the word being Armenian but ironnically leaves the Armenian characters.
  • Here again he removes any mentions to Armenian, its king or that Musheg Mamikonian was Armenian but didn't touch the word Albanians.
  • Here he modified the word consensus to some, while he won't allow that there is a concensus among historians, but won't even allow to say it is a consensus among Armenian scholars. That Caucasian Albanians lived there does not mean Armenians were not living there. Actually Grandmaster knows well, since ALL his sources (including those he adds to justify his edit) without single exceptions contend that Armenians did live there in ancient times even the sources he added, including those he use to support his affirmation in that edit. Fedayee wants to cover Grandmaster distortion of sources so I won't go more in detail and leave it to him.
  • Here he claims removing irrelevant quotes and remove also the same reference on it being concensus. I guess Armenian presence is of no relevancy.
  • Here removes Respublikasi by claiming that Azerbaijan does not call it republic and guess what, he does it from the country infobox, he wants the inclusion of the Azerbaijani term in the country infobox without the full name as the de facto republic. Weird.
  • Here he removes mention that it was part of the Armenian Kingdom and justify it by claiming this is what Colombia says, when Colombia part was meant to support only the last part. He took the decision unilaterly without even placing a fact request.
  • Here he claims original research and claims Strabo does not claim such a thing, but removes the rest including a source for the rest of the information.
  • Here he switches two elements' places which would mislead the reader. Strabo's description precedes the first century, it is not enough that there is no clarification for the reader that Orchistene is equated with Artsakh, but from Grandmaster's misleading edit, one would think that what Strabo refers to is following the first century after Armenians took Arsakh, when taken Arsakh refers to retaking it after having it lost since Strabo clearly states it being a province of Armenia before the first century. I won't say he did it on purpose, but...
  • Here removes Armenia and that the area passed to Albania. I guess it was for eternity Albanian.
  • Claims repetition and removes. But obviously it should have been repeated, the first was on the lead, and the rest of the article should cover what is in the lead. Weird.
  • Here after removing the repetition, he pushes the one in the lead at the bottom. This could be OK though as the lead is supposed to cover things which are in the article and since he deleted that part in the article, there is no reason anymore to keep it there.
  • Here he meatpuppets for Atabek.
  • Here he unilaterally removes information on the Armenian Genocide, Artsakh and Armenian Kingdoms. The weirdest is the removal on Kingdoms, I didn't know they were irrelevent in the article on Greater Armenia.
  • Here he adds from the authors quote that it is today populated by Azeri Turks but removes that once it was to Caucasian Albania. For the first time he removes Albania, but I will leave arbitrators to judge as to why (personally I would think that for him Albania has only a place in combination to any mention of Armenia). He claims it is the same thing repeated twice, but the other was from another scholar and the information about the Azeri Turks wasn't missing in that article already neither.
  • Here he claims that Vache is an Albanian king, but sources it with a material, which most I found claim it to be the King of Albania. Vache is an Armenian name and we know that many Albanian Kings had Armenian genealogy.
  • Here he meatpuppets for Atabek.
  • Here he removes country Armenia under the claim there was no Armenian state in the 13th century for an Armenian dynasty. This is basically the same user who added this.
  • Here obviously since nothing is Armenian, neither this.
  • Here he uses the article to cover the Khans, more than relevancy will allow. If I weren't assuming good faith, I'll think it is an attempt to discuss about Azerbaijanis to wave off the mention to Armenians.
  • Here he does like he did previously, where he changes by adding 'existed' even when it is redundency since the period is already given.
  • Here he uses the occasion to quote about populations, he basically quoted two sources with the same information, it is the same user who deleted on other occasions claiming duplicate.
  • Here he meatpuppets for Atabek.
  • Here again bye bye to any reference to Armenia.
  • Here claiming it a state, the same user who removed country reference to an Armenian Principality.
  • Here like most of his edits on things related to Armenians it is along the national line. Grandmaster claims (it is not in the source) that Yelena Bonner who is Jew is Armenian. He added it probably because her stepfather is Armenian. Here too Grandmaster adds Armenian as qualifier to discredit the source. Also, Grandmaster distorts the source as it does not say that it is false but that it was not completely accurate.
  • Removes a source because the authors ethnicity happen to be Armenian.
  • Nothing solely Armenian here too, not only does he add Albanian but he switches and places it first even though the majority position is that he is Armenian. Beside the source provided there are others like this for exemple. They also have the history all wrong, this distortion has to stop. Smbat is an Armenian name, Sahl ibn Sunbat is the son of Smbat. Their genealogy is recorded through history, see here for exemple. Also read Vartan reference to Atabek distortion about Khachen. And for his information the Turkish word Hach for cross derives from Armenian, even the Turks know this. Cases on preseting minority and fringe as equal as the majority position will be covered by Fedayee.
  • Here he meatpuppets for Dacy69 to even broaden the conflict with food. His first source does not support the claim and while most sources claim it is Armenian, the fringe position Grandmaster push it to be equally as valid. This is the same user who will add this qualifer because only one source was found.

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 [ [539]].

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 [ [540]] .
  • He also claims that admin [[User:Alison]|Alison] did not agreed with unblocking me which is also wrong. [ [541]]. Actually, I was unblocked by Alison: [ [542]] , and [ [543]].

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) reply


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 [544], user:Dacy69 resumed his editing on that article two days later [545] 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 [546] but added the Papazian source regardless. Marshall intervened to prevent another conflict but was later reported to user:Thatcher131 [547], and then user:Kirill Lokshin [548]. user:Dacy69 then made a good move by requesting a RFC [549] but also didn’t fail to report Marshall back to user:Thatcher131 [550]. Then he reported me and Bagramyan to the Administrators' notice board [551]. 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 [552], [553].

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. [554] “The truth” which according to him was the participation of ARF in terrorist activity and extermination of civilians [555]. 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. [556]. Fedayee - You don't know the history of that period well. [557]

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. [558]. 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. [559]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. [560] 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 [561], [562], [563]. 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: [564], [565], [566], [567], [568], [569], [570], [571], [572] - Fedayee 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Atabek

I am also amazed that user:Grandmaster, as retaliation, will use my blocking as evidence while relating to that event becomes evidence against user:Atabek himself. I find it even laughable that user:Atabek will report user:TigranTheGreat for stating his opinion in the Khojali massacre article’s talkpage while he soap boxed the talkpage of the March Days article (wasn't even an article about the Armenian Genocide, while Tigran’s answer was in the talkpage of the article which had to do with Khojali) to bait Armenian users by making comments on the Armenian Genocide on countless occasions. So here is my evidence against user:Atabek.

The problem sparked around March when Atabek requested the same terms for March Days article as the Armenian Genocide. So if the Armenian massacres in Anatolia is labeled with not yet recognized definition of "genocide" on this Wiki page, then I don't see a reason why, March Events, which according to scholars was termed as "massacre", should not be called so. [573] and continued by bringing Armenian Genocide revisionist claims such as Professional forgery and inflation of numbers [574] and poisoning the atmosphere. He never stopped: considering annual "inflation" of "Armenian genocide" victims, was probably 1/10th of that reported by ANC. [575] He requested again and again similar coverage of March Days as the Armenian Genocide. I don't see why should we call Armenian victims of World War I caught up on a battleground between Russian forces, Armenian militia and Ottoman forces as "genocide" [576]. Soon to be supported by banned user:AdilBaguirov who would provide a source to justify the inclusion of the term Genocide. [577] user:Fadix then clarified that the author claims that Kuchuk Khan's Jugalis (which were Azerbaijani officials) wanted to trial the British official for Genocide and not that the author of the book calls the event “genocide”. Then user:Atabek replied by again soap boxing and discussing about how fake the Armenian Genocide is: After all, we have several Armenians deliberately attributing some words to Hitler and using it for justifying the title of "genocide". [578]. When Artaxiad added the term alleged before the term genocide, user:Atabek retaliated by adding the qualifier so-called to the Armenian Genocide and blackmailed by claiming: I added the word alleged in front of genocide of Armenians as well. It will be removed, only when the labelling in front of Azerbaijani is removed [579]. user:Fadix repeated that user:Atabek’s source does not call it genocide. [580] but user:Atabek still continued bringing up the Armenian Genocide: I would like to remind you also that so called "Armenian Genocide" is marked on April 24th,... [581] This says a lot also.

