Active

• Blnguyen
• Charles Matthews
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Morven
• Paul August
• Raul654
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive

• Flcelloguy
• FloNight
• Mackensen
• Neutrality

I have some critiques of the two proposed remedies so far. First, I think "region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" should be replaced with "the Caucasus region and the ethnic, religious, and historical issues related to that area." Caucasus is a broader way of putting it, and if phrased like that the remedy will also apply to Chechnya and Abkhazia-related articles, where there has been conflict.

Second, when you say "reasonable degree of civility," who is this to be determined by? Presumably uninvolved administrators, in which case I think that should be noted. Third and finally, why are everybody who was sanctioned in the previous case being sanctioned here? Elsanaturk ( talk · contribs), for example, doesn't seem to have done anything wrong recently. Also note that there are parties to this case who mainly edit Iran-related articles, and who were not in the old case. I think this remedy should be adapted to apply to the people involved in this case. Picaroon (Talk) 20:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I think the remedy should include Iran related topics, as for example many Azerbaijan related issues involve the articles on Iranian history and politics and such articles like Safavid dynasty were a source of dispute for years. And I agree with the last comment of Picaroon, the remedy should be more specific in application to certain users. -- Grandmaster 05:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The remedies may be applied to anyone who edits these articles in a disruptive way, after notice and warning. Fred Bauder 18:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

My concern is that the probation is proposed to be applied to all users involved in the previous arbcom case regardless if they were involved in any disruptive activity since then or not. However, most of disruption was caused by the users not involved in the previous case and thus not restricted by the parole. I believe that it would be better to apply remedies individually to users involved in disruptive activity, including those who were not parties to the previous case. Grandmaster 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This could probably force arbitrators to take a harsher decision for those who were involved in the first one which includes banning some. Most others who were not involved in the past arbitration do not have a long history of edit warring or disruptive editing, you had your chance so I don't understand why you are so pressed to dump everyone in here. The logic is, if those new ones end up with harsh restrictions, those who had restrictions and are still disruptive should have even harsher ones. - Fedayee 06:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree that a more severe punishment should be applied to those who had already been sanctioned. I just think that such measures should be applied on individual basis with consideration to the actual offences committed by each person. As for new users, some of them have a long history of disruptive editing. Grandmaster 07:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Let Mackensen come here and explain why to this: Then we should prepare a collage picture of Adolf Hitler with Swastika and images of Holocaust and post it on all Iran related pages and I am working on Pan-Aryan collage meanwhile. Thanks by Atabek he answers: The full text of the first remark suggests sarcasm and frustration. Was such a collage actually created? [1]. But obviously that is not what he thought when he voted in support of a finding of fact which accused Fadix of attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground. Worst is that unlike Fadix, Atabek does have a history of wiki-retaliation as documented in the evidence. But arbitrators have preferred ignoring those before deciding to propose to close the case.

Wiki-retaliation and attempt to turn Wikipedia into a battleground? What about when Atabek decided to remove the word Genocide [2] as retaliation during his conflict with other editors on the uses of the word Azerbaijan. It was submitted to the notice board. [3] And for once there was some reaction from the administrators. He just recently has retaliated and again after a conflict on the insertion of the term Azerbaijan by removing Iran (e.g. [4]). The arbitrations should provide me one instance where Atabek has sincerely contributed peacefully by policy or debated without failing to assume good faith or won the respect of Armenian or Iranian editors in a heated subject. Never, but of course disruption will follow, not even a finding of fact on individual disruption that the case is put for closure, when the user who did most of the compromises on the Khojali massacre (close to the most heated article related to Armenia-Azerbaijan) was banned in the first occasion when Grandmaster was so eager to tell him: ...you appear to be the only reasonable person among those who represent Armenian point of view in this talk page, I appreciate that you try to explain the points you think are POV here. [5]

Being straight, Atabek failed to assume good faith, wiki-retaliated, attempted to turn Wikipedia into a battle ground, has been uncivil, personally attacked, POV pushed (massively removing the word genocide, or pushing the term Azerbaijan on various articles is POV pushing), has used deceitful tactics like misquoting sources changing their meaning (like in the article on the Sahl) and there are much too many evidences, but the evidence page is long enough and already not considered by arbitrators to have to add more. All this the arbitrators completely ignored, for a user who has not done much other than creating problems, but have banned another, for much, much, much lesser than this. What was the real reason to oppose to this? For the purpose of dispute resolution similar remedies may be applied to users who engage in similar behavior. Can Simon come here and take the care to explain us what the can cover a lot of ground means?

What changed with Atabek's behavior? Revert warring? What's even the need; a sock will come to revert for him, as for the rest, not the slightest changing of behavior from a member who has been so close of being banned during the last arbitration and his disruption only increased. I can't think of any other reason than bias from the arbitration committee. Not even changing AdilBaguirov’s block, which will in spite of having used countless socks to revert war will have his block expired before Fadix, who has used the sock to discuss instead but an administrator hasn't lost the occasion to reset his ban when not one has thought of doing the same for Adil. If this is not blatant bias, then I wonder what it is.

Also, the remedy looks funny, it says that we might be banned from an article if we disrupt, but after the presentation of so many evidences, particularly on Atabek's disruption, nothing happened. But who is the administrator who will be willing to consider or even read evidences on disruption when Arbitrators themselves haven't.-- TigranTheGreat 01:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

My random generator would have made a better judgement I'm sure. You guys were naive to waste your time with the evidences, the previous arbitration case should have been considered as proof of that. The proposed principales were impressive though, it gave some illusion that something serious was going to happen.

I'm thinking what barnstar to give Atabek for having survived two arbitrations with that much disruption. -- Davo88 11:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Tigran, please, assume good faith and review the evidence section of the current ArbCom case. As an editor involved on pages attacked by Fadix's sock (under pretext of discussion), I can say that he has actually wasted much more of contributor's and community's valuable time, disrupted the integrity of Wikipedia more blatantly, than any other reverting sock would. And prior to accusing others of sockpuppetry, please, gather your evidence and present proofs. Thanks. Atabek 00:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

The amount of disruption you've done is quintuple what Fadix has ever done (and this is to look at you on a better light), even a blind person will see that. Keep throwing your mud on him, nothing coming from you will ever stick, particularly not on him. Assuming good faith at you? You've shown only massive disruption, all your edits are bad faithed. We may decide to add a sub page to fill only with the evidences of disruptions from your part not having been added yet. Arbitrators should be informed, if they even bother reading this page, that I will request another arbitration on Atabek’s conduct after this one closes. - Fedayee 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I believe all current ArbCom participants should be equally paroled from reverting more than once. Otherwise, take a look what is currently ArbCom involved participant User:MarshallBagramyan doing: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I don't see how the proposed decision would address the indicated behavior of actually trying to remove the link to massacres in Nagorno-Karabakh from Nagorno-Karabakh articles. Atabek 00:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply