Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision

Arbitrators

• Blnguyen (recused)
• Charles Matthews
• Flcelloguy
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• Paul August
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

With 13 active arbitrators of whom 1 is recused, the majority is 7. Updated by Newyorkbrad 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

May have disagree

Either a clarification is needed. Each parties have the right of one revert might bring people to use multiple accounts and use the force of numbers. I don't have a solution, but this could do more harm than good. Fad (ix) 15:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If they do so, we will catch them, and will enact further remedies as necessary. In the past, users have been restricted to a single account, and have been banned from contributing to any page except thier talk page and the arbitration pages during the course of arbitration. The behavior in question at this time is reverting; we will address other issues as they become issues. Essjay (Talk) 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have been notified, problem though. I already took the dispositions and will be refraining editing any articles involving, Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, etc., I expect to only contribute on science related articles. So this does not apply to me. What applies to me is that since I won't be contributing in the articles which are involved with the case, the rv. restriction or justification in the talkpage is not for the better of things because I don't want to be restricted to revert or justify edits which have nothing to do with the case here, since I won't edit those articles anyway. Also, since I believe being the only editor in this case I believe not having ever been blocked for edit warring, article disruption or 3RR(my blocks are for bad mouthing), I feel I am ordered to do something which I do anyway. Could the Arbcom committee consider a change, such as "Fadix is restricted to contribute in articles involving this case"? This way I won't have the restriction which would be irrelevent in my case. Fad (ix) 01:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

More broadly, as a clarification applicable to all the parties, is the revert restriction limited to articles concerning Armenia- and Azerbaijan-related topics, or does it apply to all edits by these editors? Newyorkbrad 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove me from this Arbcom

Please remove me from this Arbcom. I have not been a part of this whole Armenian Azerbaijani dispute going on here in Wikipedia, and I dont even know what this whole thing is about! I was put on the list by Grandmaster because I edited two Iran related articles which also happened to be Armenian related (Caucasus Albania and Arran). Grandmaster has put me on the list through bad faith, possibly trying to bring me "down" with him simply because he has had disagreements with me in the past. I stayed away from this whole dispute and I do not belong on this Arbcom. Again, I have kept my edits to Iran related articles only, and I happened to make two edits, one on Caucasus Albania and one on Arran, BOTH of which are Iran related articles, which at that time happened to have gotten into the whole Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute. Please take me off this Arbcom and please take off my revert limitation. Thanks. Please also see this: [1] By the way, I was told that it would be best to present my reasoning here. Again, I have no idea what this dispute is about and I was not apart of it and I do not belong in this Arbcom.Azerbaijani 19:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So, why is it that you need to revert more than once per day anyways? I count several revert wars (including at least one with Grandmaster) in your last 500 mainspace contributions, so the fact that you don't do much editing with regards to Armenia-related topics shouldn't stop you from being subject to revert limitation. The case had to be named something, after all. Picaroon 23:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that I do not belong on this Arbcom, the fact that I can make only one revert is a direct cause that I was put into this Arbcom through bad faith by another User. I have not had an edit war in a long time. The main thing here is that I do not belong in this Arbcom and I would like to be removed from it. You do not understand, the Arbcom here is about the ongoing edit wars between Armenian and Azerbaijani users in several Armenian and Azerbaijani's articles. I was not a part of any of those. I am from Iran and I have only stuck to Iran related articles. I should not be involved in something that I did not participate in in the first place. This is unfair and unjust. I was brought into this Arbcom by a user, who through bad faith, added me to the list, out of spite or in an attempt to get me in trouble. You cannot punish someone who was not involved in a crime. This is all I'm saying, and I'm asking to be removed from this Arbcom, of which I have no business in. Also, notice how my edits are not based on my ethnic group, in fact, I have had more disputes with Azeri users (who are from the Republic of Azerbaijan), and no disputes with Armenian users.Azerbaijani 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for making your case civilly and clearly. A few weeks back Newyorkbrad mentioned that it would take a motion to remove someone from the case, so I don't think you'll want to go through that, but I do feel you have a case against the long-term 1RR that I'll be proposing for several users, some one each side. Picaroon 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm just going to stay out of the Arbcom then, since I have no idea what the main disputes are (again, because I am not an involved party, I was put in through what I assume was bad faith by another user who has a grudge). So please make sure that if there is any punishment handed out, that I do not receive one (again, because I am not a party to this dispute at all). Thanks.Azerbaijani 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While the case, is nominally called Armenia-Azerbaijan, User:Azerbaijani has been edit warring effectively on many sites related to Azerbaijan, most ostensibly at Azerbaijan, History of the name Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, Musavat and Safavid Dynasty (this one in the past). Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page has been blocked due to this user's as well as other contributor User:Mardavich, so the limitation should definitely be applied to this user as it is to everyone else involved. Also, this one [[2]] is just perfect example, where User:Azerbaijani has been trying with reverts to reinsert a POV quote from Armenian source on a page related strictly to Azerbaijan only. Attempts to explain to the user that Armenian quotes in regards to Azerbaijan are POV due to conflict were futile. So User:Azerbaijani's claim above that he is not involved in this ArbCom case simply do not seem to reflect the reality. THanks. Atabek 07:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, User:Azerbaijani is sometimes working in tandem with other abovementioned editors, especially User:Artaxiad and User:Mardavich in reverting pages -- the latest example being Lake Urmia article [3]. Other examples are Musavat page [4], particularly this example of seleced chronology of edits:

(cur) (last) 19:17, February 2, 2007 Azerbaijani (Talk | contribs) (rv, do not remove the tag if someone is disputing the content of the article.)

(cur) (last) 17:20, February 2, 2007 Atabek (Talk | contribs) (stop simple RV edit war, if you have neutrality dispute respond to discussion thread with your arguments. otherwise, such tag can only be inserted by admins based on facts.)

(cur) (last) 04:00, February 2, 2007 Mardavich (Talk | contribs) (There are several users here who are disputing the neutrality of the article, you shouldn't remove the tag)

(cur) (last) 01:52, February 2, 2007 Atabek (Talk | contribs) (no ground for neutrality tag, there is a discussion thread in this regard, which was not responded to refer to talk page.)

(cur) (last) 01:51, February 2, 2007 Artaxiad (Talk | contribs) (rv vandalism)

(cur) (last) 01:50, February 2, 2007 Atabek (Talk | contribs) (in order to put a neutrality tag, you must have ground to deny the existing third-party references or claim them POV.)

(cur) (last) 23:17, February 1, 2007 Azerbaijani (Talk | contribs) (rv removal and manipulation of sources and information. Secondly, it was the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR), not Azerbaijan Republic.)