This continues in April while the Arbitrators were deliberating. Then user:MarshallBagramyan intervened and repeated basically that the source does not say what user:Atabek enforces in the article [582]. To the removal of a reference about, using user:Atabek’s terms, of the “Azerbaijani genocide”, he brings back the Armenian Genocide term which he proposes to remove to keep balance [583]. user:MarshallBagramyan explains to him the difference [584] to which user:Atabek answers: I agree that "Armenian Genocide" made a big hype in media, thanks to the defamatory efforts of the related community, further fueling Turcophobia. [585].

The discussion continues, while at the same time the Arbitrators switched to not ban user:Atabek who, to this day, still continues to make disruptive editing. He pushes the lines… when I intervene and basically repeat why genocide can not go there, he still continues to bring up the Armenian Genocide: I am not going to get involved in yet another discussion on credibility of "genocide" claim with the new 2007 invented number 2.5 million victims, when there were only 1.5 million Armenian inhabitants of Ottoman Empire according to census of the end of 19th century. [586]. I basically answered repeating all over again and yet pushed in a circular discussion [587], [588]. Then user:Grandmaster came and proposed unrelated changes which I agreed to [589]. user:Atabek does not stop, I use a source which he discredits and when I claim that source is credible he claims to add back the Hopkirk reference, [590] when three users, including me, told him that Hopkirk was not claiming what he was claiming. I just lost patience and could not assume good faith [591]. I therefore reverted back the term “genocide” wrongly attributed to Hopkirk to then be answered as if there was no discussion and yet again his another labelling of the Armenian Genocide and claimed it unsourced in the article [592]. This is when I reverted. I explained my action even further [593].

I was supposed to deal with this user pushing me again in a circular discussion and claiming over again that either it stays or the Armenian Genocide reference goes. Ironically, user:Grandmaster intervened for another thing, with OR, and tells how the source provided [594] is the only one in the planet…but not once has he even said anything to the one single source user:Atabek has provided for the inclusion of his Genocide term which was worse since the source does not even support his misleading affirmation. While I partially reverted user:Atabek because he would again add Genocide, I regardless started re-inserting user:Grandmaster’s (who will also come and edit after a revert to make it more official, I will include this in his section) changes. user:Grandmaster on the other hand did not miss the occasion to report me for my partial revert [595]. user:Grandmaster posted this to user:Thatcher131 to report my block if we read carefully from there for the first reason of the block it was: One, in the current environment changes should be discussed before reverting them,... this summary of the incident I report shows that the revert was more than justified, user:Atabek knew it will be reverted, no one beside him and user:AdilBaguirov supported it, neither had ever user:Grandmaster given any written approval. user:Atabek, soon after the case closed re-inserted the controversial element and wrote in the summary: added references which were previously removed by a banned sockpuppeteering user,... [596] since reverted banned users does not count as a revert he used this to revert and adding back the controversial element and hiding it behind other additions.

This is what I reverted, something which was nothing, from my point of view, other than gaming the system. When user:MarshallBagramyan reported the problem surrounding my blocking to user:Thatcher131 [597] , the latter admitted that it is a potential problem [598]. user:Grandmaster right on front intervened to deny that user:Atabek was baiting, defending him and having found nothing wrong in his conduct (this is the same Grandmaster who excessively reports members for each dot) and uses the occasion to report another user [599]. My block in short was a technical mistake because of an editor who still continues in disruptive editing when/while he was about to be banned and after, when he was not. - Fedayee 01:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Here, I will borrow Tigran's style for this one :

  • Here, as documented by Vartan and TigranTheGreat in his Grandmaster evidence section, user:Atabek removes the majority position to replace it with the minority position.
  • Here user:Atabek claims that it is an Azerbaijani word, when it is actually the fusion of a Turkish and Persian word… the link does not support his edit.
  • Here, he replaces Armenian with Albanian. It is amazing that just like user:Grandmaster, he always ends up with sources claiming Albanian, even in cases where it is a fringe or minority viewpoint.
  • Here he doesn't fail to find a context to add ASALA.
  • Here he finds the occasion to include Iranian in the Aryan article.
  • Here he distorts the source as the reference to Israel is specific on the lifting of sanctions and not foreign policy in general. The article is available here.
  • Here he places the tag requesting facts when a simple Google research would have provided various sources. He requires a source which is widely available but on the other hand he will not be hesitant to find sources dating half a century and older to support and present a minority position as fact isn't a good indication of good faith.
  • Here he removes a text critical to Azerbaijan by claiming that it is self invented POV and OR… doesn't even bother to add a tag instead since a non-working reference was there and that the previous editor could just have made a mistake on the way he didn't link it.
  • Here he finds the context to add the so-called massive resettlement of Armenians in Erivan in the Caucasus Campaign. Endless articles got this introduced no matter how irrelevant it is. I will cover this independently. This POV pushing on how Armenia was populated by its majority by ‘‘Azerbaijani’’ will find itself on how irrelevant in articles it could be.
  • Here he adds irrelevancy, when making the link with the subject of the article can be only done with connotations.
  • Here he re-adds the terrorism category, when an Administrator already explained to him why it cannot go there. He does this after the category on Armenian terrorism was deleted.
  • Here basically the Armenian re-settlement stuff.
  • Here he adds the history of Azerbaijan category for a person who lived in a time where there was no Azerbaijan. But I guess if there is an Armenian historian involved, any mention of Azerbaijan should be there too…
  • Here he removes Armenian and changes it to Albanian, again.
  • Here he removes a source.
  • Here the adding of terrorism, like before.
  • Here he distorts the UN resolution by claiming that the UN refers Karabakh as occupied, as well. When checking (ironically he provides the link in his edit), we see that it relates to recently occupied (1993) and specific regions, which does not include Nagorno-Karabakh.
  • Here too, also to mention that De Waal uses the term occupied for the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. We have clear examples of distortion of sources here too.
  • Here he replaces anti-Turkism with Turcophobia.
  • Here he replaces the notion as being an ultra-nationalist movement. And the term Armenian Genocide disappears (I have mentioned this “campaign” by user:Atabek in my earlier evidence.)
  • Here, quotes on Armenia disappear and he picks other sources which fit his position and deletes others to replace them.
  • Here he adds back the statistics for whole Karabakh, while Nagorno-Karabakh only represents 1/3 of the land. The unaware reader might think that it is in reference to Nagorno-Karabakh. This is another attempt of POV pushing as while Armenians were a majority in the 1/3 of the territory, when taking the whole place they were a minority.
  • Here he removes from the country infobox the term republic, he even does it for the Armenian term.
  • Here, he does it for the Azerbaijani language.
  • Here just like Grandmaster, he adds the reference that has nothing to do with Khachkars. - Fedayee 23:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Grandmaster

