This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What evidence, if any, is there for this accusation?

Fred, check the history of the article on the date when Marshall made those accusations. On May 15 2007, Atabek added his new category [1]. Marshall reverts and wants proof [2]. Then, various socks appear the same day such as user:Earthdream, user:Zipirtich etc. and user:Drastamat the other sock who intervenes to force Marshall to revert and the same user who did the same thing on House of Hasan-Jalalyan and reported Marshall for 3RR, who was rightly believing of reverting a sock but was blocked regardless. It is this block user:Grandmaster presented in the evidence page. I will tend to believe that either it was user:Atabek or either it was another person using multiple socks to meatpuppet for him. (possibly user:AdilBaguirov). - Fedayee 22:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AdilBaguirov has, for the past couple weeks, been disrupting Wikipedia using socks, reverting to Grandmaster, Dacy69, Atabek or going and editing other articles on his own. I will post more evidence regarding AdilBaguirov's role in this matter, his socks have come out of nowhere in the past couple weeks simply to edit war. Here are some of the accounts used by AdilBaguirov: [3].Hajji Piruz 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, these claims are repeated assumptions of bad faith, given [4] and [5]. Atabek 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no evidence to support this accusation by User:MarshallBagramyan. Moreover, we have an evidence that Atabek was not using any socks, please see this comment by User:Dmcdevit, who conducted checkuser on Atabek: [6] --Grandmaster 10:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

If I may suggest. In order to ensure a balanced consensus, all editors in this ArbCom case, editing a particular page, should have equal restrictions. It's been the case mostly with User:AlexanderPar and User:Houshyar, and to a lesser extent with User:VartanM, that they would just revert the edits without any discussion or refuse to truely discuss and achieve consensus before editing the page. And 1RR paroled editor in such situation has practically no way of contributing. Atabek 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, I have always used the edit summary to explain my edits and always engaged myself in the talkpage. I see that you somehow acknowledge that, probably considering the countless discussions you and I had on a number of articles talkpages. VartanM 16:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexanderpar has always involved himself in the discussions.Hajji Piruz 20:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from previous arbitration. Mackensen (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This fact is essential to this case. -- tariqabjotu 14:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SalaSkan 01:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from previous arbitration. Mackensen (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from previous arbitration. Mackensen (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is when there is underlying conflict that courtesy becomes most important. Conflict is not an excuse to dump on the other editor, but a reason to make an extra effort to courteously listen. Fred Bauder 20:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

6) In cases where moderate sanctions have failed to stop an editor's disruptive behavior, more extreme ones may be imposed.

6.1) In cases where moderate sanctions have failed to stop an editor's disruptive behavior, more severe ones may be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Possibly obvious, but may be useful to make this explicit. Kirill 17:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 6.1, slightly better wording. SalaSkan 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7) Users are encouraged to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors. Additionally, users should always act in good faith.

7.1) Users are encouraged to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially when they had conflicts with them in the past. Additionally, users should always act in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If the Wikipedia behavioural guideline pointed out by Hajji Piruz is correct, then Wikipedia admits that good faith has its limits (i.e. if there is strong evidence to the contrary). The good faith thing is a guide, not a rule, so shouldn't be a part of this arbritration process in its current wording. It is everyones right to assume bad faith if the circumstances genuinely suggest bad faith, and I think it is wrong to judge someone negatively because he/she has made that assumption and the assumption itself has been made in good faith. Meowy 16:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- tariqabjotu 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 7.1, this seems to be necessary. Some people here seem to think that assuming bad faith is okay when you have a conflict with someone. SalaSkan 01:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed with Fred. There is a section of the WP:AGF page which is highly misleading, see for yourself: [7]

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.

I acted based on that after reading that rule. Why is that misleading part in the page? Someone should take that paragraph out entirely if it is incorrect. I assumed bad faith based on that because I assumed we should follow all Wikipedia rules as stated...Hajji Piruz 15:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8) Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers, if it should exist at all, or has any legitimate uses, is not a label that is appropriately placed by one user on another user they are conflict with.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind that I changed it to "Wikipedia sockpuppeteers" as that was the actual category placed on Atabek's userpage[8]. SalaSkan 01:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I just would like to bring to the attention of the arbitrators the following paragraph in WP:STALK:

User space harassment

Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.

A user page is for the person to provide some general information about themself and a user talk page is to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.

I believe it is appropriate here. --Grandmaster 05:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category 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.

Again, this is another misleading page on Wikipedia. If the category isnt supposed to be put on pages, then why does it even exist? The description of the category should also be changed.

I never did this to harass or embarrass anyone, I just came across it one day and thought that someone else who was supposed to put it on his talk page forgot to. After Atabek removed it, I never reinserted it or anything.Hajji Piruz 15:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALK clearly says that if you think that something should be added to any user’s personal page, you should ask admins to do so. The rules do not allow you to do that personally. --Grandmaster 09:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hajji Piruz, may I ask, why did you place him in that category? What was your intention? Melsaran (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed. It was an unnecessary provocation, and led to a lot of trouble for nothing, like I stated at the RfC. SalaSkan 00:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9) It is when there are serious disagreements that courteous negotiation is most necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

10) Reference to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations' sources are neutral and can be used in Wikipedia articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Dacy69 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Who claims they aren't? SalaSkan 01:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:Hajji Piruz, user:AlexanderPar and some others who are part of this Arbcom. See please my section of the evidence page.--Dacy69 02:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we had issues with reliability of sources. While some users were rejecting such third party sources as HRW and AI, others were substituting third party sources with those which had evident bias in the discussed issue. Here’s a good recent example: User:MarshallBagramyan completely removed the reference to such internationally acknowledged expert on ancient history of the region as Vladimir Minorsky, replacing it with some obscure Armenian source that is not neutral in this issue and cannot be verified by anyone as it is in Armenian language. [9] --Grandmaster 07:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion on the Ethnic minorities in Iran talk page. Alexandpar and I were merely pointing out the facts. I dont believe we ever said that Amnesty International was not neutral, we simply said that it gets most of its information from dissident and separatist groups with agenda's, and because of that, has made mistakes in the past (for example, Amnesty International had previously said that Arabic is not taught in Iranian schools, when infact, Irans Islamic government makes Arabic mandatory for all students, this was a huge mistake by Amnesty, one that could have been avoided had Amnesty even bothered to check). Regarding Radio Free Europe, it is funded by the US government. This violates Wikipedia's policies because it is a non neutral source, especially now that the US and Iran are on the verge of war.

Note that we had brought evidence to support what we said, this isnt exactly something that we made up. See the whole discussion from here to the bottom of the page [10].Hajji Piruz 15:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11) Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for advocacy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Fedayee 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­[reply]

Comment by others:

12) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Fedayee 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­[reply]

But how are those that have no sound editorial judgement and no expertise to be stopped from using their unreliable sources? And what is the process that those with the expertise and judgement need to follow to determine the reliability or unreliability of sources? Meowy 15:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

13) A user-conduct request for comment represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her behavior, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Fedayee 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­[reply]

Comment by others:

14) Significant verifiable information from a reliable source can generally be included in an article, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, and I want to put the emphases on significant. - Fedayee 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­[reply]

I agree. I also suggest that editors do not remove referenced material from articles, unless they can show that the material is not verifiable. This has been particularly the case at Varoujan Garabedian, Qajar dynasty, Safavid dynasty and Yeprem Khan. In cases, where a concern exists about verifiability, a 3rd party opinion should be asked before engaging in dispute and/or removing the reference. Atabek 01:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

15) When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Fedayee 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­[reply]

I don't see how this applies to our arbcom case. --Grandmaster 07:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors can use and exploit Wikipedia processes and procedures (like the 3RR, or submitting names for arbitration, or placing comments in other users' talk pages, or stalking users' edits) against perceived opponents. New or or inexperienced users of Wikipedia could be particularly intimidated by such actions, and will not have learned how to properly respond to them (and an incorrect response often leaves an open door for even more attacks). Meowy 16:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

16) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed; this one concerns user:Artaxiad and user:AdilBaguirov - Fedayee 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­[reply]

