Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atabəy (talk | contribs) at 02:47, 27 June 2007 (→Personal attacks, harassment and intimidation by [[User:Hajji Piruz]]/[[User:Azerbaijani]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey, use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Hajji Piruz

I am in the process of posting my evidence, it may take awhile.

Atabek

Atabek (talk · contribs) has continuously attacked me by making false accusations, personal attacks, and canvassing to tarnish my image on Wikipedia. He has attempted to divide Wikipedia along ethnic lines, made inappropriate comments, frequently distorts and manipulates Wikipedias rules and policies, and engages in POV and OR. His behavior has not changed the slightest bit since the old arbcom. I'm tired of being subject to such abuse and harassment on an almost a daily basis.

User:Atabek has recently initiated a defamation campaign against me. He has made false accusations, personal attacks, and has even canvassed in order to find an administrator sympathetic to him. He frequently misuses and abuses Wikipedia's rules and policies, and often tries to distort them to fit his situation. He is rude on talk pages, doesnt read other users posts, and does not show willingness to have an ounce of respect for other users. In just the past few weeks, he has gone to several different administrators (canvassing), made countless false accusations, and several personal attacks. I am afraid that his canvassing has already given me a bad image in the eyes of several administrators.

This user was initially proposed to be blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year; his behavior has not changed in the slightest since the last arbcom ended. For evidence of Atabek's past behavior see the following: For evidence of his disruptive behavior in the past, please see the following sections of the arbcom:

Response to Atabek's "evidence"

Before proceeding, it is important to know that Atabek habitually falsifies evidence in order to manipulate the opinions of third party users. Examine his diff's carefully, he often gives descriptions of the diff's that do not match what the diff is actually about or saying. The "evidence" post on this arbcom on this very page are nothing but, for lack of a better word, lies. I have responded to Atabek's "evidence" on the talk page.

Canvassing

First it should be noted that Atabek went on a canvassing spree and made the same false accusations on several administrator talk pages, on the administrators noticeboard, and several other places, in order to find someone sympathetic to him:

Canvassing for the RFC:

Canvassing before the arbcom even started:

Atabek has started or been involved in seven check users, just itching to get some users blocked (interestingly, he has added my name to most of these check usrers):

False accusations

  1. on User:Tariqabjotu's talk page
  • Many of the false accusations can be viewed on User:Tariqabjotu's talk page, the link is posted above. The following quotes are all by User:Atabek, I have not altered them in any way, shape or form, and come from User:Tariqabjotu's talk page unless stated otherwise. Be aware that these are only some of the instances where he has made such comments (he has made alot on the Safavids talk page too, starting from the section which this link takes you to), it would take me a long time to find all of them as they are spread over many articles, but these should suffice. Some of these false accusations include (I will also post the comments):
  1. Vandalism: "I am writing this to complain about User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani), who has recently vandalized my user page"
  2. Supporting a banned user: "User:Azerbaijani also supported anon IP sockpuppets of the banned User:Tajik"
  3. POV pushing and OR edits: "This user is only involved in pages related to Azerbaijan, and on all of them POV pushing and wasting contributor's time with unscholarly edits." and on the on the Safavids talk page ("As long as Hajji Piruz (Azerbaijani) and his flock don't stop their unencyclopedic POV and OR edits on this and other pages, looks we will not get anywhere on a scholarly front.")
  4. Attacking users: "If he is unable to deal with content issues on various pages, he should request assistance of arbitration or dispute resolution, instead of attacking users." --- "It's part of his larger scale attack upon myself and several other users on practically all talk pages."
  5. Personal attacks: "So you're the one to apologize here for vandalizing my page and actually attacking me personally."
  6. Blackmail: "You're the one attacking, blackmailing, and harassing me, I have no interest in communicating with you outside content discussions."
  7. Intimidation: "...is nothing more than intimidation and harassment of personality." and on User:Bobak's talk page ("...obviously intimidating me...")
  8. Edit warring and spoiling consensus version of articles: on User:Thatcher131's talk page ("The anon IP edits are often endorsed only by User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani), who is engaged in heavy edit warring after ArbCom on several pages and tries hard to spoil consensus version.") and on User:Dmcdevit's talk page ("These provocations of User:Hajji Piruz, a.k.a. User:Azerbaijani, have to be stopped. It took us so long to achieve consensus at Safavid dynasty, many of us ended up in ArbCom because of it, and finally had stable version for the past month or so.")
  9. Use of meat and sock puppets: on User:Dmcdevit's talk page ("I don't have physical evidence, but based on behavior and support of User:Hajji Piruz, formerly User:Azerbaijani, he is obviously meatpuppeting/coordinating with these groups.")
  10. No useful contributions to Wikipedia: on User:Bobak's talk page ("To be frank, dealing with this user is a waste of time for me, he is only after hunting and blackmailing certain users rather than contributing anything useful to the articles.") and on the Safavids talk page ("It will ease up your "work", since your other useful contributions to Wikipedia articles, apart from embitterment or ethnic POV, are close to 0."
  • Now notice how he denies all of this later on: "I didn't make accusations against Hajji Piruz" and "So why don't you, please, ask Hajji Piruz to first read these before he tries to intimidate me on my user page, and before him further accusing me of attacking him"
  • Atabek now insists that he never accused me of anything and that it is me who is making false accusations and attacking him, even though all the evidence points to the contrary.
  • I have asked him 18+ times to bring evidence to support his claims against me. So far, he has brought nothing that proves any of his allegatoins, yet he still continues to go around making these accusations. At what point, I ask you, does this become a personal attack?

