From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 22:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.


Involved parties

Requests for comment

Statement by Shervink

Artaxerex ( talk · contribs) has continuously attackd me and others by making personal attacks, false accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry, and has himself resorted to sockpuppetry several times, and pushed his POV and OR. He has accused others of fascism, racism, anti-semitism, and revisionism. While continuing on the same line after being blocked twice for sockpuppetry, he increasingly attacked me personally and systematically tried to tarnish my image on wikipedia. He has attempted to divide wikipedia along political lines, accusing other editors of setting up a "monarchist gang". (Even on his statement regarding this arbitration request, he is again accusing me and others of sockpuppetry, setting up a gang or group, racism, and brings up a case of uncivility on my part for which I apologized to him at least three times.) His behavior did not change the slightest bit over several months. Even after issuing a half-hearted apology under the pressure of the user conduct RfC case, he repeated his personal attacks towards me and another editor who tried to engage in a new discussion with him. Considering the fact that all the efforts so far to convince him to improve his behavior have failed, I would like to ask for the ArbCom to have a look at this matter. Shervink 14:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

note 1 - Artaxerex has been confirmed to have used sockpuppets even after his apparent change of mind on the RfC [1]. Considering that he has already been blocked twice for similar things [2], it is safe to conclude that he has learned nothing from his past mistakes. Even on this same ArbCom page he is using one of his sockpuppets (Vazgen) to edit his own comments! This is not a user who has created two usernames in good faith to use them independently. The level of abusiveness of this editor simply leaves no other choice but ArbCom to resolve this issue. Shervink 07:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

note 2 - I am deeply shocked that even on this ArbCom request, Artaxerex goes on personally attacking me, attributing to me racist ideas which I have never expressed, calls me pro-Aryan, fascist, speaks of my cohort, etc. I would like to note that the tone of these comments is just an example of the almost daily abuse which others and I have been dealing with for months now whenerver trying to discuss with him. Shervink 09:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

note 3 - Artaxerex quotes me incompletely and incorrectly in order to create the impression that I have made anti-semitic remarks. You can see here what I have actually said. Contrary to his claim, I have never said that Iranian Jews and Arabs are not Iranians. In fact, I have said the exact opposite of what he attributes to me. Shervink 11:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

note 4 - Artaxerex has become so bold in his uncivility that he is directing personal attacks at me and others on a daily basis, even now where there is an open ArbCom request and after an RfC has failed to improve his behavior. He is regularly calling me chauvinist, racist, fascist, and the like. While he is repeatedly accusing me of racism and anti-semitism, I have never supported any racial ideas nor have I ever been even remotely supporting anti-semitic or Aryan superiority ideas, which I think are total nonsense. Moreover he still denies any wrongdoing with regards to his repeated sockpuppetry. see [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] for example. Shervink 12:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

note 5 - Artaxerex keeps bringing up an old instance of uncivil behavior on my part, without mentioning that I have already apologized to him for that three times [10] [11] [12]. I am not proud of it and I know it was totally unacceptable to behave that way in a moment of frustration, but I have apologized for it and I actually meant the apology, as is evident from the fact that I have never repeated anything of the sort since then. Shervink 10:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Artaxerex