(cur) (last) 07:18, February 1, 2007 AdilBaguirov (Talk | contribs) (back)

(cur) (last) 06:55, February 1, 2007 Artaxiad (Talk | contribs) m (leave the tag)

(cur) (last) 20:07, January 31, 2007 AdilBaguirov (Talk | contribs) (undo the rv of Mardavich - see Talk)

(cur) (last) 16:39, January 31, 2007 Mardavich (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 104528945 by AdilBaguirov (talk))

Likewise, seleced chronology of edits from the Atabeg page [5]:

(cur) (last) 05:08, February 11, 2007 Azerbaijani (Talk | contribs) (→In the Caucasus)

(cur) (last) 04:09, February 11, 2007 AdilBaguirov (Talk | contribs)

(cur) (last) 17:14, February 8, 2007 Artaxiad (Talk | contribs) (nope)

(cur) (last) 00:27, February 6, 2007 AdilBaguirov (Talk | contribs) (no need for "today's Azerbaijan" -- it was called as such back then too.)

(cur) (last) 00:19, February 6, 2007 Azerbaijani (Talk | contribs) (→Atabeg dynasties - moving that information under "the near east")

(cur) (last) 00:18, February 6, 2007 Azerbaijani (Talk | contribs) (Azerbaijan is linked to the republic of Azerbaijan, which did not exist then... thats why i put "in present day Azerbaijan". its really very simple.)

(cur) (last) 23:33, February 5, 2007 AdilBaguirov (Talk | contribs) (no, u are very selective - 1) the state WAS called Azerbaijan; 2) Luristan is not in Caucasus; 3) Iran did'nt exist at all as political entity)

(cur) (last) 22:46, February 5, 2007 Azerbaijani (Talk | contribs) (what are you doing? It was a) the caucasus and b) in what is TODAY Azerbaijan...)

--AdilBaguirov 08:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, notice how both of these users are Azerbaijani's, which again attests to the fact that I edit Wikipedia articles not based on my ethnicities preferences, but with objectiveness. Secondly, notice how I am shunned as an Azeri simply because I do not agree with some of these users edits. Notice how as soon as I disagree with them, I am no longer Azeri, and therefore have no right to edit Azeri related articles (almost all Azeri related articles are Iran related as well). Isnt that funny? All of the articles Atabek and Adil listed are Iran related articles! Also, notice how on the "evidence" Adil brings up, I merely reverted to keep a dispute tag on the article, which by Wiki rules has to stay on articles if a user disputes its content and puts the tag up in the first place. This is further proof that I have nothing to do in this Arbcom, and that the Azeri users from the Republic of Azerbaijan, through bad faith, are trying to pull me into this simply to take me "down" with them. This is really getting ridiculous. These users think that they own Wikipedia articles (if you haven't already noticed by their comments above). They claim everything as their own and say people who disagree with them do not have a right to edit them. All of these are Iran related articles, non of them are within the scope of the Armenia Azerbaijan conflict. Infact, notice on the Urmia Lake article's talk page how I have insisted that the Armenian user and Adil keep their revenge attacks away from Iran related articles [6] (Adil went there to insert information that had nothing to do with Lake Urmia but rather information about Armenia, which caused some disruption). Please remove me from this Arbcom. The very fact that I edit only Iran related articles, that I edit not based on my ethnicity, but rather through objectiveness, the clear animosity that these users are showing, the fact that I did not help neither the Azerbaijani's nor the Armenian's on any of the articles that they were fueding on, and the fact that these users were so willing and ready to jump into a discussion that was between me and the administrators in order to keep me within the Arbcom is proof that I have nothing to do with this, and that my addition to the Arbcom was through bad motives. Again, I do not belong here or should be subject to any of the punishments. You cannot punish someone who has done nothing in the first place. Azerbaijani 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The best way at this point for you is to just ignore this case, it should not be hard to revert only once and justify your edits. They also made false claims about me and even edit warring. Which my contribution history would make it sound ridiculous. [7] I am the oldest member here, having registered 2 years ago yet 9 edit for Nagorno Karabakh namespace. If it is not true you should not care, the Arbcom will see that once they scratch. Fad (ix) 01:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Azerbaijani 02:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani has been edit warring on almost every Azerbaijan related article, it is enough to check his contribs to see it. No reason to complain, you are clearly a party to this case and if you are not guilty of anything, you have nothing to be afraid of. Grandmaster 06:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani the fact that you have this username in Wikipedia, does not yet imply your ethnicity. And frankly, that's immaterial. As you know, Wikipedia does not have rules on ethnicity/username compliance and contributors are free to choose any available username. So your statement "which again attests to the fact that I edit Wikipedia articles not based on my ethnicities preferences" does not have any basis or relevance to this case. In other words, I can choose a username "Babek", the medieval hero, it does not mean, I am "Babek", the medieval hero.

This ArbCom case is not just about Armenian or Azerbaijani contributors, it's about general edit warring pattern on pages related to respective countries. Clearly Musavat, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, History of the name Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan and several other sites, where you have been reported edit warring have more to do with Azerbaijan than they do with Iran whatsoever. Atabek 10:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop it already, don't you think that there is enough users involved? From the same token, maybe I should include Turkish users who edit war in Armenian articles too? Let stick to the Armenia-Azerbaijan related stuff. Fad (ix) 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement of temporary injunction

Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page.

How is it to be enforced? Two (or more) reverts leads to blocking, of course, but what about failure to explain reverts on the talk page or in an edit summary? Is this blockable, and, if so, does it require warnings before blocking? Picaroon 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the users have been notified of the injunction. Therefore, a warning is moot. I would (and will) block on first infringement, given their notification of the temp. inj. is enough warning for me. Daniel Bryant 04:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, the administrator who filed the case, has taken the lead in enforcing the injunction, although any admin can do so. Unfortunately, Dmc's already had to give out two blocks; he did give some warnings before blocking; see the "log of blocks and bans" on the casepage, and the talkpages of the users named there. Newyorkbrad 04:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I still subject to this (see my comments above)? I'm just wondering, I'm not asking so that I can prepare an edit war or something, I'm asking so that just in case I have to make 2 reverts I would know not to so I dont get blocked.Azerbaijani 04:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone named in the case is subject to the injunction. I have asked the arbitrators above whether the remedy applies to articles concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan only or to all articles, and am waiting for a response. Newyorkbrad 05:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

But I keep saying that my addition was incorrect and unjustified. I should not have been added in the first place. Why am I being punished when I did nothing at all to be in this Arbcom in the first place.Azerbaijani 06:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Temporary injunctions are rough justice. There hasn't been time to analyze the evidence and see against whom enforcement might be needed, but a solution to the immediate problem of edit warring was needed. Since no one should be reverting without explanation on any article anywhere (except for obvious vandalism), the potential harm to yourself should be low. The potential harm to the project of waiting to perform a full analysis before enacting anything was considered higher. That's how things are some times. Thatcher131 07:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Paytakaran

