Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Atabek - Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC).

---

• Atabek (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

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 arbcom. I'm tired of being subject to such abuse and harassment on an almost daily basis. I have talked to several admins about this over a period of a couple months and have only got a small reaction. Thus, I have concluded that an RFC is the best course of action to take at this stage.

Atabek was previously involved in an arbcom in which he was close to being blocked for a period of one year, but was not for reasons that I do not know. I will show diff's of Atabek's disruptive behavior since the arbcom, especially towards me, and in accordance with those diff's, the reasonable remedy would be for proposed arbcom decision to be carried out. He has not changed his behavior in the slightest way since the arbcom, and it seems as though the initial plea not to allow him to get away with a revert parole was warrented.

You can find the proposed block here.

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 is not willingness to show an ounce of respect for other users. In just the past few days, he has gone to four 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. Note that in the real world, what Atabek did is a serious offense and could have ended up with a lawsuit, so I do not want users reading this taking this lightly.

Furthermore, Atabek has attempted to split Wikipedia up along ethnic lines, telling or implying to me what I should or should not edit based on ethnicity/nationality.

The following sections will outline Atabek's disruptive behavior and attacks regarding me on Wikipedia,. As this incident intensified only in the past few days, I have chosen to only post evidence regarding specifically to the past few days.

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

• User:Thatcher131: [1]
• User:Tariqabjotu: [2]
• User:Dmcdevit: [3]
• User:Bobak: [4]
• Administrators noticeboard

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, satarting 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?

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: [5]

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: [6].

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?" [7]

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: [8] , [9] , and [10]

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: [11]" 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 36 articles, two templates, and three categories. On top of that, I have made significant contributions to six articles and countless contributions overall. And if we were to compare Atabek's contributions to mine, it'll be pretty evident who makes the least contribution, so i dont know why he would even make such a comment.

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"[12]

The following are disruptive edits on the Safavids article. They are pertinent to this case because when I objected to his reverts, he proceed to attack me with the usual false accusations and personal attacks.

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: [13] He then asks Kansasbear to redo his edit: "Kansas Bear, you can make your architecture edits over this version." [14]

2)Atabek reverted the legitimate edits by an anonomous user which actually improved the article, and calls it vadalism: [15]

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."[16]

"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."[17]

"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." [18]

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": [19]
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): [20]
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." [21]

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

Statements by Atabek:

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." [22]
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."[23]
3. "I see is to simply ignore this user, not engage in any conversation with him."[24]
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"[25]
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." [26]

We were initially going to do Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation but that requires us to make our own punishments and to resolve the issues by ourselves. As evident from Atabeks statements above, this would have been impossible, as this user has absolutely no respect for me and he refuses to listen to anything I have to say.

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.[27]

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.

Atabek has also harassed me by posting in places that have nothing to do with him simply to attack me:

1. Atabek's comment on a 1rr report that had absolutely nothing to do with him, again making his false accusations: [28]
2. After his attacks against me on the Safavids article, simply for acknowledging that the anon's edits were legitimate, Atabek makes a "revenge" attack on the History of Azerbaijan article by reverting an edit based on a consensus that I had come to with User:Tombseye (the edited which he reverted, note that the removal of that text was justified by agreement between User:Tombseye and I: [29]) His comment made everything clear: "Just like you do on Safavid page, no consensus is final" [30] This is despite the fact that I did nothing to alter the Safavids article, he further insists on making his false accusation.

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: [31] (Tariqabjotu's last comment is in regards to Atabeks comment which is in the middle)

Atabek has asked his friends to comment on this RFC, as I predicted he would here in an attempt to make it too sabotage the RFC: [32]

He has gone asked both Grandmaster and Dacy69 to come here:[33] and [34]. Interestingly, Elsanaturk, after not being active since Jun 5th, made his third edit on June 8th here: [35]

In all fairness, and because the admin I talked to apparently didnt think this was a big deal, I will also notify some users.