  • Shervink and his group (meatpuppets?!)' are trying to ban me by whatever means possible. The sole issue is my focus on the POV tone of the two articles on Pahlavies which I am trying to balance with solid academic sources. I have been called A****, and a Wana-be-historian by shervink, a "Palague", and a "worst kind of human being" by SG, and other names by Merhrshad 123. I have offered various suggestions for improvement of the article but shervink has alwayes refused any change. He finds all my western academic references unreliable. His group specifically has asked me to provide only Persian sources. They use their majority to veto every slight change by resorting to edit wars. They have not provided a single reliable source for thier claims. etc. etc.
  • He accuses me of Sockpuppetry, due to the fact that I am sharing a wireless IP with a number of students and researchers, some of whom had participated in these discussions and are banned unfairly due to accusations by shervink and his group. It is unfortunate that no attempt was made by anyone to contact these people in order to assess their qualifications.
  • It is unfortunate, that nobody has looked to the way this group operates. From shervink's talk page one can see how this group operates. They target various minority groups like Kurds and impose their own extreme Pan-Iranist and Aryan nationalist views to silence them.
  • Nevertheless, the real isuue is a content dispute on extremely biased page in Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Reza shah pages as it is clear from the evidence shervink has posted above. In particular, I object strnogly to the racist tone of these editors who claim and insist that "Iranians are Aryans" which implies Iranians of Jewish, Arab or Assirian roots are not Iranians. This is of grave concerns for me and, I hope, for any decent arbitor (as I am certain it is). Apart from this issue I have apologized in good faith to him for everything that he asked me to apologize for. But he refuses any attempt for the balancing of the lead. He always finds a way to evade or install the discussion.
  • I am not a Jew, an Arab, or an Assirian, but the pro-Aryan remarks made by these editors greatly offends me, as it should offend any decent individual. They cannot claim that they are unaware of the impact of their remarks, as I have provided them with the memoirs of a young Jewish boy during Shah's regime that was forced to sing "We are Aryans!".
  • I wonder why editors like Melca (who has supported my edits in his RFC submission) are not invited here!!
  • I wonder why servink has deleted the RFC? What happend to its discussion page?
  • I pledge to abide by the verdict of this arbitration committee, and I do hope that we can find a way to go back to edit.
It appears that Shervink has been succesful again to prove that I have used a sockpuppet (since a person who shares my IP has posted in a totally unrelated page). Behnam has promised him that he will ban me for at least six month for this abuse. I have informed them that should they fail to ban me I continue to provide valid sources to stop the spread of the Aryan-racist propaganda by shervink and his cohort. and will try to balance the articles with an open mind.
Response to Shervink
It is rather sad that shervink still shows ignorance w.r.t his racist remarks. He also has brought this content dispute to a totally unrelated page of an artist (Guity Novin) and at the same time has not waited for the outcome of this arbitration and has started another process requesting my banishment.
Please note that shervink's srtong pro-Aryan views can be acertained from here; [13]where he writes to Behnam an editor/(admin?) to explain why he believes "Iranians are Aryans". He writes:
"When I say that Iranians are not semitic, I mean that both their languages and their culture are quite distinct from those of the semitic people."
In other words he means Iranians of different race (Jews, Arabs, Assyrians etc.) are not Iranians (or are Aryans!). This is not my spin as you can see from Behnam's response to him here: [14].
I have written to him here [15] which reads; "You wrote: ...it is not only the Shah who did not think that Iranians are semitic. Iranians are not semitic. That's nothing new." Your statement is False. There are many Semitic Iranians. Jewish Iranians are Semitic, Arab Iranians are Semitic. In fact, anybody who argues that Jews who have lived in Iran for more than 2500 years are not Iranian not only would be wrong, but also anti-Semitic. I am really disgusted by the above statement, and I hope you really wrote it inadvertently. Artaxerex 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
note 1; As another example of shervink's chauvonism please see his confrontation with the minority Kurdish people, where he and his so-called Iranian-watch-dogs forced them to merge their page on celebration of their new year as part of the Iranian celebration. In fact, shervink wrote here [16] "I have no problem at all with the fact that Kurds have their own culture, language, music, dance, etc. In fact, that's truly beautiful. What I have a problem with is that some of these editors deny their ancient ties with the people around them, most importantly the other Iranians, going as far as speculating whether they are more related to jews and arabs rather than Iranians!" )
note 2; Shervink's message in May about my banishment; Hello Sina. It is a shame that this guy is still able to edit anything on wikipedia. I think that he should have been banned indefinetely after the several sockpuppet attacks organized by him. Anyway, I have no intention whatsoever to continue wasting my time on this childish, totally useless and weak so-called encyclopedia which cannot even manage to keep the likes of this A****** from editing. I'm out of this game and I think anybody who cares about his time will eventually do the same. I think this whole wikipedia thing is evolving into an utter failure. Shervink 22:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by SG

I enjoy it when Artaxerex takes comments out of context. Yes, I called him a plague and the worst kind of human being, along with a full explanation of my thoughts in four paragraphs (and explained it again later in three more paragraphs). Artaxerex does not work well with others. If the history of the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Reza Shah talk pages are viewed from the time Artaxerex began editing, it will become very clear that the other editors maintained proper etiquette and were quite kind towards Artaxerex at the beginning. However, as time progressed, Artaxerex never backed down from his position and began engaging in an edit war through the use of sockpuppets, thus we have all become incredibly tired of this user and his actions. Due to Artaxerex, I have not edited the actual article since April, and several other editors have left the page in its entirety. It is also rather irritating when he refers to us as "Shervink et al", "Shervink and co", "Shervink and his gang", "Shervink and his group", even though we have told him to stop several times.