Refuting his false allegations

Now I will proceed to comment on and disprove some of his (based on the numbering of the accusations above, for numbers 2 through 9, Atabek did not show one piece of evidence to support his accusations):

1) Atabek claims I vandalized his user page. I made three small edits to his user page, and one was a remedy of a minor mistake I had made. Here is the diff of all three: [13]

Atabek claims that that is vandalism. In what way is that vandalism? Its not. Atabek has had a confirmed sockpuppet, User:Tengri, which has no been blocked indefinetly: [14].

The Category Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers clearly states: "This category shows users which have been found to have created multiple accounts, or sockpuppets, to abuse Wikipedia policies, or are strongly suspected to have done so."

Clearly, I did nothing wrong by adding the category to his user page, and my edits certainly were not vandalism. Upon insisting that my edits on his user page were vandalism and the continued false accusations, Tariqabjotu responded on his talk page saying "No he is not. Did you even look at what you were reverting?" [15]

Later on he attempts to manipulate and distort Wikipedia's policies regarding user pages to fit his stance, but I will address that in another section, along with his other abuses of Wikipedia's rules and policies.

2) Atabek claims I was supporting a banned user on the Safavids article. First of all, whether the IP user was a former banned user or not is questionable, but the only edits of that anon that I supported were the anons grammatical, spelling, and Wikilinking edits, all of which were perfectly legitimate and improved the article. Atabek reverted the anon blindly and did not heed anyones comments on the talk page. This prompted User:Bushytails to make several comments on the Safavids article, criticizing Atabeks behavior: [16] , [17] , and [18]

The Ironic thing is that I was actually trying to help him and his buddies out by telling another usre to discuss his/her edits first before making edits to the controversial article: "I left Ariana a message asking him to discuss his edits from now on for this article: [19]" on Safavid dynasty talk page

As with 2, Atabek has never produced a single shred of evidence to support any of his allegations 3,4,5,6,7,8,9. Again, I repeat, Atabek has never brought any evidence proving any of his allegations against me. He has still not done so. The best he has ever managed to do is show diff's which prove nothing he claims, yet he distorts them anyway in his descriptions to admins and users. I have asked him 18+ times for him to either bring his evidence or stop making false accusations against me.

10) Atabek has claimed that I have made no useful contributions to Wikipedia at all, yet a simple look at my user page contradicts that. So far, I have created 47 articles, two templates, and three categories. On top of that, I have made significant contributions to six articles, one template, and countless contributions overall.

Attempting to divide Wikipedia along ethnic/national lines

Atabek has attempted to divide Wikipedia along ethnic lines. He has several times told me or implied to me that I should not edit Azerbaijan related articles.

  1. On Tariabjotu's talk page he implies that I cannot edit articles related to Azerbaijan (interestingly, his accusation is contradicted by my edits, I edit Caucasian and Iranian related articles): "This user is only involved in pages related to Azerbaijan"[20]

Disruptive editing

Looking at Atabek's contributinos it becomes clear that this user contributes nothing but edit warring to Wikipedia, although in all fairness, he has created several articles, but other than that, his other edits have been disruptive. He has edit warred on many articles, some of which include History of the name Azerbaijan, Qajars, Safavids, Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy, Ethnic minorities in Iran, Yeprem Khan, Ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan, Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis, etc... For example, I will post some of his disruptive edits from the Safavids article. The following are disruptive edits on the Safavids article.