A Clarification for you Grandmaster, It would be interesting for you to provide either the guideline or policy which I haven't respected. You edited warred not I. And it is also about time you read that guideline and understand it. In that case no guideline was even necessary as the name of some Azeri town has nothing to do with the Armenian province. Also, maybe here is not the place, I will further ask you to concentrate on my personal attacks and incivility directed against some users which I do not deny and ready to pay to consequences and you should not try to find things about me which do not exist. I slandered, but did not edit war, did not disturb article content. Use Tool1 and check my contribution history. Example, on Nagorno Karabakh article, in its talk page I have 330 edit and in its mainspace only 9. Check how much talk per edit it does make. I have to talk, talk and talk... and with no result, as you will revert over one single edit and remove the entire stuff. Don't bring insignificant stuff, concentrate on evidences which are valid, because we both know that for each insignificance you present to insinuate I have edit warred, I can provide about 50 about you. I am the user here who has per month the lowest edit in the namespace of articles and one of the users on Wikipedia with the highest ratio of talk per edit in its namespace. There is no point in retaliating with false charges, leave this to Adil, don't hurt your credibility. Fad (ix) 17:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If my charges are false, you don’t have to worry. I would like the arbitrators to review what happened on Paytakaran. You reverted all my edits under the baseless pretext. Even if we assume that you are right and the guideline your refer to is applicable to the article in question, the guideline gives you no right to undo all edits of other users without reading them. You were objecting to the words Azerbaijani: Beyləqan, but instead of those 2 words you removed a whole page of referenced text. In addition to that, you sabotaged the mediation attempt, which was initiated by a wiki admin. So you will have to explain your actions to arbcom. Grandmaster 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do have that right, there is no guideline nor any policy which states that I can not do a full revert when there is guideline infringement. I am not worried about myself, I already know the enforcement on myself. I know what I did wrong, which was incivility and personal attack. I do not push my wrong doings under the carpet. What I am worried about is you. You should take the time to read the other past rulings Grandmaster. I don't want this to turn into so Azeri chasing stuff and not seem as Azeri users will be silenced. This is why I have asked you from the beginning to distance yourself from Adil Baguirov and stop defending themselves. Do you even see in my evidence ONCE defending other members? Do you see me defending my personal attacks? Why do you take that time and space defending Atabek, Dacy69 and AdilBaguirov? Those guy will clost you a lot of trouble and we do need an Azeri member active in those articles to discuss after. Because let me say you something, the probability that AdilBaguirov will indefinitely be banned from English Wikipedia is very high. Please take the time to carefully read my evidence (and compare them with previous cases and the subsequent rulings) and it is still time for you to distance yourself from him. This guy has had a very bad influence on you and as long as you refuse to distance yourself this will only harm you. Fad (ix) 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, you know rules very well and you are as much guilty of edit warring as others. Paytakaran is a good example of your attitude towards edits by other people. If you don’t know, you violated this rule: Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Avoidance Not that others did not violate it, but so did you, and you did it in this particular page more blatantly than others. You removed a full page of referenced edits under a baseless pretext. And moreover, you disrupted mediation, which was agreed to both by Azerbaijani and Armenian users. Same Dacy69, whom you accuse of various crimes, agreed to it, yet you did not and the mediation attempt failed. I asked you to provide just one example of when you tried to use dispute resolution procedure to resolve the conflicts with the users you accuse now, and you have not done so, and for a reason, which is that you never actually tried any dispute resolution. I want the arbcom to review the edit warring on Paytakaran page in particular, and I’m willing to provide any evidence required for that. Grandmaster 18:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, that’s funny. Edit warring? Nice, I hope all your accusations are not as groundless as this one. I dare you to find a single administrator who has ever accused me of edit warring. Every administrator who dealt with me, be it Tony Sideway, El_C, Francis, Golbez, dab etc. will all confirm that I do not edit war and leave it at that, bring them all here to comment about my “revert warring.” Cool Cat even accused me on his arbitration cases that I use too much the talk page and Fred Bauder was one of the arbitrators. You can accuse me of everything you want, but accusing me of edits warring will just not going to do. Arbitrators could all check the history of the articles to see that I was the one quitting reverting and rather returning in the talkpage. Here an example check my edit summary. [8]. But anyway thanks for the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Avoidance, as you reverted most of my changes and that I have left it to that to not spark another edit war. This I will be documenting. By this, I will stop it. As it is worthless you show absolutly no inclination to even accept the blame for anything. Fad (ix) 19:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think arbitrators should check the article’s history and pass their judgment. I don't think there's a rule that allows anyone undo all referenced edits of another person to "enforce" a guideline, which could be applied to one or two words out of hundreds, if at all. If there’s such a rule, you may as well quote it. Grandmaster 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, your diff is a good example of your edit warring. You removed sourced info. Grandmaster 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that Paytakaran has moved to Paytakaran (Armenian province); [9] is used in the findings of facts wrt TigranTheGreat and needs to be updated to point to [10]. John Vandenberg 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was moved by the mediator without a consensus with involved parties, it was his proposal for resolution of the dispute. I moved it back until consensus is reached and this arbcom is over. Grandmaster 05:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to proposed decision

Before I continue further with the evidences. Here is what I propose as rulling on myself. Since I do not deny having personally attacked, I propose a no personal attack parole. In the event I personally attack someone 1 week blocking. Is that enough Grandmaster? What do you propose else on the ruling about me? I can possibly not propose to get away from such articles, since I hardly contribute in their namespace. It was mission impossible as one single edit I could make resulted with revert warring, which I did not engage in, anyway for that part the Arbcom shall decide.

Now, Grandmaster, did you do anything wrong? Something which would worth any enforcement? Did AdilBaguirov, Atabek or Dacy69 did anything wrong which would worth any enforcement? I don't want an answer such as "not more than you did, not more than x, y and z did". What others did does not justify it. So, do you Grandmaster believe you, AdilBaguirov, Atabek, Dacy69 did anything wrong? Je yes or no. Fad (ix) 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My answer is that the arbcom should actually ban the whole lot, all Armenian and Azerbaijani editors, if they want to enforce law and order. Then there will be no problems at all. Yes, I’m a human being and quite possible I did something wrong, quite possible that other Azerbaijani users should have shown more patience when their edits were removed, but can you show me any person listed for this arbcom who did no wrong? Just one? So it is not so much about separate individuals, as much as it is about situation in general. I don’t believe that anything will change after one or two users will be punished. Others will take their place, and everything will repeat. What we need is a better dispute resolution mechanism, possibly a board of respected editors, who could oversight Armenia – Azerbaijan related articles and help finding compromise solutions. If we had more people like Francis, it would not be like it is now. Grandmaster 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite possible? So, you don't know if you did anything wrong? Fine, I got the answer I wanted. You can't say a plain yes. Fad (ix) 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bans

All this will do is create a new wave of socks will this really help? Artaxiad 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, but right now, this is not what concerns me most. Holdwater the author of tallarmeniantale has now carte verte to invade the Armenian Genocide article. Fad (ix) 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is basically banning the whole Armenian community here, whose block logs were clean until some users came along, recently I'm afraid alot more articles would be invaded and no one is there to clean it up. Artaxiad 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I should have never engaged on Armenian-Azerbaijani articles. My mistake. At least, revert warring will stop for a moment. Fad (ix) 21:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding proposed decision