user:Grandmaster provokes other members by reporting them abusively

  • Here he reports user:ROOB323, for the same incident where user:Grandmaster was adding a source which said nothing about Khachkars. After that incident, we tried to convince user:ROOB323 to return contributing, but with the arbitration and Grandmaster’s reporting, the guy left Wikipedia…
  • Here he reports me for the incident with user:Atabek that I have described in my earlier evidence. I felt this was a backstabbing since I and user:Grandmaster were contributing together on that article when user:Atabek disturbed the peace again and user:Grandmaster used the occasion to report me and even denied user:Atabek did anything wrong.
  • Here he reports by defending the disruption of user:Atabek I reported, placing the blame on me. In the process he reports to user:Thatcher131 another user.
  • Here he reports user:VartanM to user:Thatcher131 claiming that he has reverted to the version that was edited by a banned sock accounts. Unlike what user:Grandmaster thinks, there is nothing against the rules to do this. If a non-banned user agrees with the edit, he can revert to that version. The event which user:Grandmaster is relating to followed after user:Grandmaster requested the unprotection of the article which was soon to be granted. Soon after it is unprotected, user:Grandmaster reverts one of user:Artaxiad’s edits claiming that it was a sock of a banned user when user:Artaxiad was still not banned at the time he made that edit. Also witness how user:Grandmaster didn't waste the occasion to remove the reference to the Armenian community. I expect being answered by the typical: user:Fedayee frivolous.... The fact is that a quick search on Google, Google books, JSTOR etc., provides various results, so any justification that there was a mistake does not justify user:Grandmaster’s entire deletion. This is the same user who will be reporting for any insignificant deletion from articles. Also, funny, I have never seen him once reverting user:AdilBaguirov socks. It’s kind of hard to assume good faith.
  • Here while asking intervention, he uses the occasion to try to bias a potential mediation by making accusations directed at other editors and using his request as a report against members. Which BTW are not true. I will be covering Paytakaran separately.
  • Here he reports by accusing VartanM of proxying for a banned user. He claims that VartanM refuses to discuss. I wonder how much easy it would have been to discuss with user:Grandmaster when his problem was any mention to Armenians as he was not fixing anything but removing the whole section when he never misses the occasion to search on Google or Google book, but here he seem to have totally forgotten how to do that.
  • Reports user:VartanM again. Check his justification, user:Grandmaster still thinks that someone can not revert to the version of a banned user if he agrees with the edit. Again user:Grandmaster didn't even bother correcting the section, he removed the whole thing. Check how in his evidence section he uses a removal as evidence against Marshall. And as already stated, the banned user was still not banned when he made that edit.
  • Here he reports Marshall, I will leave Marshall to answer to user:Grandmaster’s evidences which have to do with this diff as it will show again the extent of user:Grandmaster’s disruptions and on the alleged removal of sources.
  • Here he continues reporting Marshall and distorts the whole point. I will leave Marshall to answer this too as it shows again that user:Grandmaster disrupts.
  • Here Marshall again, see how he is distorting it, claiming the article was deleted, when the first time around, the article was voted to keep an article on the destruction in Nakhichevan and Marshall just clarified it.
  • See again how he continues distorting the whole thing, by claiming that it was a FORK, when it was the actual article which was voted keep before user:AdilBaguirov and user:Grandmaster started adding irrelevancy and claiming Armenian is destroying its own Khachkars (ridiculous, yes) when the sources provided don't say such. They then refuse to change the name of the article to clarify.
  • Here he returns back to user:Thatcher131 and continues without saying anything about why it became so. I repeat, I will leave Marshall to answer this. See how he says that we should avoid repetition when he wanted to keep two articles about the exact same thing.
  • Here he basically continues. See Marshall’s reply he answered to.
  • Here he reports the same thing elsewhere.
  • Here it wasn't enough to ask administrators intervention, he actually go alert user:Nlu and the vandalism having happened a year ago becomes few months ago. user:Grandmaster has used an incidence which had since not happened anymore to discredit user:Hetoum_I.
  • Here on the RfC on user:Atabek, user:Grandmaster uses his space, not to comment on anything about user:Atabek conduct, on whether or not he acted correctly, but instead uses the RFC on user:Atabek to suggest the ban of user:Hajji Piruz and ironically the reasons he provide to justify it, he's been doing this on Armenian related articles for a very long time.
  • Here again, he reports user:Hetoum_I over again; note how he still uses the vandalism on his userpage of a year ago. And note how he says nothing on Ehud a suspected sock of user:AdilBaguirov, whom is reverting user:Hetoum_I neither is he saying anything on the fact that he has been provoking him again and over again by stalking him, reporting him and making repeated allusion on how Armenian scholars are basically untrustworthy to then report his reaction. (I will be covering this elsewhere). Also user:Grandmaster is distorting the whole event, as having admitted has a connotation, as if there was some ill intent, when he never denied he did not log to do those edits.
  • Here see how the way he has presented this whole thing, others thought that he was still vandalising or something, and how user:Grandmaster still brings this.

user:Grandmaster claims that he did not stalk user:Hetoum_I, he even justifies it. While Grandmaster has a history of following members edit. His intervention on user:DGG talkpage was unacceptable regardless of if user:DGG found nothing wrong. user:Grandmaster justifies his repeated following by claiming that the other viewpoint should have been heard when it was neither a mediation request, neither was it in the articles talkpage, Hetoum_I wanted to talk with the guy. How does user:Grandmaster expect user:Hetoum_I who he reported more than once to answer when he checks every single edit of his?

Some members feel that user:Grandmaster is always following them, waiting the occasion to report them. user:Grandmaster has indeed a history of following members. Here are a few examples:

  • Here Eupator creates an article, the first other edit is made by user:Aivazovsky [602] by adding historical regions of Armenia; few hours later user:Grandmaster knows the existence of the article and request facts. This one is from last year, I just want to show that user:Grandmaster never stopped being on other members’ back, checking each of their movements…
  • Here Grandmaster who has never edited the article nor its talk page requests a merge. [603] And this just two minutes after Atabek edited its talk page. [604]

It is not whether or not he is improving them, but that many members are under the impression that user:Grandmaster is always on their back, following each of their edits and once the occasion presents itself, report them. - Fedayee 01:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Grandmaster’s provocation of Hetoum here and here

I had written a long prose, then desisted and deleted the whole thing. I think that for this part, it is better for the arbitration to read the discussion, since I want to remain as far as possible from interpretation, and besides, I am possible biased. Unfortunately the lecture will be very long (perhaps one arbitrator could read and accumulate the relevant evidences), but it is important for the arbitration to read a discussion sample involving user:Grandmaster to see how he provokes members. View how many times user:Grandmaster will be using the ethnicity of an author to dismiss him. See the number of times user:Hetoum_I gets angry because of that and makes it clear why he is angry, and how user:Grandmaster doesn't stop and even fuels the whole thing by repeating basically the same thing over and over again to then report Hetoum’s reaction. My apology to the ArbCom for presenting long pointless discussions, but I think it is necessary for the committee to review user:Grandmaster’s provocations. - Fedayee 06:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Parishan

To answer Marshall, he claims that he reverted Hakob because he had no discussion. Parishan was trying to turn over a concensus version when he never commented about Grandmaster's version clearly. I hear Parishan saying that he was involved in the talkpage. There is no legitimacy to revert an article just because one has already contributed in its talkpage. Parishan never justified his edit, while he was reverting a concensus version. In fact, if we check Grandmaster's evidence on Vartan and Hetoum reverts, we see Parishan having reverted on most of them, and we also see him justifying having contributed in those articles talkpage, but most of the time his discussions were never on the actual content which was reverted but some not so recent discussions. - Fedayee 06:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

[606] While there is nothing wrong with the edit itself, Parishan has committed Wiki retaliation and broken WP:Point. The timing and the omissions are just too obvious to assume good faith. The timing of this edit comes right after a comment by VartanM that was misinterpreted by Parishan here. Vartan has already later replied to him by stating the misinterpretation here. Anyway, the actual edit on the Ferenz page lists him as a person of Armenian descent. While this is true, the guy is 1/4th Armenian and had zero links to Armenia and Armenian politics (according to the article). The guy is also a NAZI and a fascist. Parishan could've and should've added his other nationalities catgories as well, knowing fully that the guy is 1/4th Armenian (by reading the article). Just overall, a bad faith edit by him to break WP:Point and truly saddening that it has stooped to this low. - Fedayee 03:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I think I will be taking Tigran's example and only answer once, because Parishan’s insistence in trying to justify the unjustifiable is one of the types of disruptive behaviour which brought us here.