I would add User:Tajik to this category as well. And what evidence do you have that User:AdilBaguirov had used sock accounts since the previous ArbCom was closed. Any checkuser results? Atabek 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

17) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed; this one concerns user:Artaxiad and user:AdilBaguirov - Fedayee 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­[reply]

I object. You cannot ignore WP:AGF, unless you have checkuser results supporting suspicions that certain account is a sock. Alternatively, you can inform the admins and they can deal with suspicious accounts, if the situation is urgent, but we have witnessed situations when good faith editors were attacked under the false pretext that they were socks. --Grandmaster 07:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Of course not. "Innocent until proven guilty". Melsaran (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18) Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ­­- Fedayee 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one makes sense, but the wording needs to be significantly improved. I mean, everyone has certain national background, so the wording like “Editors with a national background” sounds very awkward. Other parts of the sentense also need to be improved, but the general idea is good. On the other hand, WP:NPOV mostly covers this issue. --Grandmaster 10:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support this proposal.--Dacy69 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very strong reject. Any statement like editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral POV clearly carries with it the implication that any editor from that background (or more significantly, any source written by someone from that background) will, by definition, never have a neutral point of view. Malicious editors can then use that to dismiss credible sources for no other reason than the background of the source. Facts and truth don't have a "national background". A Wikipedia entry should be a well written and well ordered text consisting of relevant verifiable facts that are supported by a background of related information together with a bit of common sense. The ethnicity of the editor is irrelevant to that process. Meowy 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

19) Willingness to negotiate in a more or less civil way with the other editors of an article is a condition of editing the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

20) Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as other scholarly or journalistic sources. Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would add that preference should be given to the neutral sources wherever possible. --Grandmaster 19:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that it is the business of regimes engaged in producing propaganda to make that propaganda appear to be as neutral as possible. Sources, whether in the form of books or magazine articles, are often produced for the sole purpose of "mudding the water" for non-experts. They are created to suggest that an entirely accepted fact or event is actually a contentious one that is still being argued about by experts. The end result is that an accepted fact becomes reduced (in this context) to "an Azerbaijan source says this, an Armenian source says that" argument. Wikipedia is particularly susceptible to that sort of material due to its inability to filter out sources that a truly academic work would never contain. Meowy 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly my point. There are tons of propagandist literature published by both sides during the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Therefore preference should be given to the sources that have no bias in this issue. --Grandmaster 05:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you yourself quote from sources that are propagandistic in nature? Meowy 15:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. --Grandmaster 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that, based on my editorial judgment informed by my expertise, on a number of occasions you have. But there lies the problem with principle 12. Meowy 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Looks fine, but I think this comes close to ruling on content. Melsaran (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21) Administrators' noticeboard and Requests for checkuser should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ­­- Fedayee 03:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

22) All banned editors are theoretically redeemable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Fedayee 18:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)­­[reply]

Comment by others:

8) All users are expected to provide complete and accurate quotes from the sources they refer to.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I believe this is an important issue, as some of the conflicts were caused by inadequate use of sources. --Grandmaster 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

8) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Dacy69 (talk · contribs) was limited to one revert per week as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. He was blocked twice for three-revert rule violations, the first time for 24 hours and the second for 72 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Atabek (talk · contribs) was limited to one revert per week as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. He was blocked for 48 hours for violating this parole at Yeprem Khan.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Also, please note, right before Atabek's first edit, the page consisted of a short OR material without any sources or citations [11]. After Atabek's first round of edits [12], the page had 7 book and article references. The edit which followed Atabek's in 3 minutes [13] was the first ever on the page by Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani after which other users including AlexanderPar, Naharar, and Houshyar engaged in an edit war.Atabek 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani has been placed under a revert parole by the previous ArbCom decision on April 11th [14]. As the block log of User:Azerbaijani shows [15], User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani was blocked for 31 hours for parole violation at Nakhichevan [16] and for 24 hours for violation at List of Azerbaijani films: 1898-1919 [17].

Comment by Arbitrators:

The block came five days after the last revert, unless I'm misreading something. Who requested the block? Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the block was made a few days later, but that’s the way Arbitration enforcement board works. Admins are very slow to respond there. Hajji Piruz was blocked for reverting and not commenting on talk of the respective article, which is why some other people were blocked as well. As you know, the parole requires that users should provide rationale for their rv on talk of the respective article. See the terms of his parole: He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [18] Since Hajji Piruz reverted the article without discussion on talk, it is a violation of his parole. I reported him here: [19], because I did not think it was acceptable that he reverted the article referring to a discussion with another user somewhere else, while not discussing his revert with other involved parties on the article’s talk page. --Grandmaster 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never made a revert, I made three edits to the Nakchivan article, and none of them were reverts. I have shown you all the diff's with regards to that page, I never made a revert (here ar the diff's, no revert was ever made: [20], [21] (after a talk with Ali), and [22]) Because I did not make a revert, I was not obligated to discuss on the talk page of the article, instead I discussed on user talk pages.Hajji Piruz 16:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a revert: [23] You replaced "South Caucasus" with "Arran". --Grandmaster 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to revert twice to violate my parole. Even if I did revert, that would only have been once.Hajji Piruz 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This block was done hastily without a detailed look into the actual edits I made. Here are the diff's for which I got blocked: [24], [25] (after a talk with Ali), and [26]. As you can see, I never broke my parole, and I merely added the information as the source had put it. I never even made a single revert, and I discussed my edits. This block was surely by mistake, as no where did I ever break any part of my parole.Hajji Piruz 02:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

You left no comment on talk after you reverted, which is also a parole violation. If parole violation is proposed as finding of fact for other users, this should apply to Hajji Piruz as well. --Grandmaster 06:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, I had an entire conversation with Ali, in which we came to an agreement (here is part of the conversatoin on Ali's talk page: [27]). In my edit summary, I clearly said "see talk between Ali and I (on our talk pages, we decided to put it the way Iranica has it "...parts of" [28]. Besides, I never made a revert to begin with. This block was completely done by mistake (I assume), my appeals for a fix to this incorrect block also went ignored for some reason at the time.

Also, I think you commented on the wrong section, I think this belongs in the involved parties section.Hajji Piruz 06:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had been blocked by mistake, the admins would have lifted the block, but that did not happen. Your block is recorded at the block log for the previous arbcom case. Grandmaster 06:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never made a revert, I went the path of discussing my edit rather than revert warring, etc... What did I do wrong? This block was obviously a mistake that was never corrected.Hajji Piruz 15:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the proposal to allow for another block of Hajji Piruz. Grandmaster 05:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4) According to WP:LEGAL, legal threats are a form of harassment and "users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely". On June 7th, User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani made the following comment [29]:

• "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"

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see that this rises to the level of a legal threat. Mackensen (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we could establish a principle laying down what isn't a legal threat. Suggesting something is illegal is not a threat. Suggesting one is going to do something (legal) about it is. "That's illegal" is not a threat. "That's illegal and I'm going to sue you" is. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a threat, I was just showing the seriousness of slandering some else's name. I dont know your real name, where your form, etc... its impossible for me to sue you, so how could that possible have been a threat?Hajji Piruz 02:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Calling this a legal threat is an exaggeration. -- tariqabjotu 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this is stupid. SalaSkan 00:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5) According to [30], Wikistalking is the form of stalking disruption whereby the violator follows "an editor to another article to continue disruption":

• On Yeprem Khan, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani first ever edit [31] was 3 minutes after User:Atabek's edit [32]. And his edit was to remove sourced text [33].
• On Caucasus Campaign, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani had one WP:OR edit on May 8th, and the next one [34] was 6 hours after User:Atabek's edit on June 13th [35].
• On Qajar dynasty, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani edited the page [36] only once on December 31st, 2006. His next edit and further revert warring was on June 20th, 2007 [37] about 5.5 hours after the edit by User:Atabek. His next step on the same page was a bad faith blind revert [38] immediately after my edit, followed by reverting himself [39]. On this same page, User:Houshyar joins User:Hajji Piruz with blind reverting [40].
• On Aryan page, which User:Hajji Piruz never ever edited before, his first only edit [41], although in good faith content-wise, appears 59 minutes after User:Atabek's edit.
• On User_talk:Francis Tyers, User:Hajji Piruz responded [42], again disputing in bad faith Atabek's posting few hours after my request to User:Francis Tyers. This is a very vivid case of Wikistalking, as it's following Atabek's edit to another user's talk page without any prior notification made to him about the posting. And pay attention to the form of disruptive comment [43]:

* "Atabek, you already brought your case on WP:ANI and they rejected it, so why have you come to Francis now?"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 00:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous, all of these articles were on my watchlist. Assume good faith. You cannot assume that just because I never edited them that I never watchlisted them. I have lots of articles on my watchlist that I have never edited before. When I find an article that interests me or is in the field that I'm interested in, I watchlist it, and as usually happens when you have lots of articles watchlisted, you forget about them and they pop up to the top when another editor edits them. This is an assumption of bad faith. All of these article wre on my watchlist, just look at them, they are all an integral part of Iranian history, a field that I am interested in, ofcourse they were on my watchlist.