1)Atabek reverted the edits of User:Kansas Bear, which included the addition of an entire section, just to undo small changes by another user: [21] He then asks Kansasbear to redo his edit: "Kansas Bear, you can make your architecture edits over this version." [22]

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

That prompted User:Bushytails to involve himself and make several comments:

"Atabek: Vandalism has a rather well-defined meaning... and fixing errors in an article isn't it. Looking at the contributions by User:82.83.145.243, most of them, within my admittedly limited knowledge of this topic, are perfectly reasonable edits, improving spelling, fixing links, re-wording things, and generally working to improve the article. Even if you disagree with them, they're certainly not vandalism. Unless I see a shred of evidence that you're reverting them for a good reason, I'll probably revert back to them, as the article looked better before you reverted it."[24]

"Umm. How, exactly, is moving where the language the population spoke down ten words a bad faith edit? How is it even relevant enough to matter where, if anywhere, it is in the introduction? If that's the worst edit you think he did, it's hard to see that you're doing anything other than arguing for the sake of arguing. Don't make this end up in WP:LAME."[25]

"Nope, not aware of anything. I just saw atabek make some suspicious reverts while I was patrolling recent changes, and had never heard of any of these users or this article until then. From what I can tell, most of the changes made by the anon user were perfectly acceptable, and without some proof they're disruptive, should not have been reverted. I notice another user has since improved some of the grammar problems, originally fixed by the anon user, and re-added when atabek reverted it...However, since the article has been edited a fair bit since then, I'm not going to just revert back to the anon's version. User:82.83.145.243: Why don't you create a subpage (either off this article or in your userspace), based on the current version, with your edits? That way, if people like them (and "OMG they moved a minor piece of information to the second sentance!" isn't a reason not to like them), I or another editor can copy it over to the article." [26]

Threats of Wiki-retaliation

Atabek threaten to attack Iran related articles:

  1. "Then we should prepare a collage picture of Adolf Hitler with Swastika and images of Holocaust and post it on all Iran related pages"[27]
  2. "I am working on Pan-Aryan collage meanwhile. Thanks."[28]

Personal attacks

Atabek has made many personal attacks. Here I will list a few of them. These include attacks against me and other users:

  1. I had attempted to resolve the dispute on Atabek's talk page, but he simply removed my comments and called them "garbage": [29]
  2. Puts my former name in quotation marks (this was one of the reasons why I had to have my name changed from Azerbaijani to Hajji Piruz, to avoid the constant personal attacks): [30]
  3. Another personal attack against me: "Actually, you're no authority (neither admin nor mediator) to make or not make something sure about users treating each other. But anyways, good luck with ambitions, I shall simply ignore you, since you just don't understand much." [31]
  4. "As long as Hajji Piruz (Azerbaijani) and his flock don't stop their unencyclopedic POV and OR edits on this and other pages, looks we will not get anywhere on a scholarly front."[32]
  5. Notice the sarcasm (hes obviously implying that I'm stupid): "Meanwhile, a note to Hajji Piruz, the word grammar is written with "a" not "e". Thought might be helpful for future editing and/or posting complaint notes. Thanks." [33]
  6. "Hajji Piruz, why don't you make a little template with "do not make personal attacks, and keep your POV or OR to yourself" :) and then reinsert it instead of typing. It will ease up your "work" [34]

Personal attack against User:Alborz Fallah:

  1. "Apparently, there are too many pseudo-Azeris claiming the Azeri identity yet not quite resembling (in cultural and linguistic sense) the modern definition of Azerbaijani. Throwing the words like "yashasin" or "chox saghol" or "yaxshi" does not yet suffice to be called "Azeri"." [35]

Personal attack against User:VartanM:

  1. "And it's very sad that some cannot move beyond bigotted positions to recognize the facts or gain some credibility in their stance. ASALA failed for the same reason."[36]

Comparing Iran to Nazi Germany based on his own historical revisionism, POV, and OR:

  1. "Especially with denial of Holocaust by Ahmadinejad and adoption of Swastika by Hitler, the connection is very very close."[37]

Racial comments

Atabek has made several race related comments:

  1. "General pattern demonstrated by Iranian/Persian groups to attack and remove, dereference and POV every article related to Turkic groups shall also be noted as nothing more than hateful and disturbing development."[38]
  2. Too much to post here: [39]

Disrespect and refusal to constructively discuss the issues

Atabek has shown no willingness to respect me or even discuss any of our issues.