In his second reply to Tigran, Parishan nowhere does address the justification for the Azeri term for Lake Sevan, he further changes the entire subject. Foreign words should be justified the same way they are justified in any other encyclopedias. First, if it is etymologically valid, for example an English term which originates from Turkish, its etymology is valid and second, if obviously that place’s habitants language or the country’s language. Parishan claims that Azerbaijanis have populated the place for centuries to justify the presence of an Azerbaijani name for a lake of Armenia. There was no Azerbaijani's having lived there for centuries because neither were others calling those Turkic populations as Azerbaijani's neither were them themselves were calling themselves as Azerbaijani, they were mostly associating themselves with the Ottoman Turks, not to mention the Turkmen elements, and more Southward, to the true Azeri population in Persia. Turkmen or various other Turkic dialects will have under his logic the same justification to be there. The Turkish term more than suffices. The relevant answer by Tigran sticks, when he compares the relation of the Armenians with the Phrygians. Further, Parishan claims that Tigran further displays a lack of knowledge of the region when referring to the Circassians. Having read Tigran’a reply, we see that he referred to the Circassians for Mont Ararat surrounding NOT Lake Sevan, there were hundreds of thousands of Circassians who were displaced and brought to the Ottoman Empire in the 1820s and later in Eastern Anatolia. The following generations, they were mostly all Turkified.

For Sayat Nova, Parishan again is changing entirely the subject. Sayat Nova was an Armenian composer, his name was written in Armenian, and the Azerbaijani term is simply the transliteration of Sayat Nova and this from an alphabet which during the period did not exist. The composer is Armenian and the etymology of the term is not Azerbaijani, and the Azerbaijanis had no particular different way of naming him. There is therefore no justification to add the Azerbaijani term. The only thing it brings new is the word Azerbaijani. Parishan is also making a big deal out of Tigran’s Eastern Turkish, but this is what Armenian scholars were considering the Tartars, Sayat Nova when he wrote those Turkish compositions was considering it to be just that. The Azerbaijani identity on that part of the world was not clearly defined during Sayat Nova’s period. The comparison with the Armenians and Phrygians yet again. We do not call Phrygians Armenians, but according to his logic we should.

Kars, Igdir, Mount Ararat, Parishan is turning in circles, Kars was to the Erivan Khanate, prior to that to the Ottoman Empire, prior to that to Armenia, or the Armenian provinces back to 600 BC, the same goes with Igdir and Mount Ararat. The Kurds are the most populous group in that spot of Turkey. Besides both Kurdish and Armenian terms have ethno linguistic influences with the current modern term which is even used in Turkish. Parishan can justify an Azeri term as much as he wants by claiming the Azerbaijani lived there, those Turkic elements living there have never associated themselves to an ethnicity from the East, but rather to the Ottoman Turks. He claims that their language is currently spoken in the area, this is plain wrong, besides the modern immigration after the Armenian Genocide, the other Turkic elements similarity with Azerbaijani comes from the fact that both Azerbaijani and Turkish are in reality Turkish, some call them Turkic, both people could communicate with each other and understand. It is like two different dialects, could in certain extent be compared with Eastern and Western Armenian.

Coming to Jerusalem, Parishan is making himself look funny, he suggest that Tigran could have a problem with the Azerbaijani name, when it was Parishan who wikisearched to add Azerbaijani name to articles which contained Armenian names without understanding the context. I will cite currently what different languages we have for Jerusalem transliteration which will clearly show that Azerbaijani is out of place. Biblical Hebrew (obvious why), Aramaic (obvious why), Biblical Greek (obvious why), Syriac (obvious why), Arabic (obvious why, it is basically the word in the Islamic world including Azeri), Biblical latin (obvious why), Armenian (to be exact, Grabar Armenian from the fifth century when the first bible in that language was written, precedes the Muslim Arabic, it is the word of the Apostolic Church), Tiberian Hebrew (obvious why), Standard Hebrew (obvious why), Old Norse (it has a value, because of the Old Norse bibles which are actually masterpieces), Russian (this could be debated, but given its importance in the Orthodox faith, it is justified), and THEN Azeri. Azeri? Why? Which particular scripture, document, materials, what the??? How is it justified? Ursalim is the Arabic-Muslim word, across Islamdum. And then, nothing? Then we have the other variants… Parishan added for the Islamic Quds too, actually from al-Quds (The Holy) in Classical (Quoranic) Arabic, mostly what it is called in Islam. (look, it is justified to have it in Turkish for al-Quds, due to the Ottoman Empire (an Islamic Empire) to some extent and its significant variance in modern Turkish, no such variance exists in Azerbaijani)

For Kochari, it is plain ridiculous; again it comes from the Black Sea, Ottoman Empire Armenian and Pontus Greek influence. It took Turkish influence because of that. His claim that Azeri name is the closest is original research at best.

On Langua Franca, in his reply Parishan has again succeeded in accusing for the third time Tigran of ignorance. The author claims Armenians were controlling the economy of the ENTIRE region which is not substantiated. Second he accuses Armenians of being like parasites (need I add more on why he wrote is crap?), he claims them to be a hateful people who could not be loved by anyone. Then claims that the entire region shall become one entity (Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan), the find a role for Azerbaijani which could fit it better. Where, and how was Azeri even Langua Franca? For the Georgians, Armenians? When was Azerbaijani used by Armenians or Georgians to do commerce with the Azerbaijani's or ay other group, source? The article which Parishan uses comes from an Azerbaijani nationalistic magazine, and is highly politically motivated, not much anything is said about language but rather the structure of the region and the author’s theories. Parishan use one distasteful source and falls short of presenting any other source to substantiate what he presents as fact.

For Sona, Parishan’s argument doesn't make sense, the word 'sona' by its structure and phonetic is not a Turkic word, even if this was, it is beside the point, the point which Parishan has not addressed is his wikisearch on the word Armenian on Wikipedia to add Azerbaijani, when not once has he questioned the context for why the Armenian term was there.

Hayhurum. There too, the arbitrations could witness the sort of problem we have. Parishan claims there are 5 names, but the claim that Kobychev and Alakbarov supports this is supported by a nationalist Azerbaijani scholar, not their own paper, and the other three scholars reject this fringe position. This paragraph is an overrepresentation of a fringe POV, there are hundreds of sources on the subject I have found, none of them support this fringe POV but yet it creates controversy by adding the word Azerbaijani and Caucasian Albania… a controversy which does not exist.

I will not waste my time by answering on the Armenian Genocide material he has removed from Greater Armenia, which context was presented to explain the demographic losses due to the event I will just finish on Nagorno-Karabakh and Parishan’s ridiculous comparison with Lake Sevan. First, Parishan claiming that it was never called Lake Sevan before, which Tigran put the claim to rest; second, Lake Sevan was associated with the Armenians starting with about 400 BC to present time. Parishan does not seem to distinguish a demographic presence for a period of time, with association between the people and the place for a very long time (justifying the word historically). For example, Eastern Anatolia Villayets were called the Armenian Villayets even in several Ottoman sources even during periods where they were a minority, because it was associated with them.