This is frivolous and an assumption of bad faith.Hajji Piruz 02:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says Hajji Piruz... [44] Melsaran 01:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

6) Atabek has threatened to disrupt Wikipedia in violation of WP:Point.

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"[45]
2. "I am working on Pan-Aryan collage meanwhile. Thanks."[46]

Comment by Arbitrators:

The full text of the first remark suggests sarcasm and frustration. Was such a collage actually created? Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He said he was working on one, I'm not sure if he actually was or if he was trying to intimidate others in some way. But regardless, he still made the threat of disrupting Wikipedia, so whether it was sarcasm or not is up for debate.Hajji Piruz 16:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, such collage has never been created. --Grandmaster 04:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A threat is still a threat, regardless if the threat is carried out. Atabek still threatened to disrupt Wikipedia.Hajji Piruz 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 02:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

7) According to WP:NPA "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia."

Atabek has made comments ranging from the ethincity of users to users being bigoted: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #11

Comment by Arbitrators:

I've given these quotations their own numbers for simplicity. Most of this is source criticism. About the worst thing I see is in #3, where Atabek says of Hajji Piruz, "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.". Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about these, calling User:Alborz Fallah a "pseudo-Azeri": 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".[47] or what about when he calls VartanM's position bigotted: And it's very sad that some cannot move beyond bigotted positions to recognize the facts or gain some credibility in their stance.Hajji Piruz 16:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does my post include the personality of User:Alborz Fallah or User:VartanM? I don't see how "too many pseudo-Azeris" or "some" would in any way relate to any particular contributor. The post was actually about some Kaveh Farrokh, who is not even a contributor. This is again a frivolous evidence and yet another assumption of bad faith against myself. Atabek 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a human error. I took that Alborz diff off of the evidence page. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It was not an assumption of bad faith on my part, it was a human error, assume good faith. How is Kaveh Farrokh a psuedo Azeri?Hajji Piruz 20:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 03:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

8) Atabek has made comments expressing his desire to ignore users rather than discuss the issues: [48], [49], [50], [51], and [52]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that when you edit my user page, attack me personally, intimidate me, refuse to assume good faith with regards to myself, accuse me of canvassing for asking administrator's attention, the only remaining solution would be just ignorance. Atabek 07:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never attacked you (if I have personally attacked you, then show the diffs, you keep making this accusation yet no diffs you show support this claim), I never intimidated you (again, show the diffs), you have also failed to assume good faith, etc... The difference is that I wanted to resolve these issues by talking about it, you just wanted to ignore me, and told other users to ignore me. You even called my comments which were attempting to address some of the issues between you and I "garbage": [53].

I actually tried to discuss things out, but you simply wanted to ignore me and continue the dispute, making more false accusations, further revert warring, further canvassing, etc...until we got to this point where we had no other choice then the take this to arbcom unfortunately.Hajji Piruz 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

9) Gaming the system canvassing, which states "Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial. However, it is agreed that disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable."

• User:Thatcher131, User:Tariqabjotu, User:Dmcdevit, User:Bobak, and Administrators noticeboard Has canvassed for RFC: Dacy69 and Grandmaster Has canvassed prior to the arbcom: Newyorkbrad, Picaroon9288, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Admin's noticeboard Checkusers: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], and [60]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 02:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARASSMENT states: "Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.". You should have contacted admins if you had concerns about my user space. Similarly, I have a right to contact admins, to ask questions or otherwise address disruptive editing of my user space. I don't see why asking the opinion of administrators would constitute a violation. Atabek 06:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going from admin to admin, noticeboard to noticeboard, check user to check user, until you find someone sympathetic to you or find someone to carry out your demand is canvassing and is not a good thing to be doing. For example, just recently you had made a case regarding the Safavids [61] which was rejected, with User:Black Falcon clearly saying that the issue required no administrator intervention, and then once that was rejected you went to another admin with the same issue [62] in order to see if that person would support you...thats called canvassing.Hajji Piruz 19:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not looking for someone sympathetic to myself but seeking assistance to address the administrative issue, which I believe was not addressed. It's my right to do so as a contributor. I didn't ask User:Francis Tyers to make edits specifically in my favor, I only reported my view of the issue and asked for mediation. Assume good faith. Atabek 00:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly what canvassing is and you just admitted. You did not get the outcome you wanted on the administrators noticeboard, by your own admission, so you went to another admin about the issue. Thats canvassing.Hajji Piruz 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as 'forum shopping'. SalaSkan 00:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think seeking admin's advice is canvassing. Grandmaster 05:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No comment on any other aspect, but I believe the comment that was left on my talkpage was a legitimate communication following on a clerk note I had made about the scope of the arbitration case. Seeking procedural advice about the arbitration process is not sanctionable. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10) According to WP:NPA "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia."

Dacy69 has made comments ranging from implying other users are not smart to telling them that they are indecent: [63], [64], [65], and [66]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 03:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Also request Arbcom members check all and whole diffs. If it is really personal attacks then I should really apologize. I don't know what about those who even used curse language. Yes, I called one comment indecent when it was made by user involved in a dispute but placed his comment as a third party during RfC.--Dacy69 18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11) Dacy69 has threatened to disrupt Wikipedia in violation of WP:Point.

[67], [68], [69], and [70]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 03:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I did not want to comment on this accusation as well on that made above or below. I hope Arbcom members will have time to check diffs and what I told. I has offered to reach NPOV and for that reason suggested not used both pro-Azeri or pro-Iranian sources, images, etc. But user:Hajji Piruz opted another way. Check one of my comment: "Information might be relevant for several article. On how many articles you have argued about the name of Azerbaijan? Well, as a compromise we can put some short sentence to cartoon event. But we should leave information about aftermath repression". Is this any kind of retaliation? user:Hajji Piruz evidence is more than frivolous --Dacy69 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no threats at all. And by the way, "threats" of violating WP:POINT aren't exactly WP:POINT violations. SalaSkan 00:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12) Gaming the system canvassing, which states states "Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial. However, it is agreed that disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable."

• Newyorkbrad, Tariqabjotu, Alex Bakharev, and Alex Bakharev again Has canvassed for his image: Spike Wilbury, Francis Tyers, and Quadell

Comment by Arbitrators:

Four posts weeks apart doesn't seem like canvassing. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats four posts, all saying the same thing, and all to admins, in less than a 20 day period.Hajji Piruz 17:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS states: "It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive.". I don't see how Dacy69 was disruptive with legitimate posts on users' talk page weeks apart. Atabek 12:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He went from person to person with relatively the same complaint...Also, he went to 4 people in less than 20 days. Waiting a few days before going to someone else about the exact same issue is still canvassing.Hajji Piruz 19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

13) Grandmaster (talk · contribs) was limited to one revert per week as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. He was blocked for 24 hours for violating this parole at Azerbaijan (Iran). See this: [71]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Grandmaster has a valid point. Mackensen (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 15:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not violation of parole. This block was made on 4 April, and the parole became effective on 11 April 2007. Everyone can check the decision on my and other users’ parole and see that it was passed on 11 April 2007. [72] This is a block for violation of the temporary injunction (which, btw, I did not formally violate, Dmcdevit blocked me for reverting the same edit by a certain user on a number of articles), and Hajji Pirruz was blocked for violation of his injunction on the same article by the same admin one day before my block: [73]. However, I never violated my parole, i.e. I have no history of being blocked after 11 April 2007, and all violations prior to that date were dealt with during the previous arbcom case. This proposal is misleading and factually inaccurate. --Grandmaster 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This finding appears to be frivolous. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In [74], User:TigranTheGreat claims that Khojaly Massacre, which was documented by the New York Times, Agence France Presse, Associated Press, Washington Post, and the video [75] of massacre, among many available on YouTube, is "fictional". The contributor clearly engages in disruptive insults directed against Azeris:

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

• Another quote [76]:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 06:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) WP:HARASSMENT states:

• placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.

User:Hajji Piruz edited User:Atabek's user page [77], without consulting him, with an attempt to intimidate and provoke a conflict as also noted by a 3rd party [78]. Further attempts of User:Atabek to bring the issue to administrators' attention, resulted in attacks, accusations of canvassing, RfC and ArbCom intimidation by User:Hajji Piruz. The bad faith of User:Hajji Piruz is demonstrated in his own words [79]:

• 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)

2) [80] - yet another harassment of user's identity and background, made in bad faith and along national lines, on this very page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this was a clear harassment. I don’t see why anyone in good faith would make such edits to the userpage of another user, considering that Hajji Piruz is not an admin and has no authority for making such edits. --Grandmaster 14:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue, please refer to User:Tariqabjotu's comments on this issue (he says my edit on Atabek's page was nothing of the sort): [81] Furthermore, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers 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. User:Tengri is a confirmed sockpuppet of Atabek. Also, I never canvassed, it was Atabek who canvassed and I merely defended myself on the page he was canvassing on. This is and assumption of bad faith by Atabek and frivolous evidence.Hajji Piruz 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, User:Tariqabjotu's evidence [82] presents a section on frivolous evidence by User:Hajji Piruz. User:Tengri issue was addressed and closed in previous ArbCom, and User:Hajji Piruz attempts to revive it without evidence are nothing other than WP:HARASSMENT and intimidation.Atabek 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the Tengri issue resolved? What does Tariqabjotu's evidence have to do with this proposal? How is any of this harrassment?Hajji Piruz 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't think this is harassment, but the second comment (beginning with Tariq, you should...) is a terrible assumption of bad faith. Atabek was not "supposed to be blocked" for a period of a year. That's like saying an acquitted person was supposed to be found guilty and serve time. The statement, "I think because of lobbying by another user involved in the Arbcom on Atabek's side", is unfounded unless you're suggesting Atabek (or someone else) defended his actions (which is entirely acceptable and expected). -- tariqabjotu 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clear some things up: I said "initially" which completely clears the statement up, I never said he should have been banned. I said he "initially supposed to be blocked." Also, yes, someone else lobbied for Atabek not to get blocked, if I remember correctly, it was Grandmaster.Hajji Piruz 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban was just one of proposals, which did not have support of the arbitrators. It was proposed for a couple of other people too, but arbitrators opted for paroling them as well. If you think that this happened just because of my "lobbying", then I must be a very influential person around here, who can get arbitrators to vote certain way. I wonder if you seriously believe that? Grandmaster 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, you were lobbying Atabek's case.Hajji Piruz 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While initiating an RfC against myself, after editing my user page, User:Hajji Piruz claims [83]:

• "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"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I predicted he would and he did (see [84] and [85]), this shows that Atabek was using his nationality and the nationality of others to his advantage, getting his friends to help him by giving him good comments, not me, he went straight away to User:Grandmaster and User:Dacey69. He is trying to turn his own violation of Wikipedia's rules and policies against me...Hajji Piruz 16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by User:Hajji Piruz was made at 01:41, while as links show, I posted request to comment on RfC to both users 15 minutes earlier, at 01:26. So User:Hajji Piruz was not predicting and yet again, is assuming a bad faith now by providing false information. None of my request comments include any word along national lines, they simply asked for comment on RfC, while User:Hajji Piruz did "sum up" the users falsely claiming them all to be from the Republic of Azerbaijan. Atabek 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that you did ask your pals to come and comment on the RFC. All of them originate in the Republic of Azerbaijan, whether they live there currently I do not know. Dacy69 has admitted that he grew up in Azerbaijan SSR as well as Grandmaster. You went to them for a reason, you have split up Wikipedia along ethnic and national lines.Hajji Piruz 16:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need I say more? More bad faith, harassment and battling along ethnic and national lines from User:Hajji Piruz. Atabek 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree with this whole-heartedly. The fact that Piruz is still standing by this statement is appalling. -- tariqabjotu 16:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this as well. Comments like the above are frankly unacceptable. SalaSkan 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17) Per the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2/Workshop#Hajji Piruz often assumes bad faith, divides along ethnic lines, Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs), also known as Azerbaijani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), often assumes bad faith, thereby thwarting the necessary calm discussion needed to resolve disputes and inflaming tensions between parties. See also User_talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive_Twenty-Nine#Harassment_by_User:Hajji_Piruz_.28formerly_User:Azerbaijani.29, [86], [87], and [88].

Comment by Arbitrators:

He doesn't think it even applies to him, see this Fred Bauder 21:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

No, I said that AGF doesnt apply to any of us, not just me or not just him (we've all been in a previous arbcom, Atabek has used a sock in the past User:Tengri, and for more just look at the evidence page), as per what WP:AGF itself says:

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.[89]

Are we or are we not supposed to follow Wikipedia rules as stated? The only reason I did not assume good faith was because of that statement which I posted above in WP:AGF. So if this is not correct, then someone should change that paragraph, otherwise it should be expected that people trying to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia rules and policies, like I did, would read that and abide by it.

I have already acknowledged that I have not assumed good faith and its not something I'm proud of, but the arbitrators must understand that the only reason I did what I did was because I was following Wikipedia's rules and policies as they were stated, if someone else made a mistake during the writing process of WP:AGF, then how would it make it my fault that I simply tried to follow Wikipedia's rules?

That paragraph should be corrected so that other users do not make the same mistake that I made.Hajji Piruz 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is quite misleading. The time to be courteous and to assume good faith is when there has been trouble. Fred Bauder 21:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so if it is misleading, that it is not my fault that I made such a mistake correct? The fault lies with the wording of the rule, not with the user who simply wanted to follow Wikipedia's policies exactly as they are stated.Hajji Piruz 22:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in good faith is a behavior not just institutional policy. Atabek 00:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that supposed to be some kind of a personal attack, implying that I'm incapable of assuming good faith because its not part of my usual behavior? I'll assume that its not, and hopefully it wasnt. WP:NPA.Hajji Piruz 00:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hajji Piruz, stop WikiLawyering. When you're having trouble with another editor, saying "I'll assume bad faith on your side because the policy says I should" is probably the least effective way of getting the conflict solved. Atabek is not a blatant vandal, and neither are you. Please at least try to work constructively with each other. SalaSkan 00:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we not told to abide by Wikipedia's rules and policies? That part of WP:AGF should immediatly be removed so that other users do not make the same mistake I made. Had that paragraph not been in there, there should be no doubt that I would not have assumed bad faith. Generally, I have been very good when it comes to following Wikipedia's rules and policies.Hajji Piruz 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- tariqabjotu 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18) Atabek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears, despite occasional crossness, to be editing responsibly and in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Atabek, note Fred Bauder 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Given that various users requested an extention to provide their evidence, such propositions are better to be given after everyone have finished providing their evidences. This sort of edit is not done in good faith, when most sources claim it to be Armenian, including Britannica. Systematic replacement of everything Armenian with either "Azeri" or "Caucasian Albanian", and when he cannot do it, providing the majority and fringe positions as equally valid, even for something as simple as food. [90] The last time the decision was taken hashly; given the number of users involved and the scope and the number of articles involved I believe the least that can be done is to wait. This case was first percieved by Armenian users as [user:Azerbaijani] against [user:Atabek], [user:Dacy69] and [user:Grandmaster]. We were only taken by surprise when [user:Grandmaster] and [user:Atabek] took the occasion to involve us all. Since many editors have asked more time, I think proposing an injunction to put the case on hold for 2 weeks would be wise.--TigranTheGreat 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was planning on (and will) posting lots of evidence showing Atabek's bad faith. This proposition was made a little too early.Hajji Piruz 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know I added well sourced material at Principality of Khachen. I don't know how adding sourced material is considered a bad faith. If the source says that Khachen was an Albanian principality, then how is it supposed to be a bad faith edit, just because it does not say Armenian. The comment above seems more like POV along ethnic lines again. If there are other legitimate sources, the contributors are welcome to contribute and discuss those on the appropriate page. Those accusing me of being supposedly "anti-Armenian", should also know that I was the one who actually made major contributions to Yeprem Khan article, which had no cited sources before my edit and now has 7 or more. Atabek 07:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have posted evidence regarding Atabek's bad faith assumptions: [91]. This issue should be clear now as Atabek has not edited in good faith or responsibly according to the diff's, this proposal was made too early.Hajji Piruz 19:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

19) Atabek has been discourteous towards other users and failed to assume good faith [92], [93], and [94].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Please, note, that in all three cases, the party under discussion was User:Hajji Piruz, who clearly wrote here [95]:

"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".

So provided this comment, I was frustrated and recited the opinion of User:Hajji Piruz about not assuming good faith. If it is still considered a discourtesy, I am certainly sorry for that. Atabek 07:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is when you are having trouble with someone that you need to read what they post and consider their viewpoint carefully, and be courteous. Fred Bauder 14:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's challenging to review the viewpoint [96], in support of an established sock, where User:Hajji Piruz says:

"I'm not a part of this content dispute, and German-Orientalist soundly proved you wrong. I'm here because you dragged me into this, and now I want to make sure that you dont harrass this new user"

and not to treat such bad faith comment by anything but ignorance or questioning the authority. But still, I agree that I may have been discourteous in response, and I certainly do apologize for that. Atabek 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed above, the rules on Wikipedia regarding AGF are misleading. [97] Nevertheless, Atabek, contrary to his claim, has assumed bad faith countless times, not even against me, but other users as well, I will post the evidence today if I have time.Hajji Piruz 14:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

20) User:Tajik was banned in an unrelated ArbCom case [98] and caught with several sockpuppets [99] actively evading the ban and revert warring at Safavid dynasty. He recently posted from yet another IP sock, calling Atabek "a snake", "racist", accusing Atabek of "vandalizing" pages and calling his edits "anti-Persian paranoia" [100]. Talk:Safavid dynasty clearly shows that most of the material contributed by Atabek includes sources to conference and journal publications, legitimately encyclopedic material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 07:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

He's already banned. Why do we need this? Picaroon (Talk) 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because User:Hajji Piruz supported his socks at Safavid dynasty as presented in my evidence [101]. So, although it's not useful for enforcement with regards to User:Tajik, it should be, nevertheless, brought to the attention of ArbCom. Atabek 06:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never supported Tajik in any way. This is frivolous. I commented briefly regarding this issue here: [102]. I infact at certain points was trying to support Atabek, but he keeps making this assumption of bad faith that I supported Tajik, even though no diff's have ever been supplied proving this. I never supported any banned user.Hajji Piruz 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21) User:Aivazovsky has violated the ArbCom 1RR parole over 5 times since the initial ArbCom injunction, and 4 times since the previous ArbCom case was closed [103]. His last violation was at Azerbaijan, for which he was blocked for a week.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 09:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

22) User:Atabek often fails to assume good faith as per the evidence posted on the evidence page: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as indicated above, most of the evidence links you presented here are frivolous. These are links to content discussions. For example, read your own comment [130] posted under User:Azerbaijani and addressed to me, saying: "Did you blindly revert?", to which I responded asking you to calm down, because your statement was clearly an assumption of bad faith. My other comments, such as those to Ariana310 and Houshyar, were in frustration though in good faith, because both users engaged in revert wars without a single comment on talk page. Atabek 06:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were all assumptions of bad faith which you made regarding other users. None of this is frivolous. Some of the bad faith assumptions were worse than others, but still, all of them are bad faith assumptions, that is unless I made a human error and inserted a wrong diff somewhere.Hajji Piruz 19:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

23) Hajji Piruz is habitually rude to other users [131] [132]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Note: Dacy69 brought a source in Russian and claimed that it supported what he was saying. When I had the text translated, it turned out that it in no way said anything Dacy69 claimed it was saying. Technically, that is a lie. I may have been a little bit forward in my statement, but nevertheless, he later on did say himself what the text was actually saying rather than what he initially said it was saying, after I had read and commented on what the Russian text was actually saying.

I never called him a lier, I simply said that he lied at that moment. Perhaps there could have been a better choice of words but overall, it was definetly not habitual, those two posts where made right after one another...Hajji Piruz 19:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of assuming bad faith and calling people's edit as a lie, based on unknown translation from the language that you're not familiar with, it would rather be in good faith to provide the full translation given to you and discuss it to identify an inconsistency. Assume good faith. Atabek 12:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

24) The remedies imposed by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies have somewhat reduced edit warring, but have had the effect at times of increasing incivility on talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Few other users, who were not parties in the previous ArbCom, have joined a new wave of topical revert warring. Having no restrictions, they unrestrictively change or simply reverted articles without any discussion with restricted users. Among such are User:MarshallBagramyan, User:VartanM, User:Hetoum I, User:Houshyar, User:AlexanderPar, and User:Alborz Fallah. I believe it would only be fair to also restrict these users by the same 1RR parole, so as to further lessen revert warring and to facilitate a healthy consensus. Atabek 01:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

25) User:Hetoum I was involved in user page vandalism (harassment), incivility, edit warring and attempted to turn Wikipedia in a battleground along the national lines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Please see [133] --Grandmaster 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

26) User:Meowy has a history of disruptive editing, which involved edit warring [134], incivility [135], and attempts to turn Wikipedia in a battleground along the national lines [136] [137]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Grandmaster 20:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name has been maliciously placed here by Grandmaster for the sole reason that on a single entry, the Church_of_Kish, I have been arguing against his POV edits. Given that I am neither Armenian, Azeri, Turk, Iranian, Georgian, or Russian, his "battleground along the national lines" accusation holds no substance. Adding material or removing mistakes is not disruptive editing, and I see no reason to assume good faith in those who are here only to spread their propaganda using Wikipedia. So frivolous is the reason for my name being here that I will be making no more comment. Meowy 19:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is a good illustration of why this is being proposed. Meowy fails to assume good faith, time after time he accuses people who happen to disagree with him “of spreading propaganda”. One does not have to be of certain ethnic or national background to battle along the national lines. Meowy made anti-Azerbaijani comments on a number of occasions, which I presented in my evidence. In addition to that, he made other violations of wiki rules, as stated above. --Grandmaster 04:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy, your editing history [138] is mostly (if not absolutely) limited to articles related to Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia. Provided the title of the ArbCom case and your reverts removing sourced material, such as here [139] as well as inserting information from an amateur (non-encyclopedic) website hosted at .am domain (that of Armenia), the "disruptive editing" claim should not be surprising. Thanks. Atabek 07:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting the distribution of racist, genocidal, and neo-fascistic propaganda is not "disruptive editing". Meowy 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope arbitrators will consider this particular statement of Meowy as well. Grandmaster 06:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only following Godwin's Law in what is an increasingly boring and pointless and looooooooong online discussion. Meowy 19:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

27) User:MarshallBagramyan edit warred and assumed bad faith. See [140] [141] [142] [143]

Also, here [144], [145], [146], [147], [148].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Grandmaster 05:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed, and added more evidence to recent edit warring and removing link to Khojaly Massacre from pages on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Atabek 00:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

25) Despite his ban, AdilBaguirov continues to disrupt Wikipedia with sockpuppets [149], often getting involved in revert wars to revert war or support Atabek, Dacy69, and Grandmaster. Despite his one year ban [150], AdilBaguirov continues to disrupt Wikipedia with lots of socks and throwaway accounts, and he has also been caught hosting IP's and open proxies. The diff's can be found here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 17:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