My attempts to reason with Artaxerex and prove that what he is writing is false have been futile, as he has completely ignored me in the talk pages and instead argues with Shervink or talks to The Behnam directly, rather than actually responding to my points; this way, he can actually avoid any meaningful discussion which proves him and his statements wrong. We have on many occasions agreed with Artaxerex, though he has never done so with us, even after we have proven him wrong. We have even collaborated with him in writing a more neutral article, yet he always refuses to accept anything and instead rewrites the page (particularly the lead) in a manner which he finds acceptable. Artaxerex himself has at times agreed that what he is writing is not neutral (and that he'll make it more neutral "later", or that we should make it NPOV for him, or even that we should balance his statements by writing the opposite, ie. praise for the Shah).

My problem with Artaxerex is not his prior use of sockpuppets, nor do I care about his insults. My main issue is that he brushes off all meaningful discussion, he never accepts that he could be wrong, and he refuses to listen to our suggestions or arguments. In short, as I said before, he does not work well with others, period. ♠ SG →Talk 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Rayis

I can't really add much but my point of view regarding dealing with this user, which is consistent with everyone else's. Ever since Artaxerex got involved with the Pahlavi articles he has pushed his POV, with no respect to Wikipedia rules. He has used multiple sockpuppets as well as meatpuppets to edit war and make sure the article gets locked at his version. His constant edit warring made sure that the articles make no progress in months, maybe even a year or so.

Furthermore he has constantly called all other editors of the article a gang, attaching all sorts of accusations such as nationalist, bloggers, etc etc - showing no respect at all for anyone else's opinion but himself.

Many users tried to settle the issues in the article but gave up, one of them being me. After months of editing Wikipedia, the constant problems with this user wasted a lot of my time, and he was one of the main reasons that discouraged me from editing here. Users such as Artaxerex are exactly the ones that Wikipedia does not need. -- Rayis 10:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by The Behnam

During the RFC on Artaxerex's conduct, we concluded that he violated many of Wikipedia's conduct rules. In an attempt to return to the content dispute and make amends with other editors at the Pahlavi articles, I encouraged Artaxerex to apologize for his past conduct and to not violate our conduct rules further. He agreed to this, and in doing so received a second chance.

We returned to our attempts to resolve the content dispute. While we were supposed to take issues on point at a time, the discussion really went nowhere, as it usually degenerated into a distracted mess touching upon dozens of different topics, with vague accusations of NPA violations mixed in. I definitely credit much of this to Artaxerex's style of discussion (which isn't very productive), but I must also note that SG's refusal to give Artaxerex a second chance (accompanied by aggressive anti-Artaxerex rants) probably did not help the situation very much.

As for the agreement itself, so far there has been one sockpuppet, but it was not being used abusively, so this should not count against Artaxerex. However, there may have been some violations of NPA that deserve further investigation (for example, I notice in this RFAR that Artaxerex attributes 'chauvinism' to Shervink). In any such investigation, note should be made if the NPA violation derives from Artaxerex misunderstanding one of Shervink's statements in an offensive manner, or if Artaxerex said something rude in the desperate moments of panic after realizing that a bunch of users are trying to "hunt" him through an RFAR aimed at a ban. I point out these two situations because I think that some violations, while technically against the agreement, may be understandable, and hence forgivable - but maybe I'm too forgiving.

In theory, I should recommend formal mediation instead of ArbCom at this point, but I'm just going to be honest - this case would end up at ArbCom anyway. Hopefully we can work out a solution that is favorable to all parties, despite the fact that this RFAR's purpose is to ban Artaxerex. I think that Artaxerex could be a good editor if a few adjustments are made to his style and approach, but I'm just not sure how to make this happen. I sincerely hope that ArbCom can find the best solution to this problem. Regards, The Behnam 04:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/1/0/0)

Final decision Information

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Passed 4-0 at 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

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

Passed 4-0 at 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Passed 4-0 at 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

4) The use of alternate accounts, while not forbidden, is discouraged. Use of alternate accounts as sockpuppets, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability – and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, create false consensus, or vandalize – is strictly forbidden.

Passed 4-0 at 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute centers on the articles about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Reza Shah, and, in particular, the extent and manner in which various negative claims about the subjects should be presented.

Passed 4-0 at 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Artaxerex

2) Artaxerex ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including sustained edit-warring ( [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ( [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]), sockpuppetry ( [34]), and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground ( [35], [36], [37], [38]).

Passed 4-0 at 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Artaxerex banned

1) Artaxerex ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 4-0 at 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Parties reminded

2) The parties are reminded of the need to adhere closely to the neutral point of view policy and to present all views on a topic fairly.

Passed 4-0 at 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Artaxerex&oldid=1138653103"