The issue we are dealing in Parishan's case is that it seems that he is competing as if they were competing with us… Armenian here, Azerbaijani should be there. And one point Vartan has raised elsewhere which if he doesn't document I will, is Parishan’s retaliation to other editors edits. - Fedayee 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Good first paragraph, failing again to assume good faith. And finish with an even more disturbing answer by accusing us of bad faith. Of note to Parishan, I answered because Tigran won't answer, he has theoretically left Wikipedia… he only posts once in a while because of editing done similar to yours.

Parishan claims he has done nothing wrong and that we have a problem with the term Azerbaijani. I must have missed something, because he has wikisearched the term Armenian (which on various occasion wasn't even added by an Armenian editor) to add without understanding the context and succeed in accusing us instead. I will not continue this in the evidence section because Parishan successfully made this look as a content dispute. Instead, I will add it in my talkpage and link it from there. So check here for the answers. - Fedayee 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

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/?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 [607] who was banned by this committee for 1 year. On House of Hasan-Jalalyan I only reverted twice [608] [609](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 [610] and he was conducting WP:OR when he added terrorist category to the article [611]. On Ganja article first Grandmaster removed a well sourced information about Armenian history of Ganja [612] then Parishan [613] and Aynabend [614](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 [615].

Atabek is accusing me of removing referenced information on Varoujan Garabedian what he "forgot" to say is that the source was violating WP:BLP. The source I removed fell under [616]. Varoujan Garabedian, and Harry_Sassounian pages were created by Atabek and according to WP:BLP1E (articles about living people notable only for one event) qualify for deletion [617] the only reason I haven't proposed their deletation is because I knew that like previously they will all gang up to vote keep and I was not interested to engage in an endless discussion. He's also accusing me of switching occupied(POV) to controlled(NPOV) on Karabakh page, which was an agreed wording. On Monte Melkonian page he's accusing me of reverting AdilBaguirov's sock. Atabek was suspected to be the sockpuppeteer of Drastamat which later turned out to be AdilBaguirov. Grandmaster claims there is no evidence of that, but there actually is as there are socks of Drastamat which were confirmed to be AdilBaguirov. The tag was placed on Atabek's talkpage according to Wiki procedure on suspected sockpuppetes, so he can defend himself. I also apologized to him for the accusation. [618] He's also accusing me of including his name in the checkuser. The same checkuser I was falsely accused of using socks. He says that I personally attacked him. While I called his accusation, that I blind reverted, idiotic, not him. And that was done after I gave detailed reasons why the sources provided by him were not reliable or were false. I'm also being accused of reverting an established long time contributor and calling it vandalism. The same diff provided by Atabek will show that the so called established long time contributor removed considerable amount of the article covering the Armenian history of the Nagorno Karabakh [619] which qualifies as vandalism.

Living persons who engage in political assassination or ethnic terrorism may be notable. Fred Bauder 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree, but he was a member of an organization and acted as a member of that organization. Individual members are not notable, most have killed or injured one person on a single event which is not like Ben Laden, or a the men who blow themselfs, killing dozens of people. Had the man been notable I could understand, finding his name and a little summary from a list of acts doesn't justify the creation of an article. Basically, the article on ASALA can be developed. An article about a man, for whom there is no much information other than him killing one individual is unnecessary. VartanM 22:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Under what rule? Does "living" make all the difference? Say the person dies--then what, we delete the article? Such criterion makes an inpractical policy--notability should be judged based on actions, not whether person is alive or dead.-- TigranTheGreat 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

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 [620] 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. [621]. Here he extend his association of Iranism with nazism to the Aryan article. On Qazakh article he [622] switched Armenian for a list of Armenian writers and add Albanian instead because some suspect just one in the list to be Albanian.

Fedayee why are you providing evidences against Atabek from April when there are similar POV pushings by him that are much more recent, for example Principality_of_Khachen, done few hours ago [623]. Just like my other reference on his removal of Armenian, he removed any mention of Armenian. Atabek is aware that the vast majority of the sources contend that it was an Armenian dynasty, which includes Britannica. Jelal was claimed to be an Armenian and the descendants of the dynasty were believed to be descendants of earlier Armenian dynasties notably the Orbelians, Jalal's great grand-daughter was the Queen Tamar. (Transcaucasian Boundaries by Suzanne Goldenberg, Richard Schofield, John F. R. Wright; UCK Press, (1996) p. 92). Khachen family tree as seen from past to present are scholarly recognized as Armenian. Atabek will even remove that Khach in Armenian means cross. His pattern of edits are not that much different than Grandmaster's who's similar POV pushing I plan to document as well.

Atabek is accusing me of removing referenced information on Varoujan Garabedian what he "forgot" to say is that the source was violating WP:BLP. The source I removed fell under [624]. Varoujan Garabedian, and Harry_Sassounian pages were created by Atabek and according to WP:BLP1E (articles about living people notable only for one event) qualify for deletion [625] the only reason I haven't proposed their deletation is because I knew that like previously they will all gang up to vote keep and I was not interested to engage in an endless discussion. He's also accusing me of switching occupied(POV) to controlled(NPOV) on Karabakh page, which was an agreed wording. On Monte Melkonian page he's accusing me of reverting AdilBaguirov's sock. Atabek was suspected to be the sockpuppeteer of Drastamat which later turned out to be AdilBaguirov. Grandmaster claims there is no evidence of that, but there actually is as there are socks of Drastamat which were confirmed to be AdilBaguirov. The tag was placed on Atabek's talkpage according to Wiki procedure on suspected sockpuppetes, so he can defend himself. I also apologized to him for the accusation. [626] He's also accusing me of including his name in the checkuser. The same checkuser I was falsely accused of using socks. He says that I personally attacked him. While I called his accusation, that I blind reverted, idiotic, not him. And that was done after I gave detailed reasons why the sources provided by him were not reliable or were false. I'm also being accused of reverting an established long time contributor and calling it vandalism. The same diff provided by Atabek will show that the so called established long time contributor removed considerable amount of the article covering the Armenian history of the Nagorno Karabakh [627] which qualifies as vandalism.

When will this stop?

Atabek is continuing his POV pushing, The following are his contributions for today!

Principality of Khachen and the Prince of Khachen are two different things, the first was established later. There was no Caucasian Albania left by then.

Removes that it was part of the Baku Governorate. As goal to mislead readers to think there was a Azerbaijan Republic there before 1918.

Again

Reverts a reasonable compromise, any mention for him that Baku was part of other entities before the republic of Azerbaijan is unacceptable.

Changes Azerbaijani for Azerbaijan. This one shows that unlike Atabek, Hajji Piruz can compromise.

Replaced the Baku Governorate with Azerbaijan, as if there was such a state by then. When the fact is that it was then part of that Governorate.

Here he goes beyond bound by replacing the establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic republic in 1918 to Azerbaijan Democratic Republic's independence in 1918. As if there was such republic prior to that.

Re-adds Azerbaijan here too and ask Hajji to stop removing Azerbaijan, when the removal is more than justified and Atabek will be the first one to remove Armenia in similar circumstances.

Creating battle along national lines

Atabek has gone on to deny the Armenian Genocide on the following articles. This type of behavior not only creates tension, it leads to responses like this [628]. He also stalks and harasses me in every wikipedia page I touch.