In the proposed decision on sockpuppetry charge with regards to myself, I would like to attract the attention to the decision of User:Khoikhoi [11]. It clearly states that I was a newbie. Indeed, the account Tengri, who was more likely to be my meatpuppet rather than sockpuppet, was established 7 days after I first came to Wikipedia. Obviously, I wasn't well aware of the rules back then, neither was the banned. And the record after that shows that I haven't attempted to create any socks or evade blocks since that case. And in general, I don't think that having violated far less rules than some other users (only two cases of revert warring and sock ban due to inexperience), I deserve to be given the same ban as those who have a lengthy record of experience and more serious violations. Thanks. Atabek 11:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is generally not possible to craft arbitration decisions with surgical precision to take into account finely shaded differences in wrongdoing. Arbitration is not a scalpel but a sword, and there is good reason why Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. Thatcher131 16:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed decision

I will not question I have acted the wrong way, but I know I can contribute on other articles which have nothing to do with those topics, and want really to contribute on those articles and improve them. I will accept any decisions the Arbcom takes. A last question, being banned, can I still edit my talkpage and work on articles from there? Fad (ix) 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Blocked users may edit their talk page but banned users are banned, period. Thatcher131 16:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How about you people give us no reverts? fair enough, I would leave these articles alone if they do, I want to contribute in other areas, like military history project etc on Wikipedia, but people keep on drawing attention there. Artaxiad 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Sure, you could even not resist reverting and editing the mainspace after I have requested you on countless occasions to stop it. You worth the ban, Fedayee and Eupator don't. Fad (ix) 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Defense and thoughts

I would like to state that even though the only evidence the ArbCom has used against me is on a single article and a single paragraph of that same article's talk page, I am being considered for a ban for a year similar to other users who have committed more and more serious stuff. Proposterous, to say the least. A murder does not equal a theft. Breaking a window does not equal breaking 100 windows. I have responded below to those minor isolated cases used against me.

Regarding edit warring link provided against me [12]

So basically, because I participated in a revert war because of a 3-on-1 combo attack on the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and got my first ever block because of user:Dacy69, User:Atabek and user:AdilBaguirov community revert war, I get the boot.

Regarding me turning this into a national battlefield [13]

So you provide this link and do not even look what provoked this "national line battleground" attempt right? Well user:Dacy69 told me that wikipedia is not the place for fedayees (using the arabic word fidayins, a clear rejection by his part of the existance of the Armenian term), an insult to me and the username. While it may not appear to be a direct insult, it is unnecessary and there to provoke a reaction which to I did have one. By all means, he should be accused of turning this into a national thing.

Regarding the personal attack accusation here [14]

Where is the personal attack again? Asking him to stop acting dumb? That is anything but a personal attack, hell it's a compliment that he is intelligent. Oh maybe it could be the thing I said where he lacks the knowledge on Armenian history. Well it is quite true if you read the entire discussion.

The national lines accusation

This thing became a national line dispute the day users like Adil Baguirov and friends decided to forge any Armenian article possible with Azeri governmental POV, which is as negative as it gets. Some of the evidence like the one used against user:Eupator is odd, he is merely giving examples and trying to explain his edit. If the arbitrators can dig that deep to make that into a statement against Azerbaijan, then this is bad faith because arbitrators could dig as deep to see what the true conflict is about and what all the Adil Baguirovs on wikipedia want and are doing. Let's be realistic here, the whole problem is because of the NKwar and how Armenia defeated Azerbaijan, the stuff going on here is because some cyber-Azeris aren't over that fact and want to enact revenge on Armenians. That's it, you can deny it if you want but it's the realist truth.

Bans

It's sad that alot of Armenian veterans who have contributed so much to Wikipedia and have been dedicated to it, have been provoked into this and now are being banned for one year when two of the primary reverters against them here are "set free", let's say. What will this ban achieve? The creation of more and more sockpuppets, the falsification of history and the major slowing of positive advancement to Armenian articles. - Fedayee 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on user:Eupator and user:Fadix "sentences"

Eupator:

For starters, anything Eupator could be accused of could work against user:Grandmaster as well. Most of the reverts of Eupator are provoked by Grandmaster. I fail to see why he gets away with it while Eupator gets a full year ban, despite being a dedicated user who has thousands of edits and even a Featured Article (Tiridates I) to show back up his committment. Arbitrators, why would such a dedicated user "go bad"...? There is a provocation and I am afraid this is being ignored. You must also be reasonable that the removal of leading and exampliary editors such as Eupator will lead to no advancement of Armenian-related articles. I suggest the same "sentence" for Eupator as Grandmaster, a 1 year 1-RV policy.

Fadix:

I am afraid that Arbitrators have turned a blind eye to 3/4 of Fadix's evidences. This user is an exampliary user when it comes to discussing material before editing. As he has proven numerous times, he uses the talk before the mainspace edit. He has participated to zero-to-none edit warring, which is something every participant in this ArbCom has done. And what makes his ban more unbelievable is that he is the only user to admit to his faults (personal attacks mostly) and has been ready to limit his activities in order to isolate these cases. This user has been harassed without anything being done (see his comments on InShaneee case) and has retaliated as any normal human being would do when harassed. When admins and high authority people do not take care of an incident or it does not grab their attention, he has resorted to that and he has been clearly successful in getting attention that was clearly needed. Another plus that seems to have been ignored is how well he handled this entire debacle. He respected the rules, provided tonssss of evidence and sticked to what Arbitrators were looking for (non-content material), whilst his challengers edited and added bogus material w/out even reading the rules of an Arbitration. This user is a 2 year veteran and I don't know if you wanna look thoroughly at this (as you have clearly done when it comes to banning all the Armenian editors), but why would a 2 year veteran all of a sudden lose his cool. Fadix knows all the rules and when you cannot edit, you follow Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, a wiki policy in effect. - Fedayee 06:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the User:Thatcher131, users who merely revert warred are proposed to be placed on revert parole, while users who have done more than that are proposed to be banned. [15] So obviously Fadix did plenty of various things to have been proposed for ban, and so did Eupator. For some reason arbitrators overlooked racist comments by User:TigranTheGreat, which are a clear attempt to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines, see evidence here: [16]