Statements by Atabek (I did not alter these in any way, shape, or form, these are excerpts from some of his comments):

  1. In response to me telling him that I did not want him to harass the new user User:German-Orientalist: "Actually, you're no authority (neither admin nor mediator) to make or not make something sure about users treating each other. But anyways, good luck with ambitions, I shall simply ignore you, since you just don't understand much." [40]
  2. "As long as he does not dare to edit my user space ever again without my permission, I have no interest to listening to or to bothering with him."[41]
  3. "I see is to simply ignore this user, not engage in any conversation with him."[42]
  4. Atabek attempting to get users to ignore me: "Dacy and others, I figured it's pretty much useless to explain anything to Hajji Piruz, he will continue on POV pushing, harassing and attacking other users to get his point through stubbornly. So let's discuss and make our edits in a constructive manner but avoiding engagement with useless OR, user targetting, and wasteful POV of Hajji Piruz"[43]
  5. "To be frank, dealing with this user is a waste of time for me, he is only after hunting and blackmailing certain users rather than contributing anything useful to the articles." [44]

Manipulation and distortion of Wikipedia's rules and policies: AGF and User page

Atabek has not only violated Wikipedia's rules and policies, but he has also attempted several times to spin Wikipedia's rules and policies in order to fit his own situation and to put me in a bad light. I will only talk about WP:AGF and Wikipedia:User page as they have been used a lot by Atabek recently.

  • Atabek continuously tells me to assume good faith. He tells me this whenever he reports me to an admin, whenever he reverts an article, in almost every discussion we have, etc... He wants me not to dispute anything he does. He is attempting to use this rule in order to prevent anyone from questioning his contributions.
However, a part of WP:AGF that Atabek never quotes nor even acknowledges, is this part:
This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.[45]
As I have outlined, Atabek has a confirmed sock (User:Tengri), he has lied, and some would consider some of his latest edits to the Safavids article to be vandalism. Despite the fact that AGF does not apply to him, he continuously goes to other users and administrators telling them that I am not assuming good faith with regards to him in an attempt to damage my image here on Wikipedia.
I have told him about this part of of the policy several times, yet he continues to use AGF in an attempt to tarnish my name.
  • With regards to Wikipedia:User page, Atabek attempted to "prove" that I vandalized his user page (which I didnt) by selectively quoting what the rules actually say.
Here is his comment on Tariqabjotu's talk page:

"I would like to apologize to Tariq for overwhelming his talk page with this discussion. But this thread just gives a flavor what many editors have to deal with, where this User:Hajji Piruz, aka User:Azerbaijani is involved. If he needs evidence, here are few excerpts from Wikipedia:User page, which he chose to ignore, while vandalizing my user page:

  • "by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others"
  • "in general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission"
  • "users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests"

Thanks."

None of those rules actually apply to this situation in any way that they could possibly be used by Atabek against me. Remember that Atabek accused me of vandalizing his user page. My edits, as posted above, were far from vandalism. They were neither substantial, nor did Atabek every tell me prior to me editing his user page that I could not. The very same rules he posted in his defense actually prove that I did nothing wrong. Unfortunately, Atabek continued to attempt to use those rules to "prove" that I was committing vandalism.

Also, User:Tariqabjotu has commented on some of Atabek's accusations on Atabek's talk page, telling Atabek that the anon on the Safavids article is not me and tell him that I am not attacking, blackmailing, or harassing: "No he is not. Did you even look at what you were reverting?" [46] (Tariqabjotu's last comment is in regards to Atabeks comment which is in the middle)

Dacy69

Grandmaster

Elsanaturk

Parishan

Zondi

Batabat

Evidence presented by AlexanderPar

Revert parole violations

User:Dacy69, User:Atabek and User:Grandmaster are extremely disruptive editors who deliberately provoke edit-wars by soapboxing, ethnocentrism, and gaming their revert parole. I also believe that the previous ArbCom did not fully examine their disruptive behavior. For example, as noted by an admin [47], it's astonishing that despite User:Dacy69's revert parole restrictions imposed by ArbCom, he still manages to violate 3RR on a page by making 4 reverts in less than a day. Repeated parole violations, and parole gaming, by these users is listed below.