Ottoman Armenian population edit summary: (no reference to the "called" per international conventions or courts)

Kurdish Armenian relations edit summary: (not recognized under the UN genocide convention, it was a ethnic strif e with mutual massacres of Kurds, Armenians and Turks)

Armenian Turkish relations edit summary: (it's not recognized in Turkey, neither under UN convention, hence remains a claim)

Erzurum edit summary: (the articles says massacres, those were not recognized as Genocide under the appropriate UN convention)

Caucasus Campaign edit summary: (i don't see how this could be called a genocide, when the article makes it clear that armed units of DRA were fighting under Ozanyan on the front against Turks)

Anti-Turkism edit summary: none

Grandmaster

I am amazed how Grandmaster distorted MarshallBagramyan's evidence, if we check the talk page of Paytakaran we see the mediation resumes, while he claims the mediator left. In fact if we read we see that mediator has taken a pause, and Grandmaster resumed the revert warring. Also he accuses others of distorting sources, such as selective quoting. While he did the same exact thing on Movses_Kaghankatvatsi, While he provided the full text in Russian, he didn't translate part of the sentence that said Movses was very likely Armenian, he later called that part irrelevant [629]. I also believe the arbitration should take careful look at the discussions rather than taking Grandmaster interpretations, because I am certainly amazed on the way he interprets this whole thing, not once did he admitted any mistakes from his part. His reply to Tigran evidence is full of distortions, and the other to MarshallBagramyan as much. I wonder if he thinks that he has done nothing wrong, why does he bother answering each and every single evidence other editors provided? VartanM 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Flavius Belisarius

Flavius Belisarius is extremely disruptive, because of his edit warring two articles have been locked. Almost never participates in the talkpage and when he does, acts uncivil and personally attacks others.

See the edit summaries: [630] [631] [632] [633] [634]

Talkpage: [635] [636] [637] [638] [639] [640] [641] [642] [643]

Please also take a look at his edit history for more edit warring evidences.


Makalp also know as Must. T C

I'm submitting this evidence against Makalp in response to Atabek's claim that I was disruptive when I reverted Makalp's edits. Makalp has abusively vandalized Wikipedia, turned it into a battleground, personally attacked users, conducted original research, revert warred, removed sourced information and hardly ever used the talk page of the articles to discuss changes.

Administrators notice board

Makalp has been reported to Administrators noticeboard at least 3 times.

[644] - submited by Gareth Hughes 6 June, 2007

[645] - reported by Bohater on 25 April 2007

[646] - reported by Artaxiad 7 April 2007


Armenian

While removing any mention of Armenia and Armenian from various articles, in his edit summaries he uses such derogatory terms as "another POVermen" (Ermen means Armenian in Turkish), "DELETE pov", "Political, UNSOURCED pov DELETED" He removes any mention of Armenian Genocide from any article.

[647] Ordu - removed info about Armenian Genocide, reverts Khoikhoi Edit summary: (Go talk for consensus), while he never posted anything in the talkpage.

[648] Anti-Armenian - added POV and disputed tags

[649] Anti-Armenian - revert warred, edit summary: (Is there a linear relation between Nr.of "Your" sources and POV'ness?)

[650] Anti-Armenian - revert warred, edit summary:(Firstly Keep this tag, than discuss.My better.If, only one user thinks that this page include POV, we must keep tag here.)

[651] Anti-Armenianism - After placing tags and revert warring he never explains or responds in the talkpage.

[652] Mush - removed the entire info about Kingdom of Armenia. edit summary: (another POVerman.)

[653] Lesser Armenia - removed info about the Genocide. edit summary: (no such a POV)

[654] Rivers of Turkey - changes Akhuryan river to Arpachay

[655] Mush - removed info abut the Genocide, Tells Garzo in edit summary: (Please give up to push the materials in your political agenda to the turkish articles. Avoid to start a war in all related articles.)

[656] Mush - removed info about the Genocide. edit summary: m (No body claim that historical names are wrong. Keep these name without pushing unrelevant/unceserrary POVs.)

[657] Baskale - removed info about the Genocide edit summary: m (another false source) the source is THE TREATMENT OF ARMENIANS in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16 By Viscount Bryce [658]

[659] Baskale - edit wars, edit summary: Bashkala ok.False also ok. no genocide.This POV source states "some hundreds" massacred!!!

[660] Baskale - removed Armenian Genocide edit summary: m (Dont use your source in a false way. There is no any word there refering Genocide.) the word massacre is mentioned 49 times, the word genocide was coined in 1944.

[661] Baskale - removed Armenian Genocide edit summary:m (Historically wrong material removed. Source states date as 1915. at 1915 city under occupation Armenians. Who made genocide; Armenians to Armenians?)

[662] Baskale - removed sourced information about the genocide, edit summary: (Dont remove sourced events.) while he was the one removing sources.

[663] Mush - removed alternative Armenian name edit summary: m (no image,name)

[664] History of Anatolia - adds grammatically and factually incorrect info. edit summary: m (Please learn to speak in civil.;improve my English if you think so.)

[665] Turkish Van - removed Armenian name edit summary: m (no need all names in different languages)

[666] Turkish Van - removed Armenian name edit summary: (Rv blind,stupid revert)

[667] Baskale - removed cited info about Assyrian and Armenian Genocide edit summary: m (History of district, citation) no citation were added only removed

[668] Lesser Armenia - removed info about Armenian Genocide edit summary: m (DELETE pov)

[669] John Mirak(Armenian) - added speedy deletion tag edit summary: m (Do not Delete the tag, this is not suitable, follow procedure)

[670] John Mirak - replaces Armenia with Malatia province and removes Armenian Genocide edit summary:Political, UNSOURCED pov DELETED

Sper

He has continuously removed and or redirected Sper (Armenia) to Sper (Anatolia) a historic region of Armenia. edit summary: m (name corrected)

[671] Sper - replaced Armenia with Anatolia. edit summary: m (dab)

[672] Sper - replaced Armenia with Anatolia. edit summary: m (name corrected)

[673] Sper - removed Sper (Armenia) from the list. edit summary: m (dab)

[674] Sper (Armenia) redirected to Sper (Anatolia). edit summary: (In Anatolia)

[675] Sper - redirected. edit summary: m (moved Sper (Armenia) to Sper (Anatolia): geographic region)

[676] Sper - redirected.

[677] Sper - redirected to Bayburt Province. m (to correct place)

Cilician Gates

A series of edits that replaced and renamed Cilician Gates to current Turkish name (Gulek Pass). The only time I saw him disscussing the change was on Geography of Turkey. On the talk page of the article Macrakis explained to him why they must use the English name instead of the Turkish one. Makalp only replied once [678]. He then went on and changed Cilician Gates to Gulek pass in number of articles, This is when I reverted him nineteen times.

[679] [680] [681] [682] [683] [684] [685] [686] [687] [688] Not only changed the name, but also placed Turkey in Europe.

Kurdish

Despite being a member of WikiProject Kurdistan he has vandalized and removed information from Kurdish related articles. The following are just few examples. More can be provided upon request

[689] Admin. notice board removed Kurdish categories.

[690] Ahmet Kaya - removed any mention of Kurdish. edit summary: m (Use suitable words for other users. He has a Turkish family, in Malatya-Not Kurd. There were no restrictions on work.)