On the other hand, I do not think that banning active Azeri and Armenian editors will do any good, as there will be new users who will take their place in the future, and quite possible there will be another arbcom case after a while. I think something should be done in general to Armenia – Azerbaijan related article to prevent disruption. I think that of all the users proposed to ban only Artaxiad should be permanently banned from Wikipedia, as he committed all possible violations. In my opinion, all others, including Adil, Fadix, Eupator and Atabek, should be placed on revert and personal attack parole, that would limit their ability to engage in edit wars and personal attacks. Grandmaster 08:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster why are you still defending Mr. Baguirov...the member who is by far the most disruptive, to which most administrators who have seen his contribution would want out. I had never edit warred before Adil, Atabek and Dacy69 came along screwing my contributions which had almost nothing to do with Azerbaijan-Armenia subject, earning my first and only block for an edit war where I was ganged up upon by 3 of your mates and I find myself at the end of the boot where almost everyone else, including you, have a long history of edit warring. You bring TigranTheGreat quote about Khojali, there is no attempt to turn it into something, he just says it was fabricated about some sentence about Armenians cutting off breasts. Atabek was baiting Fadix past contributions which include alot of work in the Armenian Genocide article. He kept pushing the common theme of denial and how the Armenian Genocide was fake and how it was the work of professionals forgeries on an articles talkpage which Fadix was not even contributing. You know that you did not only revert war, you have abused the report incidence on many occasions by reporting members while Adil, Atabek and Dacy69 were closing articles one after the other and you had nothing to say about those. I thought you were a fair member man, you have admitted to nothing that those 3 have done. It seems to me that you have abused the request for deletion as well, by requesting keeping an articles duplicate (the albanian-udi thing), you have abused the Featured articles candidate voting and gained the support of your cronies (primarily Dacy69 who thinks Bin Laden has bases in Armenia lol just because Basayev (a dead terrorist) was proven to be on the Azeri side during the NKwar.). I hope you go satisfied with this, while Dacy69 could continue baiting members waiting their reaction and report them later. You even tried to clear Dacy69 of his "Armenian chauvinists" comments presented here by Fadix...geez. Some of the most active Armenian veterans are gone but you're still continuing your tolerance and support for Adil when the major part of this whole debacle is because of his extemely anti-Armenian edits. Enough already. - Fedayee 18:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I’ve been in the same position as you describe for years, check Paytakaran, where 3 of “your mates” ganged up to undo my edits to the article, despite me citing my sources for every word that I tried to include. And check Tigran’s comment carefully, it is not about Khojaly, it is about his comment about Azerbaijani people, to which even Francis objected. Still I do not support the ban on anyone other than Artaxiad, who committed all possible violations. I think that placing people on parole as an initial measure would be the best solution at the moment. Of course, some users should be placed on more than 1 parole. Grandmaster 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, you purposefully distort my words - I have never said that I think that Bin Laden is linked to Armenia. What I told is that there is some media information in Azerbaijan about that and I questioned its reliability. This is what I said: "We have Azeri sources, claiming that Bin Laden had hubs in and links to Armenia. If we include Basayev here based on Armenian reports we should include Bin Laden as well. But then what is the merit of such encyclopedic articles? " This argument was about NK war. I see no relevancy to continue it here, rather if you goal is close to Fadix - to make false and groundless accussations. And for "Armenian chauvinist" - the issue was discusssed already. I maintain that we should use reliable sources, try to reach NPOV and include various (again reliable and substantial perspectives). This line I tried to keep in all my edits and I never allowed to engage in personal attacks. I hope the matter is now clear and closed. --Dacy69 14:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You mentioning Bin Laden itself is bad faith because having Basayev (who is recognized as a terrorist in parts of the world) helping an army tarnishes it and your mention is simply to "counter" that tarnishment. It's like it had to be proven that Basayev was there, a commonly known fact. This is the way I see it, but again this is content so i'll let this dispute end.

Why do you only quote one of your remarks accusing of chauvinism which was a quote and dismiss the rest of your instigating comments (like the other one presented before which also contains that word and which is not a quote). From the first day of this arbitration, you have used such words as "punishment", like we are some sort of criminals!! Like when you said: "I was insulted enough. I compiled relevant request, and I hope this will sort out who are wrong, who are smart and punishment will come who can't conduct a decent dispute." (a quote which I have provided as evidence). You are mistaken on what conflict resolution is all about. As user:Fadix said, it is not about who is right or who is wrong, nor was any judgement ever meant for "punishment" but rather to push a user to have more and more positive/good contribution and preventing their negative/bad ones. And sadly, the current proposed decisions fail to consider that important point. You have grossly provoked people and abused the system into trying to silence the same people, to "punish" them. You, just like Mr. Baguirov and user:Atabek, haven't even admitted to having done anything against the wiki-policies and after this arbitration, you could still continue under this path abusing the conflict resolutions to push the POV you would want to see there rather than to try and compromise or try and listen/accept that you are not always right just like anyone else can be. You could still provoke members and wait for their reactions to then report them, to use it against them...from the first days you came and reported user:Eupator to admin/user:InShaneee, like user:Fadix had mentioned...how come you knew that user:Eupator had past conflicts with admin/user:InShaneee? Your punishment argument does not do any good here, it will only get people who are undeserving of a ban and who have shown their positive contributions to be banned. Most of the users here getting banned have shown their positive contributions which highly outnumber their isolated negative contributions. Coming here from the beginning to file various requests for mediations and claiming that you are merely "providing facts", then moving on to edit various articles, provoking many users including me into a revert war, and then waiting for the result of your experiment so you could report them is something that is clearly hated by me and judging by user:Eupator and user:Fadix responses, hated by them too. But i'm sure you know all this, especially about user:Eupator...since you seem to know alot about his history. - Fedayee 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my view, it is me who was provoked to edit war. This is only my mistake which I admit and for which I'll be placed on parole. Again, my edit was approved by third parties. Don't pour it again. -- I reported Eupator because he insulted me (this is done in accordance with Wiki policies) - and actually later I forgave him. Please see my section on evidence page. You talk much about my "provocation". What I did is proper edit on pages like Urartu, Armenians and others which is well-referenced and endorsed. So, who is pushing POV ? Several times I proposed mediation which was refused (one time by Eupator, actually). And still you call it provocation. So, you don't agree with my edit - fine, we have various DR methods and should use them, instead insulting and edit war and then saying "we have been provoked". And about "punishment" - what I asked is to render necessary judgement not to ban people but make them to respect Wiki rules. You forgot that I was attacked by such well-known vandal like user Ararat rev who recently even vandalised Arbcom page. And - on page Urartu actually Eupator and TigranTheGreat acted with that user in the same manner.

further on punishment - particularly, about final judgement of Arbcom - actually I support Grandmaster idea that ban of users (except Artaxiad) (And I would add Fadix as most engaged in personal attacks) is not solution of the problem. New users replace them. We need to agreed on certain principles and it should be monitored by 2-3 admins--Dacy69 14:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay okay it's fine you still don't accept the blame. When someone does not get why conflict resolution exist, there is no point in accepting it. - Fedayee 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding above-mentioned thoughts

The same insults, refusal and attitude of battleground. That does not require additional comments [17] First, my knowledge of history was positively assessed by third parties. Secondly, here it is clear distinction to put watershed between editors, to launch another cyber-war. Thirdly, no one from Azeri editors complain about the right of Armenian or other users to edit Azerbaijan-related pages, but you, guys, obviously treat this way Armenia-related pages. And what should deserve special attention is a threat to use sockpuppets and in other ways to violate Wikipedia rules. That is difference between Azeri and Armenian editors in attitudes towards Wiki. It is also a reason why you are guarding your pages as you own them and protect nationalistic views.--Dacy69 23:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is hardly any policies which you did not brake, just above again your rhetorics about "Azeri editors" and "Armenian editors", while I have admitted my mistakes and been clear with it, you still continue pretending you did nothing wrong and yet have gotten veteran established users being proposed for a ban. I have registered there was over two years ago, have earned 4 barnstars and probably more, including by an Admin. Have been the only Armenian editor who personally invited Turkish editors in contributing on the Armenian Genocide pages. Yet, I am proposed to be banned for a year, while I have not disturbed for the over two years the mainspace of articles. While you come here jump in with Adil, right on the same day jumping in engaging on edit warring closing most articles you edit, attacking slandering, vilifying members and using of socks. And yet, you aren't even proposed for a block. If I were you, I would personally not add anything at all. You know that Atabek will be back by using a sock, while honest members like me, if blocked will respect the decision. Fad (ix) 01:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, all of this at this moment is absolutely useless and may be misinterpreted as an attempt to make ArbCom responsible of an hypotethical sockpuppetry explosion and multiple policy breakings. If those things happen to occur, it will be the users' responsability, not ArbCom's: Arbs will decide whatever they believe is right and the best all of us we can do is to accept it. And if someone tries to break ArbCom's rulings, it will surely be banned or will have to face another arbitration.

I gently ask you and all to stop to discuss and wait for the decision. Alea iacta est, said Julius Caesar --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

They are not only hypothetical, I leave you merge Dacy contributions on Russian Wikipedia and edit my page on the merging of their contribution and see how many contribution crossing you find while they were all from the same timezone. Read their contributions, all the same words, expressions and accusations, slanders(Elnurso and Dacy, as well as the other IP which does even not trace to Canada). I am not accusing the Arbcom, as for responsability, the Arbcom has the responsability in its taking of decision. The whole history of users contribution is more important than occasional incivility and personal attacks. They did not deal with the things I have delt with. The first days I came to Wikipedia, I had faced the author of tallarmeniantale.com scrapping entire articles and shouting his racist rhetorics, then it was Tabib, then Sedat Laciner, who did even not bother changing his name while contributing, then it was Adil and then, someone I prefer to not give his name. You come here on Wikipedia on good faith deciding to contribute, what you find out is that everywhere you go you find someone who is involved personally on the conflict in real life and are edit warring pushing and pushing. Cataloguing my over 2 years of contributions with evidences picked from here and there to propose a ban. It does even not matter if it will be opposed or not, but just to propose a year is stressful enough. Dacy who had a major share of the blame, who has done nothing, nothing other than edit warring, meatpuppeting(and please don't even ask for more evidences on that, I have provided sufficient, which it seems the Arbcom did even not consider) and sock puppeting etc. In his very short presence on Wikipedia he has caused the locking of more articles than my presence multiplied by 5 and even more in my whole over 2 years of contributions. You ask me to stop, it is easy for you to say that. Fad (ix) 15:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You're a bit confused: ArbCom cannot do anything related to Russian Wikipedia; who knows what ways they have there to deal with disputes! ArbCom is restricted to the English WP. If Dacy has an account on that WP, he can have it because both are two different projects. More: it is quite normal that users that edit in other minor Wikipedias bring their same edits into the english because they know both languages and that's no sockpuppetry.

I told someone (maybe you, I don't remember) that ArbCom's current politic (like it or not) is to focus on process, not on results. This means, ArbCom decides based on how parties manage to solve the dispute, if there is or not an intention to collaborate or not, etc. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care of his contributions on Russian Wikipedia, I told you to merge them (contribution history) with my merged contribution. It will confirm that he has used socks. That is my entire point. Anyway, thanks a lot for everything, your help as a veteran supporting an abuser against another veteran member was highly welcomed. Fad (ix) 18:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I will do just like you Fedayee

Attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines

One thing I will oppose is this; it places an intention on my act. I had absolutely no intention in doing that. Further evidences is that I have not done that, I have requested administrative help on countless numbers of time, and I made those threats about editing Azeri articles, because it was the only way to prevent his disruptions. I have refrained doing like Dacy69 who had about Armenians those things to say(and those are just some): The problem with some Armenians is that you are so ardent, brain washed by a sense of nationalism. [18] I have been blocked for less. Here more. Armenian chauvinists must explain... [19] Here more: It is is you and like-minded people who push Armenian shauvinistic POV. [20] Or his constant labelling of Armenian scholars. Current version endorces mostly nationalist version of Armenian scholars[21]. His constant labelling of editors with who he disagrees with as opponents [22]

And those are just few, my personal attacks were direct, not national generalisations. Not to say that he indeed has used socks too, and used them to attack members. I wonder why arbitrators don’t even take a look at it. I have asked Fred for a checkuser long ago on Elnurso, which is a sock created by Dacy69 to be used for specific purposes. I have documented that it was created one day before Dacy69 account was created and the same day his Russian Wiki account was created. They both use the same grammar, the same specific expressions. Both have used the term reversing instead of reverting in edit summary. E.g. [23] and [24] Both have accused others in the edit summary of stubbornness. [25] and [26] Both have accused a nation of chauvinism. pure persian chavunism (see edit summary) [27] and Armenian chauvinistic. [28].

Those are few example. To note as well that when one disappeared the other reappeared. See the merging of both users contribution. [29] He has also used the IP 70.244.144.225. When adding his contributions with those of Russian Wikipedia (correction of the time zone), they perfectly match. With minor crossing between contributions. I request the Arbcom to take a look again to my evidence page, more particularly what I have added the last two days.

There is no way that two users registering about the same time, using the same expressions, using the same vocabulary and who contribute in a matter that when is not present the other is, with the same timezone while there is only minor crossing between both users are not the same users. He has also been harsh with that account, using the same sort of slanders.