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:NPOV
3. WP:NOR
4. WP:Canvassing
5. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
6. WP:AGF
7. Wikipedia:User page

1. User:Tariqabjotu's talk page
2. User:Atabek's talk page

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Hajji Piruz 19:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't think I could really consider myself involved and I don't mean to take Piruz's side, but the dispute is definitely here. After a lengthy discussion on my talk page (primarily between the two involved users), the two seem to still be at a stalemate. I suggested WP:CEM, but they opted for this. Alright fine. -- tariqabjotu 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. User:Atabek has attempted to bully me and intimidate me in order to prevent me from making legitimate edits to the Safavid dynasty article. In the discussion page, User:Atabek falsely accused me of being a meatpuppet of Hajji Piruz. User:Atabek's editing of the Safavid dynasty article, as well as many other Iran-related articles has been disruptive and counter-productive to the development of Wikipedia. Houshyar 04:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. User:Atabek accused me of being a sockpuppet of User:Tajik for my few edits in Safavids article. He did not even let me know that he opened a case for that in here. I edited the Safavids article on June 4th and 5th, re-adding the Iranica source (here and here) which was removed by User:Ali doostzadeh, while it was again reverted by User:Grandmaster without giving any single reason in his edit summary (1). It seems to me that User:Atabek does not even want users other than Azerbaijani and Turkish to edit such articles. -Ariana 07:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Well, I am sorry that User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani) is trying to waste community's time yet again with this RfC with a single purpose to get me banned for a year. He clearly expressed his personal objective here [36], even goes as far as alleging corruption on behalf of administrators or other users.

My points:

• The dispute started by User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani editing my user page [37]. As you can clearly see, adding this on my page after 6 months and after ArbCom case, when this was all set straight, this user tried nothing other than intimidating me. This is despite the fact that User Page rules clearly state:

• "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission"
• "The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so"

I haven't seen any such effort on behalf of User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani

• User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani is taking this battle along national lines [38]

• User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani leaves this comment on my talk page [39], and immediately after this "warning", User:Houshyar who was barely ever involved in History of Azerbaijan page reverts it without comment [40] and without any notice on his talk page. Obviously, the two were coordinating in the background.

• User:German-Orientalist is a suspected sock of banned User:Tajik, the suspicion is confirmed here [41] whom User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani is endorsing on Talk:Safavid dynasty.

• This person has attacked me at several instances on Talk:Safavid dynasty, the most grotesque ones are here:

1) calling my edit a vandalism [42];

2) calling me "Grandmaster's buddy" without any proof [43].

• As opposed to User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani, who changed his username to try to get his block log and ArbCom history cleared, I wasn't blocked once after ArbCom for any form of violation. I am not afraid of my block log, neither use it to haunt other people.

• User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani has tried the same, futile intimidation effort, with User:Dacy69, so seems like he is taking this on personal basis and along national lines, unable to deal with editing concerns. Rather than assuming any good faith, this user actually refuses to do so. In fact, despite the attacks by User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani, I have asked him to assume good faith [44]. The response from him was that he does not need to assume good faith [45].

• Finally, again [46], while I am trying to disengage and continue on editing Wikipedia, this user is still looking for supporters to disrupt my editing. I have no interest in discussions or disputes with him because he simply does not understand how much of community's time he is wasting. I said this and stand by my words which he recited, I shall simply ignore him from now on.

• I am not canvassing on anyone. The reason I contacted User:Tariqabjotu is because he was the one who addressed my last 3RR report, so I thought he deals with such issues. The reason I contacted User:Thatcher131 was because, he was the one who administered ArbCom and, in fact, blocked the IP socks of User:Tajik, whose edits User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani is endorsing on Safavid dynasty calling my edits vandalism instead [47]. The reason I contacted User:Bobak was because seeing the lack of response to address the issue, I just started randomly looking for someone to help. Actually, the initial idea suggested was to use CEM, which I never refused, but interestingly, after I contacted User:Bobak with a simple question about it, User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani quickly changed his mind and chose RfC at the advice of User:Tariqabjotu.

• User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani is accusing me of removing all his threads from my own talk pages with a comment saying it's "garbage" and considers that an insult. I am sorry, but he should know that garbage/trash is anything that's considered a waste, and I consider it a waste of everyone's time his attempts to attack me and then to bring about edit wars and endless/useless commentaries on my talk page. I don't see their purpose, other than his attempt to intimidate and get me banned as he clearly expressed above.

So in conclusion, I think this is an all out attack upon myself. Unable to deal with content disputes at Safavid dynasty and History of Azerbaijan, all User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani is looking for is to get more contributors blocked so that he can continue pushing his POV with 1RR ArbCom restriction. I hope that at the end of this RfC, User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani will be explained that he needs to stop revert warring and hateful attacks against users based on nationality, he needs to learn to respect people's userspaces and post comments on talk pages with suggestions not edit someone's userspace with intimidation.