[691] - Questions the legitimacy of [Category:Kurdistan]

Greek

His style of vandalism and removal of information is not limmited to Armenian and Kurdish Articles. The following are just a few examples

[692] Turkification - removed info about Greeks in Cypros

[693] Aydin - added pov text with non third party source

[694] Great Fire of Smyrna - changed reoccupation to liberated

[695] Great Fire of Smyrna - revert warred

[696] Aegean dispute - added bogus source

Wikistalking Domitius

"I think I'm finding myself being wikistalked by this user [9][10][11]. All in the last few minutes.--Domitius 10:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC) [697]

[698] [699] [700]


Abusing the fact tag

[701] Zakarid Armenia. edit summary: m (such a nationalist POVs)

[702] Mush

[703] Sanadaj - also removed Kurdistan

[704] Baskale

[705] Baskale

Asks other Turkish members to help or edit war

Edit war

[706] Laertes_d

[707] A.Garnet

[708] OttomanReference

Help with Administrators noticeboard Incident

When he was reported to administrators notice board, he asks for help from other Turkish members.

[709] White Cat

[710]

[711] Duja

[712] Flavius Belisarius

Personal attack

"Learn to speak English and don't add nonsense to Wikipedia" That was my reaction to Makalp's "contribution" to History of Anatolia

"About 70,000 citizens of Armenia work illegally in Turkey. These people fled to Turkey to look a job, due to the bad economical and social conditions in Armenia."

Witnessing such destructive behavior, I have always remained calm and always followed Wikipedia rules. My comment was uncivil, and I would like to apologize to Makalp for the personal attack I made while in the heat of the moment.

Dacy69

Dacy69 who has been on revert parole since last arbcom has been blocked twice, the last one for 72 hours. His pattern of editing is very odd. He suddenly appears out of nowhere meatpupets for Grandmaster or Atabek, leaves a sentence long explanation for his revert and disappears.

Sahl ibn Sunbat reverts, edit summary: (rv - pls. engage in talkpage)

Talk assumes bad faith and accuses ArmeniaArmenia of being a sock, says that current version accommodates both versions. He never edited the article before, neither did he participated in the talkpage.

House of Hasan Jalalyan reverts, edit summary: (rv - dont delete sourced info)

Talk "And put your arguments here so we will be able to discuss". Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

List of Azerbaijani films 1898-1919 reverts, edit summary: (rv)

Talk "Discussion about the name of Azerbaijan does not belong here: Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

Movses Kaghankatvatsi reverts, edit summary: "(rv - see discussion. we should use in article like that neutral source)"

Talk "MarshalBagramyan, your last edit has refrence to non-neutral source while you have reverted neutral source.". Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

Kara Koyunlu reverts, edit summary: "(see discussion)"

Talk ":History of Azerbaijan is History of Azerbaijan. It might have common area with other countries histories but we hsould not mix templates. Roman history might covers hostory of several coutnries but templates of each (for example Spain, Italy, Greece) has been legitimately placed". Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

Khojaly Massacre revertes, edit summary: "(rv - see talkpage)"

Talk ":Statement is full POV we dont have personal interpretation here." Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

Movses Kaghankatvatsi reverts the edits of Hetoum, edit summary: "(pls. respect other sources. add yours tand don't remove others.)"

Talk "There are sources which claim alternative opinion and you does not have right to remove them. Wikipedia should include various versions. So, I rv back, you are welcome to add your sources but don't remove other sources"

Evidence presented by Marshal Bagramyan

Grandmaster

I happen to be entering this foray quite late; however, I found it difficult to ignore the fact that my name has been thrown into this arbitration committee with so many accusations, as if the faults have all been one-sided in nature. Additionally, I am merging my comments into user:Hakob's RfC.

While I could answer user:Grandmaster's replies on user:TigranTheGreat evidence, I will refrain from doing so. I feel that the arbitration committee should take a closer look at the evidences presented by him, particularly the links and their contexts rather than taking Grandmaster interpretations at face value. Here, my evidence is somewhat outdated, as those events happened after the first arbitration. I contribute in Wikipedia to write articles, not to go after members and scrutinizing each and every contribution to find evidence to discredit them. So I have rather decided, to reiterate once more, to take what I had prepared (for an RfC) and merge user:Hakob RfC on Grandmaster which was submitted and deleted since user:Hakob was inexperienced with the whole process (the arbitration can probably check user:Hakob deleted contributions. Hakob give me permission to make some modifications to link some of the issues brought during this case. So, to begin with:

User:The Transhumanist, under Grandmaster's request, accepted to mediate Paytakaran article under those conditions: which included the following statement: "If no consensus is reached by the community, then the article will remain as it is." Grandmaster agreed. Each of The Transhumanist's enumerated propositions was agreed to by everyone were considered as being a consensus, see here, and added in the article.

Before that, user:The Transhumanist reasonably moved the article to a disambiguation page, which should have settled the dispute but user:Grandmaster undid the move claiming that no consensus was obtained. While he was aware that the article User:Eupator had created was about the Armenian province of Paytakaran, he requested consensus for a clarification that user Ulvi_I, who reverted to Grandmaster's version, agreed to and even proposed.

On April 18, realizing that the name Armenia will be there without adding irrelevancy, Grandmaster decided to leave mediation and made a series of changes disrespecting his previous acceptance of the conditions of the mediation. Eupator reverted. User:Jayvdb who was not a party merged both versions, probably believing in good faith that he could settle the dispute. This did not satisfy Grandmaster so he modified it even further. Then Eupator revertd to user:TheTranshumanist's version stating: "rv to neutral version by The Transhumanist agreed upon by all." User Grandmaster reverted, claiming "it was not agreed by all, see talk"; which is incorrect. The Transhumanist's version was indeed agreed to by all, since some of the propositions Grandmaster wanted, was achieved in the consensus and made it into the article. Grandmaster, however, fails to understand consensus buildup.

6. It is then that Hakop intervened and reverted Grandmaster's action, which triggered a revert war; user Ulvi_I reverted back, then Hakob reverted him. User:Parishan jumped in the game and reverted him and claimed that there was nothing in the talkpage from user:Hakob. Ironically, he didn't justify his revert either. He is reverted again by Hakob but reverts back.

While this was happening, Hakob was accused of being a sock by Ulvi_I. In his answer to Grandmaster, Eupator clarified (and explained) that the accusations were baseless. But Grandmaster replied with further accusations which provoked Hakob who replied back. Grandmaster does not stop with the accusations, witnessing that Hakob was provoked he continued and claimed that he was blackmailed to continue further with original research to then say that it should be resolved using accurate information, when the criticism leveled about his edit was precisely about that. He even wrote that otherwise we will have to follow formal procedures to have the dispute settled when he threw the mediation away; a mediation he himself requested. He even claims that unlike Hakob, Parishan and Ulvi_I were involved. They however were never involved in the version Grandmaster proposed which included the Azerbaijani term for a historic Armenian province which existed when the Azerbaijani language did not. In fact, Ulvi_I himself did not agree with Grandmaster but reverted regardless as we'll see.

Grandmaster is solely responsible in this particular case of dispute. The Transhumanist] summed it up finely here as to why Grandmaster version was opposed. Ulvi_I did not seem to oppose this clarification either in a reply: I am also for separation of Caspiane and Paytakaran, actually I was the first one suggesting to separate these two issues. More ancient and larger Caspiane included Paytarakaran (region) when the latter did not exists as such.

9. Ulvi_I in this reply also said that "coming and removing Paytakaran's historical location within Azerbaijan, its links to Atropatena and Albania is not going to work." But nothing of the sort was done. The version which Hakob reverted to, included a section The region today which stated that it is currently part of Azerbaijan. In the previous history section its relation with Albania is there. The only relation that was missing was the loss of Paytakaran which could have been debated about, and from what we could read from the talk page that User Eupator never disagreed with that. So it seem that Eupator, Ulvi_I and Hakob were in agreement about most of the things. But Grandmaster disagreed and started a revert war which involved several users without consensus build-up and without respecting the conditions of the mediation he requested, acted as if he owned the article.