25)

• User:Hajji Piruz is removing sourced and verifiable material from respectable sources - [151], without any discussion.
• Another instance [152] on a different page, where User:Hajji Piruz removes up to 5 sources.
• Engages in WP:SOAP and battling against Azerbaijani origin even on the page related to Azerbaijani cinematography(!) [153], with hateful [154] and provocative (inciting) [155] comments.
• [156] - 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"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia Undue Weight and neutral third party sources. A) One of the sources used was not neutral or third party or even scholarly, and B) the other source was undue weight. Frivolous evidence.Hajji Piruz 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have a problem with undue weight at Talk:Safavid dynasty, with your claims that Savory is somehow the main expert on Safavids while rejecting another dozen legitimate references brought as invalid. Atabek 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight does not mean what you think it means. Read it carefully. The Safavids article right now is backed up by the leading scholars in the field. And its backed up by more than one also, its not undue weight.Hajji Piruz 22:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, here as well [157]

I think we need arbitrator's attention to the Safavid dynasty, as I believe the only way to deal with User:Hajji Piruz's removal of sources and OR there is a dispute resolution. Atabek 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really getting ridiculous. Atabek is overruling authoritative and scholarly sources on his own and wants to replace them with whatever source he can find through a Jstor, Google, or Google book search that supports him. Recently, he has been questioning the use of Encyclopaedia Iranica as a source on Wikipedia...on his own based on his own assumption that it is sometime of propaganda or non-neutral Iranian encyclopaedia. It is neither, and infact, it is recognized as being one of the most reliable sources ever written and includes some of the most famous scholars on its list of contributors. When asked if he thinks its acceptable to do the same regarding sources that dont support him, he says no.

Please also see this Frivolous evidence by Atabek.

As of now, the Safavids article is sourced by several of the leading scholars in the field. I'm talking about the professionals, the people who write the books that everyone else cites. These scholars have contributed to some of the most authoritative and scholarly sources ever created, such as Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Britannica, etc...

I have long proposed to Atabek that we can include non-authoritative sources as well, but we should include all of them, not just the ones he wants. Atabek has refused everytime.Hajji Piruz 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"infact, it is recognized as being one of the most reliable sources ever written" - recognized by who? Atabek 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

25)

• User:Pejman47 reverts to User:Hajji Piruz [158], and removes sourced material, including several references while disputing the neutrality of only one of them [159] without leaving a comment on the talk page.
• [160] - 3RR Gaming, notice his cited comment: "I have done my 3rr today, take care till tomorrow". He was also earlier blocked for 3RR gaming violation [161].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The fact that User:Pejman47 is not restricted by ArbCom parole, while engaging in revert warring along national lines, makes it very difficult to achieve consensus on disputed topics. The fact that the contributor leaves no comments on talk page after reverting sourced material makes any form of discussion or constructive editing impossible. Atabek 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, its important to note that Pejman47 actually did the correct move as per Wikipedia undue weight. Assume good faith and stop accusing people of revert warring. Pejman infact has not revert warred. Infact, Pejman47 has done a good job of not revert warring. Even though he is able to make 3 reverts per article every 24 hours, he himself has chosen not too, and usually makes one revert or so here are there, and his reverts (not including reverts of IP vandalism or IP POV edits), are few and far between.

Frivolous evidence.Hajji Piruz 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't accused anyone, but only made a Workshop proposal and provided evidence to support it. Wikipedia undue weight does not apply here, because the article published by Royal Geographic Society in 1863 calling the country Azerbaijan invalidates any article published in 20th century claiming that country was never called so till 1918. So assume good faith and stop revert warring along national lines. Atabek 12:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valid evidence. Just check contributions of Pejman47 (talk · contribs), most of his edits (99%) are reverts in favor of a certain national POV and he makes almost no use of the talk page to explain why he reverted. 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: [162] and by consensus of the admins he was blocked for 3RR gaming: [163] Also, Pejman47's talk page is full of complaints from other users about this user's reverting.--Grandmaster 10:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Nice to hear my name called directly in this ArbCom after 2 months my name added to the bad list by you. I wonder if (Babakexorramdin and Ariana310) may also like the idea of participating in a debate in supreme court of Wikipedia. If you chose to give them this opportunity, remember you should first go to the Evidence section of this ArbCom then first presenting some diffs and after waiting a while, you should then come here. I personally encourage you to quickly do that, maybe the ArbCom members assume bad faith about your intentions after searching e.g. Babakexorramdin in /Evidence and gaining no results.

I am so happy; you brought the case of my block after about a year of contribution in WP (though totally unrelevant to this ArbCom), It was after a Wiki Suicide of heated debate with Jayjg in Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad/Archive_15 (oh, an article that he “leaves no comments on talk page”).

About the diff: I said what is necessary in edit summery and I didn’t think and still don’t’ think using talk page in that case was necessary and the case of not using alleged biased sources like Kaveh farrokh or Brenda Shaffer was discussed before many times; I wonder why some users tend to forget what they have agreed upon.

I vehemently request that at least one of the arbitrator review the Brenda Shaffer (and its external links) to see despite the preaching of User:Grandmaster about using reliable, academic, natural sources, what kind of sources they proudly use and become so furious after some user delete it, they even come directly to workshop of an ArbCom for complaining.

About multiple accounts allegation that Grandmaster brought, I am sure ArbCom will do Checkuser(s) and there is no need for any response. This is the first and last edit of me in this ArbCom, I just again request at least one of the arbitrators do the above request, regards.--Pejman47 12:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pejman47, I don't see Babakexorradmin appearing anywhere on this Workshop page aside from your comments. He does however appear in evidence by Grandmaster for a while now, with appropriate disruption links. So does your disruption appear in Grandmaster's evidence too. So, quite frankly, I don't see a reason or a basis for your claim that material is missing in evidence section or involving other users' names. Please, WP:AGF.

To my knowledge, I haven't added you to this ArbCom case, although I do believe your addition to ArbCom is well grounded. I only made the Workshop proposal based on evidence as well as your recent disruption. Again, assume good faith.

The nature of your disruption is presented in the links provided in this proposal. You engaged in reverts without any discussion or commenting, often disrupting hours of contributions. Aside from that, we are not here to discuss political issues on nature of Wikipedia or question Brenda Shaffer. To my knowledge, she is a legitimate scholar, not involved in any politics and you have yet to provide any legitimate evidence that she is not neutral. It would be safe to assume that it's your task to provide evidence in support of your POV disputing neutrality, not Arbitrator's duty to look for material to support your POV. Atabek 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pejman47, any disruption by involved users is relevant to this arbcom, and this is the comment you made: “I have done my 3rr today, take care till tomorrow!” --Grandmaster 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want this to be adopted as a Finding of Fact? This looks like a summary of evidence of disputed behaviour. You'd better place this at /Evidence, and propose something like "User XXX has been incivil" as an FoF. Melsaran (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26) User:VartanM engaged in incivility and disruptive editing [164]. At one instance on June 13th, he made 19 reverts within 29 minutes, calling User:Makalp's edits as vandalism in 18 cases in the comments [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183].

• Assumes bad faith - [184] -- "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.". Also in response to presentation of properly cited sentence, User:VartanM says: "you presentedd a citation as part of the article (which is plagiarism)".
• [185] - yet again reverts, calling as "vandalism", a clearly non-disruptive edit of a page about an internationally recognized terrorist organization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 20:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the arbitrators to take a look at Makalp's history of vandalism and disruption of Wikipedia and see how Atabek is distorting the truth.I called Makalp's edits vandalism because they were indeed vandalism. Removal of the word "Armenia" from numerous articles and from the title of the article is vandalism. (TigranTheGreat's evidance on Makalp)

Atabek you call my removal of terrorist category disruptive?. I would like you to provide a source that calls Harry Sassounian terrorist, and no apparent act of terrorism is not the same as act of terrorism. Also please remember that Harry Sassounian is still alive, and the article and your reply here must follow the WP:BLP.