• User:Bushytails has been coordinating the opinion below [48] with banned IP socks of User:Tajik, while two more (one of them the same as above) IP socks of User:Tajik just got blocked today - [49], [50]. Few more socks of User:Tajik have also been caught here [[51]]. Despite User:Bushytails unilateral support for continuous editing by these socks, assuming good faith, I have expressed to User:Bushytails numerous times my willingness to work with other editors and to constructively edit on Safavid page. But single-sided support and encouragement of IP socks of a user banned by ArbCom is in violation of fundamental Wikipedia rules and etiquette. In this light, I doubt the opinion expressed below by User:Bushytails, blaming myself, can be considered impartial. Atabek 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were to read it closer, you'll see I suggest the exact same sanctions apply to the other user(s), not just to you. Bushytails 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what you're essentially suggesting is this: socks of a banned user appear on a page, making reverts and further edit warring. When ordinary user reverts them per Wikipedia regulations, he shall be blamed and restricted along with "other user(s)" who do the same thing. This form of enforcement does not make sense, after all, why do we then have WP:SOCK at all? Atabek 13:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Elsanaturk, partly because, as a party to the same arbitration as User:Atabek and User:Azerbaijani, I want to say that to bring evidences from closed arbitration can't be a basis for this new case, as Atabek is already placed on revert parole for one year by the desicion of Arbcom. even criminals aren't convicted twice for their deeds, so I can't understand the philosophy of this RFC and as seen from his activities User:Atabek is observing his parole and not violating it, which can't be said about User:Azerbaijani, now Hajji Piruz, for instanse he violated his parole after arbcom desicion [52](look at &th of May) and partly because former user:Azerbaijani, now hajji Piruz has not only problems with Atabek, but befor he quarreled with now banned-user AdilBaghirov, also for a long time he tried to harrass me, then he started to quarrel with other editors. but User:Atabek hasn't such problems, he even built consesus with user:alidoostzade on Safavids page. so i think problem is not with User:Atabek, but instead with User:Azerbaijani, now User:Hajji Piruz Ateshi - Baghavan 01:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• user:Hajji Piruz formerly user:Azerbaijani has a history of disruptive editing, pushing POV and harassing people. Maybe therefore he changed his name to clean up his history. And now evidences. After he got from Arbcom parole he went on rampant attacks on several contributors. He falsely accused me [53] while he knew perfectly that my edits does not fall under pure revert. He used incivil comments with regard to me [54] What he accuses user:Atabek of he is actually comitting himself - personal attacks and attacks along ethnic lines. He targets every contributor affiliated with Azerbaijan (and recently it is interesting he went on personal pages of several editors related to Azerbaijan and edited them. Irony is that he initially picked up for himself name "Azerbaijani") On many Wiki articles related to Azerbaijan his sole purpose to edit war on the name of the country.His contrubution to Wikipedia should be thoroughly investigated. I urge to study his manner of conducting dispute on talkpage - it looks like interrogation and intimidation, and he is absolutely incapable to resort to DR processes and use appropriate language with other editors to resolve his disputes. If you don't agree with him he is easily start attacking you - mostly attacks based on ethnic and political lines. (Pages for example, History of the name Azerbaijan, Mammed Said Ordubadi, Caucasian Albania - perhaps list might be quite long one). In conclusion, I should inform that I was also placed on Arbcom parole for edit warring but, as I am confident to state, I was not involved in incivility and accusation along ethnic lines and used during my involvement in Wiki DR processes several times. Wiki is interesting project, sometimes you clashes with other opinions but you should work towards resoltuions rather than hunting other contributors along ethnic lines.--Dacy69 02:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think User:Hajji Piruz (formerly known as User:Azerbaijani) should be permanently or at least topic banned from editing Wikipedia. He has been extremely disruptive, pushing his nationalist agenda on Azerbaijan related articles. It is enough to check this user’s contributions to see what his main sphere of interest in Wikipedia is. There’s nothing wrong with editing Azerbaijan related articles, as many other third party, including Iranian users do. I really appreciate contributions from such users like User:Bobak, who edit in harmony with other contributors on the same topic. But that is not the case with User:Hajji Piruz. He has been involved in edit wars almost on every Azerbaijan related article, sometimes revert warring over such trivial issues as whether or not the territory of Azerbaijan should be referred to as Azerbaijan, or Wikiproject tag, etc. This is how Hajji became part of Azerbaijan-Armenia arbitration case, which placed him on a revert parole. The arbcom finding of facts about Hajji/Azerbaijani reads: Azerbaijani has engaged in edit-warring [55] So Hajji's being an edit warrior is an officially establsihed fact. However that did not stop him from continuing his disruptive behavior. It is enough to say that Azerbaijani has violated his parole twice and was consequently blocked for his violations. [56] It does not make him a person who is in position to question other people’s behavior. Grandmaster 04:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It is also strange to see that User:Hajji Piruz accuses Atabek of reverting the edits of banned User:Tajik, who contributed to Safavids article using sock accounts and IPs. We have the official results of checkuser, which confirm that the anon IPs and the account of User:German-Orientalist belong to the banned user Tajik. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik. It was perfectly obvious who those accounts belonged to from the moment they started contributing to that page, which was one of Tajik’s favorites. So Atabek did absolutely right thing by reverting the contribs of the banned user according to WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits, and this is something everyone should do according to the rules. However, Hajji Piruz sticks up for the banned user and tries to use Atabek’s enforcement of the community ban as an evidence of disruptive behavior (?), which is absolutely unacceptable. Grandmaster 06:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand the position of User:Bushytails either. User:Tajik is banned by the arbitration committee, he must have done something to deserve this. As a banned user, he is not entitled to make any edits in defiance of his ban, be that spelling fixes or whatever. Sticking up for banned user is defiance of the arbcom decision, and I suggest that those who think that Tajik should not have been banned discuss this issue with the arbcom. But while Tajik is banned, all his edits must be removed according to Wikipedia rules, no matter how good they are. Please see: WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. I discussed this with the arbcom clerk, and he also confirmed that edits of banned user are considered vandalism and should be reverted on spot without risk of violating 3RR, arbcom parole or whatever. See: [57] Grandmaster 05:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just one comment: I completely agree that the addition of "Category:Sockpuppeteers" was an unnecessary provocation, and led to a lot of trouble for nothing. SalaSkan 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ali Doostzadeh" I am not sure how this started. I have been asked to comment on this issue by both users and the page is long. I have made mistakes myself on Wikipedia (and I am not saying any others users have or not have not) and it is a learning process. Basically, I have 1000% respect for any user that does not judge other users based on their country or background or ethnicity and just tries to make this encyclopedia work and academic. That is the main point I believe. It is goal we should all strive for even if we fall short (I am not suggesting that this what different users have or have not done, but I am saying that no one is perfect). Both users are intelligent and they have contributed to Wikipedia. So if there is a negative short-coming, I believe they can comment nicely (better via e-mail) and resolve their differences with each other. I am going to e-mail both users with some helpful comments I have (and they can criticize me if they want, we are all humans after-all). Due to both time constraints and also the fact that I do not like these sorts of discussions (judging different users actions), I have no interest in being more involved in this discussion. --alidoostzadeh 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted a fishy revert by Atabek to Safavid dynasty while doing r/c patrol, and tried to resolve it on the article's talk page. Atabek had reverted seemingly beneficial edits, such as spelling, grammar, etc, while claiming they were nationalist "vandalism," such as moving the language they spoke a full 8 words later in the article, to the second sentance of the introduction. Attempts at getting them to resolve it peacefully failed, as neither side was willing to listen, the anon users (who may well be both of the users mentioned here, but I'll leave that to checkuser) would not create a subpage with the edits so they could be discussed by both parties, and both sides left me messages or sent me emails that were not much more than whining and personally attacking the other person, at which point I gave up trying to resolve their dispute. Neither side seems actually interested in resolving disputes, and both would rather game the system such that the other person is forcefully prevented from editing.

I would suggest that both users, atabek and (insert list of ips and socks) are prevented from any non-trivial editing of disputed articles without first discussing them on the talk page. Atabek should be warned against reverting content changes as "vandalism," and perhaps be warned not to revert anything, at all, even if it wasn't discussed on the talk page first and he thinks it should have been, but rather leave all enforcement actions to a non-involved party. Both parties should be reminded that personal attacks are not called for. Both parties should also be reminded that whining will not make third parties support their viewpoint, nor will other forms of canvassing. Lastly, any attempts by either user to game the system to get the other user blocked without valid cause should be treated appropriately. Bushytails 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

This dispute has escalated to arbitration. SalaSkan 18:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.