During the incident Grandmaster consistently accused Eupator of all sorts of things to push him out. He failed to assume good faith: Shirakatzi has been misquoted, and I suspect that it was done on purpose, and it seems to me like a deliberate attempt to suppress certain info Eupator, provoked, took the bait and answered in kind. Grandmaster did not stop he, added more: This is exactly what I call distortion and suppression of info. Are you still going to deny that this region was part of other states?

Eupator did want to argue anymore and considered leaving the article altogether which did not satisfy Grandmaster who continues with his provocations to finish it off with an Arbitration.

During the discussion Grandmaster explicitly claimed ownership of the article and pushed user:Eupator out: This cannot go on forever, with or without Eupator the accurate info should be included in the article also limiting Eupator's contribution to this: All you did was just denied the sources, no matter how authoritative they were. User Hakob intervened after Eupator left the article, only to be pushed out in turn. Grandmaster misinterpreted sources and added irrelevant in articles; when it does not satisfy him, he accuses users of suppressing info. He so often assumes such bad faith, in the Khatchkar destruction page for example he again accuses editors of suppressing info because they were removing a source which was not supporting what Grandmaster was claiming it was supporting.

Hakob subsequently told him (this difference is a must read as he basically raises the same concerns about Grandmaster's conduct that several users have reported him) that he wouldn't argue with uncompromising editors so he prefers leaving to which Grandmaster replies: "I don't think you staying away from this article will somehow affect its quality, because you have not contributed anything to it so far." And the irony is that he adds: "If you want to actually edit it, you are always welcome" and this was after throwing mediation out the window and pushing out two contributors.

Grandmaster's main problem would be with the term Armenia and Armenians; he will try adding the term Albania or Azerbaijan or either delete Armenia all together or merge them when he can't. Often the problem will be his interpretation of sources which he wants in articles, or irrelevancies, finding the context to add irrelevant elements. It's like he's mopping up basically.

The Melikdom (the Meliks) article which Eupator created to cover the Armenian Meliks was one such other example. Grandmaster requested its merging with Malik, this spread his "battle" to the Malik page, [713], [714], [715]. When user:Eupator finally expanded the article and Grandmaster's attempt to merge fails, he made a series of edits to the article, including this when the period is already covered, and as user:TigranTheGreat reports, mislead the reader.

He did just the same on the Utik article, the article was created on the Utik Province, which was an Armenian province. Grandmaster claimed that it was also an Albanian Province from a source or two referring that there was such a province other than Armenian. It is often that he will be finding one or two sources to give himself the legitimacy to present his position as equally valid as the majority. He wrote on the Paytakaran talk page when reminded time and again that the name Paytakaran relates to an Armenian Province: "Whether it was the province of Atropatene under that or different name is irrelevant, we need to mention the fact that the territory was part of that state and accurately quote the source." [716] which I think describes Grandmaster's reasoning quite well. Under his logic Babylonia should be presented as the same as Iraq, because the territory is now within Iraq. This is actually what The Transhumanist was describing when he told Grandmaster that, indeed, clarification was needed.

The article Khachkar Destruction was originally created by the User:Artaxiad, within a few days Grandmaster placed it for deletion. All participants in the AFD who voted (as can be seen by their comments) to either keep or delete understood that the article was about the destruction of Khachkars in the region of Nakhichevan, the only notable area where explicit destruction has been reported.

The AfD did not reach a consensus, and decided to keep it. User:AdilBaguirov found a loophole where he exploited its title by adding two sources, neither of which spoke about khachkar destruction (the first was not even about khachkars to begin with) and began to develop a section on the destruction of Khachkars in Armenia in order to help "balance" the article, (see more detail in user:TigranTheGreat's evidence on Grandmaster). So, suddenly, Grandmaster wanted to keep the article for it was no longer a FORK. Artaxiad knew his mistake was in the name of the article and so wished to change it for the sake of clarification, which user:AdilBaguirov opposed wherein user:Aivazovsky requested to move the article, with the intention of closing this loophole and lo and behold, Grandmaster opposed it. He says in another article what was his problem with the subject. see here. He request the destruction of the Khachkars to be deleted from that article, which basically was why he submitted the main for deletion and then decided to keep it when AdilBaguirov distorted sources to add a section on Armenians destroying their own Khachkars.

Those who first voted keeping the article knew it was about Nakhichevan khachkars so they duly chose not to vote for an article which Grandmaster and AdilBaguirov had essentially created. Grandmaster wanted to add in the destruction of khachkars an article which does even not talk about khachkars, something which was misused and distorted by AdilBaguirov, yet supported by Grandmaster. Then, the article was nominated a second time, and the votes were inverted. Now Grandmaster wanted to keep it.

Similar problems occurred on the Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan regarding the background history section because it did not conform to Grandmaster's views. He brings with him an old conflict he had with user:Fadix on the Nakhichevan article. The problem this time was the recorded resettlement of Armenians from historic Armenia (which at that time included Nakhichevan) permanently in Safavid Iran by the Persian Shah Abbas from 1604-1605. The context was to highlight the Armenians having vacated the place and thus leaving the historical monuments behind. Then I found myself in an endless, circular discussion with Grandmaster who insisted in including the misleading notion the entire population was evicted permanently from historic Armenia and not exclusively the Armenians. I tried reasoning to him to the fact that Armenians were resettled permanently while for others it was a measure taken during the war, since the background was about the fact that Armenians involuntarily vacated the place permanently to leave the monuments behind: a necessary piece of information for readers to know one of the reasons of why there are no Armenians in Nakhichevan today.

While I did not understand the necessity to expand that section when the idea was to give simple background about those monuments but for the sake of ending the conflict, I made the necessary edits to satisfy him with what he wanted.

And so as a result, Grandmaster reported me (go figure, why?) again to User:Thatcher131. He distorted the whole thing (I won't bother explaining how). Then Parishan reverted. Eupator back; then User:Dacy69 reverts and he is reverted by User:VartanM

User:Khoikhoi intervened with a good compromise (ironically, Grandmaster claims that I only stopped edit warring after user:Khoikhoi intervened, the fact is that I agreed, and not him, with the compromise) which did not satisfy Grandmaster, where he took the initiative and continued to expand on what was supposed to be a brief background of the article. It fails in any comprehension that Grandmaster needs to remind someone in an article about Khachkars, that there were Muslims living in Julfa as well and even attempting to suggest that they too, were brought to live permanently in Safavid Iran, thereby disconnecting it in relevance with the article. As if this was not enough, he even succeeded in adding a paragraph on Turkic Kangerli tribe.

During the discussion, Grandmaster still continued to dismiss authors because of their ethnicity: "Also note that Bournoutian is an Armenian source, which tends to blow the Armenian figures out of any proportion." (Bournoutian actually contributes for Iranicatoo, which Grandmaster enjoys to quote so much)

He also took an incivil tone with me: "Do you still deny that the entire population of Nakhichevan was relocated south of Araks." When he was explained that while all the population was indeed relocated, Armenians were resettled permanently while others were not.

On the Cultural genocide article someone proposed the article for deletion, to which an editor opposed. Then you had Grandmaster write that he didn't mind the article to remain as long as any mention to the Khachkar destruction is removed: "I don't mind as long as baseless anti-Azerbaijani claims are removed." And when User:Fedayee pointed to something , Grandmaster not only requested sources (which alone is normal), but he finish it by accusing Fedayee of making baseless claims.

This is scratching the surface but this is all I'm going to add.-- Marshal Bagramyan 19:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply


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/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2/Evidence&oldid=1164052566"