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States (copyright, libel, privacy) and to our content policies.

Atabek you violated this policy countless times, I can and will provide evidence. --VartanM 21:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vartanm. The fundamental policies of Wikipedia are WP:AGF and WP:NPA. With 19 reverts in 29 minutes (obviously you would not even have time to carefully review what you're reverting), you were violating WP:AGF, by commenting 18 of them as vandalism without proof - violating WP:NPA. Also, regarding Sassounian, I believe there is no need for WP:SOAP on Workshop page, but [186] shows a statement by President Ronald Reagan, calling the murder committed by Harry Sassounian as an act of terrorism. WP:AGF and if you have other content concerns discuss them on relevant pages not here. Thanks.Atabek 00:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you inspect the 18 reverts you would see that Makalp was removing any mentions of Armenians and or replacing historic name of Cilician Gates with its current Turkish name. He ignored the talkpages and never once tried to justify his edits. Here is Makalp's last edit since you're so good with Wikipedia policies tell me if that was a good faith edit. As for Sassounian I have told you many times that US president never says it was an act of terrorism. You left out the key word from his speach apparent, the word apparent means that his not sure if it was a terrorist attack. Sassounian was convicted for murder not terrorism. As for the accusation that I'm WP:SOAPboxing, I'm just answering to your bogus accusations, If you want to further discuss Sassonian see the articles talk page. VartanM 01:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references were provided that in addition to 19 reverts against User:Makalp, you were also revert warring calling other legitimate edits as vandalism with regards to other editors as well. The most recent one being just few days ago. Atabek 18:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You consider my revert of an anon user who changed the word guerrilla to terrorist in the ASALA article and the edit summary was "fuck Armenia" as uncivil? [187]. Thats just laughable, you're so desperate to find dirt on me, that you're actually presenting perfectly justifiable revert, which was in violation of WP:Words to avoid as me being uncivil? I hope the arbitrators will see how bogus the rest of your evidence against me is. Oh and for Makalp see the evidence provided that support my claim that he vandalized Wikipedia. VartanM 20:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the comment was uncivil and the editor indeed became uncivil after your reverts, but that particular edit content [188] itself wasn't a vandalism. ASALA is a terrorist organization recognized as such by the U.S. State Department and several European countries. But instead of removing the users comment, or advising him to be civil and assume good faith, you just revert the edit and calling vandalism, and not in first instance. You have reverted another user 19 times using the word vandalism as a comment, without any basis, so clearly the pattern of bad faith is well established. Atabek 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• [189] - comments: "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 [190], User:VartanM further attacks User:Atabek on the talk page [191] - "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"
• [192] - User:VartanM comments:

• "You have to apply your non expert abilities on someone else." - clear assumption of bad faith and personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 17:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Melsaran, I added one more reference to yet another attack yesterday, after major removal of sourced material by User:VartanM, followed by User:MarshallBagramyan. Also, the above section on incivil editing by User:VartanM should provide sufficient support to this section as well. I hope someone can finally explain this user, that he cannot remove sourced material on pages [193], [194] with several references, and then merely post an explanation for his disruption, usually coming along with a personal attack or incivility, without any conclusive discussion or agreement. So far User:VartanM does not seem to be practicing good faith editing attitude. Atabek 14:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another bad faith personal attack by User:VartanM added above. Atabek 23:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This one comment is not enough for a separate FoF. Place it at /Evidence instead. Melsaran 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

28) Atabek turned Wikipedia into a battleground.

Anti-Turkism put alleged in front of Armenian Genocide

Caucasus Campaign removed Armenian Genocide from See also. 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)"

Caucasus Campaign changed genocide to massacre. Edit summary: none

Erzurum changed genocide to massacre. Edit summary: "(the articles says massacres, those were not recognized as Genocide under the appropriate UN convention)"

Armenian Turkish relations added "claim of" in front of Armenian Genocide. Edit summary: "(it's not recognized in Turkey, neither under UN convention, hence remains a claim)"

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

Ottoman Armenian population added alleged in front of Armenian genocide. Edit summary: "(no reference to the "called" per international conventions or courts)"

Armenians in Greece changed genocide to massacre. edit summary: "(it's not recognized as genocide by any court or international human rights body)"

Richard E. Hoagland added allegations of in front of Armenian Genocide. Edit summary: "(it's not recognized as genocide by any court or international human rights body, it's only alleged by community groups)"

Armenians in Turkey adds a cite tag and allege in front of Armenian Genocide. Edit summary: "(it's not recognized but alleged, no international court ever identified any crime, victims or executors of it)"

Norman Itzkowitz adds allegations of and dubious tag next to Armenian genocide. Edit summary: "(construed by who?)"

Bernard Lewis changed the heading of the section from "Allegations of denial of the Armenian Genocide" to "Denial of the allegations of Armenian Genocide". Edit summary: "(corrected the title)"

Kaymakli Monastery changed genocide to massacres. Edit summary: none

Bitlis Province changed genocide to massacre, added fact tag. Edit summary: "(and the source in 1923 said "During Armenian Genocide"?)"

Armenians in Romania changed genocide to massacre. Edit summary: none

Sarah Aaronsohn changed genocide to massacre, added fact tag. Edit summary: "(references expected)"

Mahmudali Chehregani added allegations of in front of Armenian Genocide. Edit summary: "(removing needless POV and OR)"

Cevdet Bey changed genocide to massacre. Edit summary: "(corrections)"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

VartanM, this is not a content discussion page, but a Workshop for ArbCom proposals. You can express your stance on the allegations of genocide at the relevant talk pages, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Interestingly, I don't see how changing "Genocide" to "Massacre" is supposed to be turning Wikipedia into battleground, while a) the "genocide" term in this case was never legally applied according to the relevant UN conventions; b) there was no tribunal to establish the legal fact but rather purely political campaigns for recognition, mostly aimed against the state of Turkey or paid for by political pressure groups rather than aimed at an impartial investigation and recognition of the massacres on either side. While there is no legal recognition, using "genocide" is POV (i.e. position of only one side), while "massacre" is NPOV as neither side denies the massacres. Atabek 09:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

user:AlexanderPar is involved in rampant edit warring, removes sourced information without discussion. He retrurned to Wikipedia after the break and only engaged in rv activity to back user:Hajji Piruz edits

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed--Dacy69 15:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

[195]

26) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Maybe, need to see more Fred Bauder 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

So far, the worst thing that I am guilty of is not assuming good faith (and the only reason I did that was because I followed WP:AGF as stated, literally). Me not assuming good faith does not deserve a one year block, at most, it deserves a harsh warning or a one week block.

The revert parole was put in place so that we would use the talk page more, so I dont understand what Tariqabjotu means. Is he implying that its not a good thing that we discussed on the talk pages? What is Tariqabjotu's definition of disruption, discussing edits on the talk page? This proposal is excessive, I think we can all agree on that.Hajji Piruz 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could ban nearly everybody involved in this matter. However I certainly don't propose doing so. I will propose blocking those who aren't reasonably civil to others. Your remarks to Atabek certainly cross the line. The idea you somehow have license to dump on him is ill-advised. Fred Bauder 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I have to disagree. Limiting blocks to incivility would be a huge mistake. I am collecting evidences on the basis of serious POV pushing by several users who have systematically replaced and deleted the word Armenia and Armenians in several article. The mistake of not bringing this up during the last arbitration should not be repeated a second time given that the incivility of many users was/is a desperate attempt to stop that. If now you are saying that blocks will be solely applied for incivility then I hope the arbitration will consider taking the necessary measures to stop POV pushing. Because personally, I don't see the point of accumulating evidences other than incivility, when I think worst, much worst disruptions have been committed. I hope now you understand why many of us have requested more time...this has to be done right, for all to finally stop the disruption. - Fedayee 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that people should be punished for removal of the word "Armenia", then Hajji Piruz is guilty of removing the word “Azerbaijan” in an endless number of articles. I can provide a complete list of articles where he edit warred over the use of that one word. I actually did provide a few diffs of such editing by this person in my evidence. --Grandmaster 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a misrepresentation. You cannot use the term Azerbaijan to describe a region where it was not used for prior to 1918. The term Azerbaijan is used incorrectly in literally dozens of articles on Wikipedia. Just like you cannot use the term United States to describe a geographical region in the America's before its foundation, you cannot use the term Azerbaijan to represent a geographical region prior to 1918 either.