I don’t get how harassing someone would worth a ban, and no any ban for someone who has done nothing more major than causing the locking of most articles he has touched, who has vilified users by displaced allusion to their ethnicity, who has used socks to do just the same. Accusing me of having a history of disruptive editing is plain unjust. I have tried hard, very hard to not engage in edit warring, I have engaged very very hard in debating, debating, debating, even if it did not give any major results, even then, had I refrained from edit warring. But a user who jumps in, right on spot, disrupting and getting closed every single article, who has vilified users by constant labeling of their ethnicity as attacks, who has caused me to lose control. I get proposed to be banned for answering that person. Fad (ix) 23:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you check the link provided by Fadix you’ll see that “Armenian chauvinists” is not opinion of Dacy69, but a quote from this book: Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (New Directions in Archaeology). ISBN: 0521558395

The full context of the quote can be found here: [30]

The author, a professional archeologist, uses the terms “Armenian chauvinists” and “Azerbaijani chauvinists”, so Dacy69 only quoted the source. Grandmaster 06:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's it? If you pay attention, the second one does not have any quote, he plain and simply accuse Armenians. Both accounts did use the term more than once. I just checked few of his contributions and found those. If you really want me to dig the rest that is fine. Fad (ix) 13:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed decision, final comment

I just want the arbitrators to consider this, I have a proposition to make. I will retire on anything related with politic and will stop personally attack. I have picked an article on which I want to work, which is on protobiontes, it is an orphaned. I propose to be on probation until I work on that article, expend it and achieve a FA statue on it. It will take months for that to happen and as one could see from the articles condition it is like if I would have created it. Until that article becomes FA I will not contribute on any articles related to politics, will not even engage in the talkpages. If I harrass or personally attack someone only once in a period of one year the Arbcom could ban me undefinitly. For some Wikipedia is only a place to contribute on their national matters, for me it is more than that(was meant to be as I had not the occasion), while I could live with being prevented contributing in those articles for a certain time, something I have been already planning to do already, a total ban is just too harsh when the experience of editing and writing an encyclopedia was more interesting than the subject I contributed in; when you have contributed for over 2 years a ban of 1 year is like eternity. While Artaxiad has probably done everything to worth a ban, Fedayee was clean before Dacy69 and Atabek along with Adil after his wikibrake came here and screwed it. I don't see how Eupator could gets a ban, when most of his contributions just like Fedayee were even not related to the Armenian Azerbaijan conflict. I won't defend any other members as I don't know them very well. It really amazes me, no worst, it is offending, to see that Dacy who has caused most articles he has touched to close from DAY 1 and has done nothing other than vilifying is even given the right under this proposition to continue contributing as if the problem he has caused was only on edit warring. I will this time, not add any more "ranting" and will drop all this, won't edit and accept the decision the Arbcom takes. I rest my case. Fad (ix) 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You continue your groundless and false accussations. Articles were closed because such users like Eupator, Fedayee and others made personal attacks, blindly reverted, etc. I have never engaged in personal attacks, socks creating but resorted to dispute resolution. I am not going to dignify it more. Everything was checked and situation as it is now. I will abide to current Arbcom desicion regarding me. But you want more - perhaps, this is urgent for you because of my knowledge of the history of Urartu, Armenia, surrounding regions and countries. You are just trying to provoke me and get rid of me. No, that will not happen. I hope that Arbcom members will pay attention to your continued attacks. --Dacy69 00:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My two cents

Problems with findings of fact regarding me. The diffs provided for disruptive editing that includes edit-warring seems very weird. The first two diffs are from Koryun and Tigranes the Great in each case AdilBagurirov introduced pov and unscholarly text that was discussed extensively on the talk page, I was the main enforcer in terms of reverting Adil but many others did as well. So it's disruption on his behalf but how is it on mine? The third one is from Paytakaran, again, something not initiated by me on an article that I wrote, this time by Grandmaster. What's disruptive? I wrote so obviously I'm the main participant, nor was I the only one reverting Gm. For the record, in Paytakaran's case I don't find Gm's edit's disruptive either unlike Adil's edits on the other articles. Now, "attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battlefield along national lines", the diff provided for this has me responding to Grandmaster's Muslim vs Christian analogy with a suitable analogy from WWII, how is that attempting to turn Wiki into battlefield? I'm not talking to a new user there, i've been in contact with Gm for a long time so it's not very formal naturally. The last one just boggles the mind, Gm's calling my earlier analogy in the discussion "racism and chauvinism" yet that's not a personal attack but my response is? An uncivil response to a personal attack yes but not one in itself. The given examples of "findings" are pretty weak. The case against Fedayee is also extremely weak. Atabek and Dacy are much more reserved and do not disrupt articles or and use socks regularly unlike Adil Baguirov, so a revert restriction is appropriate as with the rest. A revert restriction seems resonable for most, but a ban? The only two people that deserve a ban are Artaxiad with a temporary ban and Adil who should be banned indefinetly, he hasn't even stopped baiting in the last few days alone.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Parole

I wonder why User:Vartanm is not proposed to be placed on a revert parole, while he was identified as an edit warring party by one of the arbitrators. [31] Grandmaster 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We have also HyeProfile who aggressively deleting text (census tables) which is well-referenced [32]. Intersetingly, user Vartanm also tried to remove census tables on this page--Dacy69 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on the decision (Aivazovsky)

I hope that the arbitrators will read my comments and take them into consideration. While I agree with the ArbCom on most of their decisions, I feel that there are some parts of their decision should be revisited.

First of all, I believe that a one year block for User:AdilBaguirov won't solve anything because he'll just return after the block has expired and cause more trouble. I think that the best solution for this issue would be to indefinitely block Adil from Wikipedia. Secondly, I feel that User:Eupator and User:Fedayee should be granted reduced sentences from one year blocks to revert paroles. In all fairness, Fedayee had very little involvement in Armenian-Azeri issues until this whole dispute sprung up and Eupator made some very positive contributions to Wikipedia (especially on WikiProject Armenia and Portal:Armenia) that should not be overlooked. Both of these users have done more good to Wikipedia than bad. I actually think that User:TigranTheGreat (who has made offensive comments towards users on a few occasions) deserves a one year block more than either of these users. I'm not sure where I stand on the verdict of User:Fadix, as I haven't paid too much attention to his edits.

I agree on the rest of the decisions. My own revert parole will keep me disciplined while editing Wikipedia. All the best, Aivazovsky 12:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

HyeProfile

I ask ArbCom to add a remedy involving HyeProfile; in his few days back from sabbatical, he has done nothing but edit war (violating the 1RR restriction at least once; in fact, he's in violation of it at this very moment). Just because he was not active when the case started does not, to me, mean he shouldn't also be included in the remedies, in my opinion the same revert parole as the others. If this isn't done, it will just mean an inevitable case involving him specifically will be coming, sooner rather than later, if his editing pattern continues. If it's not too late, I will add an evidence section, but since we're already in the voting stage, I wanted to mention it here as well. --Golbez 23:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

he is reverting over and over again [33]. he is deleting several tables and data without any ground to push his POV [34]--Dacy69 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it is all I was asking

You won't be decieved with that proposal. Fad (ix) 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Eupator

Eupator doesn't deserve a ban, the evidence against him is too thin, Eupator does not equal Adil Baguirov to get a 1 year ban. Just browsing through Eupator's user page, you see tonsss of positive contrubutions to wikipedia. He is a dedicated user and the edit war evidence used against him has been used against everyone, it is not fair to ban him for a year while similarly charged people get lesser sentences. I think a revert parole will suffice Eupator and he hasn't been editing much lately, so a revert parole I think will "do the trick" than an out right ban. - Fedayee 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Eupator has made more positive contributions to Wikipedia than negative. Look at what he's done for WikiProject Armenia and Portal:Armenia. -- Aivazovsky 15:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to edit warring, Eupator was involved in personal attacks on other users, for which he was even blocked. Plus, he made offensive comments about people of other ethnicities, which is an attempt to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines. Grandmaster 12:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad

Arbitrators might be interested in this discussion on WP:ANI board: [35] Grandmaster 06:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it will be over tomorrow

I am saying this here, and will have this linked from my user page. attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines This is not accurate, I have never attempted this, this was a threat but not such attempt, never did I had the slightest intention to do that, didn't even crossed my mind a second. It does not make any differences on the results of the decision, but it is a question of accuracy and don't want others to think something which I did not attempt. Beside that talkpage, I never made such comments before. Everyone including Grandmaster know this. I have a history of personal attack and harassement, the last time it was when I falsely accused Cool Cat of using socks and harassed him, but apologized to him, but the attempt to turn Wikipedia into a battleground, it simply is not true. Fad (ix) 22:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fad (ix)

I just noticed the decision of the arbitration to ban Fad (ix), which in my opinion is not justiceable and does not serve any purpose since other users like User:Atabek have done much more damage to Wikipedia than Fad (ix). He might have used some bad language against others, but banning him for that is not right. Also accusing him of turning Wikipedia to a battle ground is false. Fad (ix) has contributed a lot to Armenian related articles and banning him would not serve its purpose. Putting him on civility parol is much better decision than to ban him. User:AdilBaguirov's goal was that to come and disrupt Wikipedia and take as much Armenian users as he could with him in getting banned and by banning Fad (ix) who has contributed a lot to Wikipedia would not be correct. ROOB323 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking the Arbcom to reconsider its decision(for them threats or attempt to turn Wikipedia to a battleground is just as worst), my comment was meant for me to place it on my userpage a link to it. It has 4 motion to close, I already accepted my fate. I just corrected something while I could still edit. Fad (ix) 00:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Atabek

I believe that the ArbCom is making a major mistake in allowing Atabek to get away with a revert parole. I'm getting tired of his blatant anti-Armenianism and his denial of the Armenian Genocide is comparable to Holocaust denial. [36] In fact, its not constructive at all when taking into account future Armenian-Azeri relations. His attitude makes its incredibly hard to work with him on important issues. I have worked with and come to compromises on Armenian-Azeri articles with Grandmaster, Ulvi I., Parishan, and even Dacy. But I can't work with Atabek at all. It's virtually impossible to come to any sort of compromise with the guy. He obviously didn't come to Wikipedia to make for a peaceful environment.

Basically Atabek in the Armenian view is on par with Artaxiad in the Azerbaijani view. -- Aivazovsky 23:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is sort of a general reply to all the complaints that this or that remedy is unjust: Arbitration is not a scalpel, crafting remedies with surgical precision, but a sledgehammer. The best way to avoid an unjust outcome is not to get involved in long running acrimonious disputes in the first place. I believe the arbitrators have done the best they could under the circumstances, although you are free to disagree. I would like to point out the escalation clause in the revert parole...the first 5 blocks are maximum of a week, but after that they can escalate. Any editor who doesn't learn to discuss edits and resolve disputes through other means will eventually be under a long term ban. Thatcher131 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am confident that most editors will end up with long blocks. Lets us not fool ourself, there is a long history of edit warrings, there was a 3RR which to light as the policy should be changed to 2RR, was it respected. 1 revert per week? Yeh sure, I have to see that. While having excluded me from those articles would have totally eradicated my misbehavings in any sort of way(and I am sure that no other user would have accepted to be excluded from those articles, which would have been for most as if completly banned). There is also absolutly nothing on placing restrictions on the AfD votes etc. which will still be abused, nothing about stopping the abuse of the report incident... but like I said previously, at least edit warring will stop. Fad (ix) 00:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One late addition, comments such as this in the summary: "Coming to the party somewhat late, sorry" are extremly hurtful, also when an Arbitrator ask a closing motion long before its due time(then revise himself), which makes you wonder if such an arbitrator who didn't read other arbitrators placing of votes has actually read anything else about the case. Fad (ix) 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we clerks were discussing with James whether he was active and he mentioned he had read the evidence page and was ready to make a decision here. Of course, his vote did not change the outcome at all. Thatcher131 01:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I apologize for that edit summary. I'm sure that that arbitrator did not mean for his remark to be hurtful or to seem insensitive. Regards, Paul August ☎ 03:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, I can only apologise if my poor choice of words came over as insensitive - I can see how it might. It certainly was not meant as a comment on the case, nor on the process, merely the result of a solid hour of reading through the evidence and my consequent disquiet about matters leading to a momentary lack of judgement. I am sorry for these words, and would retract them were it possible.

James F. (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have said this before on my talkpage, but I'll repeat it here. Reading the pages relating to this case and dealing with the complaints that all of the editors involved had against one another have been my saddest and most miserable experience on Wikipedia. If this is how your best and brightest—your community leaders and future leaders who would give of their time to contribute to encyclopedia coverage of your homelands and your history—interact with one another, then I grieve and I fear for the future, not of your Wikipedia articles, but of your countries. No replies please. Newyorkbrad 01:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed my username becoming a subject of talk on this page, so I think I need to address my position with regards to Aivazovsky's opening of the topic. As I indicated in my previous postings, I do not deny the fact of massacres in Anatolia, and hundreds of thousands Armenian, Turkish and Kurdish casualties in them. But highlighting a single, Armenian, side as the only suffering in what was an inter-ethnic warfare is simply unjust towards the victims of the other, Turkish and Kurdish, sides.

Assuming good faith, I won't respond to Aivazovsky's quote or similarly accuse him of Turkophobia. Unlike him, who denies any Turkish or Azeri casualty in any event, I do recognize that any war has two suffering sides and Armenian people have suffered substantially in these events. But I would like to remind Aivazovsky that the fact of Holocaust was established by Nuremberg trials and denial of Holocaust is punishable by law in several countries. The fact of Armenian "Genocide" was never established by a due legal process and was so far used mostly for political speculations or for gaining points by modern Turkish Republic and war-time opponents of Ottoman Turkey. The fact that some Armenian circles up to now refuse and stonewall any bipartisan attempt of historical review on the events of 1915 - 1923, is yet another proof that the objective of "genocide" wording is not recognition of victims but simply harassment of the state of Turkey, Turkish people and their history. And I am sad to see, that Aivazovsky, perhaps unintentionally, compares apples with oranges.

Comparing me with Artaxiad also seems to lack any sort of WP:AGF. Atabek 09:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was also shocked when I found out that Atabek only got away with a revert parole. This user has continuously used personal attacks, and he was also caught with a sock, not to mention the POV and OR editing that he did in tandem with AdilBaguirov.Azerbaijani 18:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)