Dacy69

  • Violation 1: 30 May 2007 BrendelSignature (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dacy69 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Three-revert rule violation: Violated Abrcom parole in which he/she is only allowed 1 revert per week.)
  • Violation 2: 15 June 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dacy69 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Three-revert rule violation: violation of 1rr parole, 3RR rule)

Atabek

  • Violation 1: 13 March 2007 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) blocked "Atabek (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring in violation of ArbCom injunction.)
  • Violation 2: 22 June 2007 Jossi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Atabek (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Edit warring in violation of ArbCom injunction.))

Grandmaster

  • Violation 1: 19:03, 28 February 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "Grandmaster (contribs)" (anon. only) with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of revert parole)
  • Violation 2: 17:56, 4 April 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "Grandmaster (contribs)" (anon. only) with an expiry time of 24 hours (edit warring)

Evidence presented by User:Atabek

Personal attacks, harassment and intimidation by Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani

After the previous ArbCom [48], User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani started his first attack upon me by this edit [49] on my own user page, when WP:USER states that he should have discussed and reached an approval before editing my user page. This action was an intimidation with a purpose of provoking me, and in fact, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani clearly spelled it out here [50].

Meat/socks in support of User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani

When anon IP sockpuppets of banned User:Tajik resurfaced on Safavid dynasty and started editting the page, User:Hajji Piruz started actively supporting those socks [51] and even calling my legitimate attempt to stop sockpuppets as vandalism [52]. Those same socks User:Tajik were registered as User:German-Orientalist, for whom User:Hajji Piruz even started a discussion page [53], but were later confirmed as sockpuppets [54].

Refusal to WP:AGF by User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani

Bothered by the provocative campaign of User:Hajji Piruz upon myself on discussion pages in support of socks, I have asked him to assume good faith [55], yet the user has clearly responded that he "does not need to AGF" with regards to myself [56].

False and baseless accusations by User:Hajji Piruz

Frustrated by disruptive behavior of User:Hajji Piruz, I requested help [57] from User:Tariqabjotu. Here, I would like to note that User:Hajji Piruz has similarly targeted another User:Dacy69 on User:Tariqabjotu's talk page earlier [58]. I have also requested help from User:Thatcher131 as the manager of the last ArbCom case [59]. I don't understand why contacting several administrators about an unresolved issue would be considered a violation. After all, I did so with a purpose of resolving situation not violating rules by myself.

Opening an endless thread at User:Tariqabjotu's talk page and accusing me of canvassing, User:Hajji Piruz has managed to convince the former to support his campaign. User:Hajji Piruz was first advised to open a CEM case, and when I simply asked a 3rd party user for advise [60], User:Hajji Piruz immediately backtracked from CEM idea and further accused me on canvassing. He clearly chose not try this avenue of dispute resolution which I never rejected. Again, I don't understand why contacting another administrator, with questions or resolution attempts is considered a violation, while wikistalking, bad faith assumptions, baiting users into bans, massive edit warring, and meatpuppeteering like User:Hajji Piruz does, is not.

Further attacks, harassment and baiting by User:Hajji Piruz

Continuing on, User:Hajji Piruz then convinced User:Tariqabjotu to file an RfC against myself [61], an effort which nevertheless failed to yield sufficient public support. Even some 3rd party users have noted that User:Hajji Piruz was clearly intimidating me and provoking a conflict [62]. User:Hajji Piruz has even requested an RfC comment about myself from a sock for whom he made the talk page [63] and even made comment generalizing along national lines [64]. He stated his RfC desired outcome as [65] banning myself from Wikipedia, which was his "approach" to dispute resolution, again no good faith.

User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani is now trying to continue on with his goal in ArbCom, wasting the committee's valuable time. Instead of advised WP:AGF, he goes on revert warring and even clearly Wikistalking myself on the articles that he has never touched before me, sometimes minutes after I edit them [66], [67].

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2/Evidence&oldid=140871041"