Wikipedia is supposed to be as accurate as possible, but when people add geographical entities to articles where the entity did not even exist is a falsification of history and is not correct. For example, in the Mirvarid_Dilbazi it says she was born in the Azerbaijan, a country which was founded in 1918, even though she was born in 1912 in a Russian province. Even more incorrect is that Azerbaijan is wikilinked to the Republic of Azerbaijan which became independent in 1991, 79 years after this person was born. When I tried to fix this incorrect statement, I was reverted.

I have never taken out the name Azerbaijan just for the sake of taking out the name Azerbaijan, as you suggest, I have done it for accuracy reason. Tell me, if you are reading the Timur article and it say that something like "Timur was born in Uzbekistan" would not remove the inaccuracy? Timur was born centuries prior to the foundation of Uzbekistan.

I can also bring up dozens of articles also where the term Azerbaijan has been used incorrectly and I have tried to correct the mistake and have been prevented from doing so by other users.

We are supposed to be here to make these articles as accurate as possible for the readers, not edit based on nationalism. WP:AGF.Hajji Piruz 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan is a perfectly legitimate and scholarly accepted term to denote that area before 1918. This was discussed with you many times. There’s a book by Tadeusz Swietochowski called Russian Azerbaijan, 1905 – 1920: The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community. Still you removed the name of the country from the articles without any consensus. --Grandmaster 12:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not going to have this discussion here. In the Academic context of distinguishing a certain area with a modern viewpoint, its acceptable, but not when you are writing in a historical viewpoint. Swietochowski himself in his book clearly states that Azerbaijan was not used for the area of the Republic of Azerbaijan but for Iran throughout most of history, meaning prior to 1918...Hajji Piruz 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference, of which you're well aware due to editing on the History of the name Azerbaijan page, to 1863 article by British Consul to Persia published by the Royal Geographic Society of London, specifically citing "the land which Persians know as Russian Azerbaijan" [196]. So your claim above saying "Azerbaijan was not used for the area of the Republic of Azerbaijan prior to 1918", made again along the lines of attacking Republic of Azerbaijan and the independent statehood of Azerbaijani people specifically, does not hold water and is in bad faith. Atabek 19:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to involve myself in the disruption of this workshop page by debating on an issue that isnt even disputed amongst the scholarly community. WP:AGF Atabek, and also, stop dividing along national lines.Hajji Piruz 23:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll above, you will see that your edit on this page was the first to bring content issues into the Workshop. Atabek 00:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...Grandmaster brought the discussion here...not me.Hajji Piruz 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. This definitely needs to be on the table. All the revert parole has done is take the disruption from the mainspace to the talkspace. -- tariqabjotu 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert parole in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are placed on probation. They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and ethnic issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If possible, the specific users affected should be listed, to aid admins in enforcement and to ensure that any editors who may be complying with the prior decision and are now editing appropriately are not sanctioned again without cause. Newyorkbrad 15:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the list from the previous arbcom needs to be expanded, as we currently have users who behave more aggressively than those involved in the previous case. --Grandmaster 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) The remedies of revert parole, including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility parole and probation shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall establish that these remedies apply to the individual editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If adopted, need a mechanism for identifying and notifying affected editors. Can any administrator decide an editor is in this category or does it come back to ArbCom, should there be a warning first, etc. Also, if this is in the final decision, please use a more descriptive section header. Newyorkbrad 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The warning made by an administrator on the user's talk page is the method of identifying and notifying users. Fred Bauder 16:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the list of people placed on revert parole by the arbcom should be expanded to add a few more names, specifically User:Hetoum, User:VartanM, User:MarshallBagramyan, User:AlexanderPar, User:Meowy and a few others. As of now, User:MarshallBagramyan is edit warring on the article Movses Kaghankatvatsi, deleting alternative versions of ethnic origin of this historian. Please check the history of the article. I think that there should be a list of people placed on parole or probation by the arbcom, but in addition the parole should be applied to everyone editing the topic related articles in an aggressive manner. --Grandmaster 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your provocations are becoming extremely disruptive; we both know that Meowy isn't even Armenian, and has had one single conflict in one single article with you (if you check on Kish, he neither agreed with you nor Hetoum). And his only block was because of an impersonation by AdilBaguirov. As for me, I am on par with Parishan and Ulvi_I. I am all for imposing on everyone such a restriction; at least I am fair. Why aren't you fair on the conflict surrounding the Movses Kaghankatvatsi article?

Movses Kaghankatvatsi is an Armenian name, he wrote only in Armenian, and most sources contend him to be an Armenian. You are presenting a Soviet source which during those years were justifying the slicing of Armenia under its regime by claiming Armenian artifacts in the lands which now constitute a part of Azerbaijan as Albanian as a countermeasure against Armenian territorial claims. I have provided French, English and German sources and have even proposed to provide more. There is no way you're gonna present a fringe or minority viewpoint as equally valid. Propose something reasonable. Your selective pushing of editors for probation is quite frankly, disturbing; judge your fellow editors equally and not on the basis of their national or ethnic affiliation. I will not disrupt this workshop any further.--Marshal Bagramyan 20:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you what you meant by this? And his only block was because of an impersonation by AdilBaguirov. Meowy 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallBagramyan, as a friendly suggestion, please, assume good faith and follow WP:SOAP. Atabek 01:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I will not disrupt this workshop any further". Interesting comment. Marshall, you are deleting alternative version of the ethnic origin of Movses, presented by a prominent Russian scholar, academician and a leading Russian expert on the ancient history of the region. Another leading expert, Vladimir Minorsky, also did not call him Armenian, he called him "indigenous historian of Caucasian Albania”, which means that Minorsky did not support any of the versions of his ethnic origin and there were more than one such versions. You chose to delete the opinion of these scholars. I urge the arbitrators to pay attention to this issue, as it is escalating to another conflict, similar to the one we had on Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which also took place due to similar editing practice of MarshallBagramyan. As for Meowy, one does not have to be Azerbaijani or Armenian to be destructive, Meowy has a history of disruptive editing before he even joined editing Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, I just did not mention it here. Check his block log. Grandmaster 05:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Marshall, as Atabek noted, mind WP:AGF, comments like "Your provocations are becoming extremely disruptive" are not really helpful. I would like to draw attention of arbitrators to habitual bad faith assumption of MarshallBagramyan when dealing with users presenting alternative point of view. --Grandmaster 05:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Grandmaster's attitude towards this process is indicated by his behaviour in adding as many additional names to this arbitration as he is able to. As MarshallBagramyan noted, my sole contact with Grandmaster has been on the Church of Kish page. But that was enough for him. Maybe he thinks that he can avoid the consequences of his own actions by trying to spread blame onto as many others as possible? Meowy 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m ready to face any consequences this arbcom may have. However, I only added to this case people whose behavior was disruptive, and your previous editing history shows that before you started editing topic related articles you had 2 blocks for 3RR and harassment of other users, and after you started editing Church of Kish you violated the 3RR rule again. I don’t see why you should not be a party to this case. --Grandmaster 04:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, you like to point fingers at how many times other users have been blocked. Can you be so kind and tell us how many times you have been blocked? [197] "You shouldn't throw rocks if you live in a glass house" saying come to my mind. --VartanM 06:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever I did wrong was dealt with during the previous arbcom. But I have never been blocked since the end of the first arbcom. Grandmaster 06:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because someone else did your reverting for you. VartanM 15:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence, provide it. --Grandmaster 04:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for evidence, the arbitrators can check what happened each time you reverted, and reverted back to others reverting to your version, or when your edits were reverted. --VartanM 05:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Grandmaster 05:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4) Hajji Piruz is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

And more bad faith right after this proposal - [198] - "These guys, along with Dacy69, gang up on me, as well as other users, in order to push their point of view". Atabek 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Violations of paroles or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: