< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Armenia-Azerbaijan Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:52, 17 March 2007 editFadix (talk \| contribs)5,105 edits →AdilBaguirov has revert warred ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:56, 17 March 2007 edit undoFadix (talk \| contribs)5,105 edits →Original research by AdilBaguirov Next edit →
Line 351:		Line 351:
	::More, AdilBaguirov does OR by choosing when scholars are saying the truth and thosefor should be included or are not saying the truth, so they should be excluded. Here, De Waal, for AdilBaguirov should be removed. And here, De Waal should be added. ] ] 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)		::More, AdilBaguirov does OR by choosing when scholars are saying the truth and thosefor should be included or are not saying the truth, so they should be excluded. Here, De Waal, for AdilBaguirov should be removed. And here, De Waal should be added. ] ] 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::

			==Conflict of interest by AdilBaguirov, Tabib, Dacy69 and Atabek==
			1) AdilBaguirov, Tabib, Dacy69 and Atabek (used as meatpuppet) are party in the real life Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute, one member is official part of the negotiations regarding Nagorno Karabakh(Tabib), AdilBaguirov and Dacy69 are official representatives of the position of Azerbaijan republic in the United States.

			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::
			::Proposed. Their edit reflects that, as being major parties in the real dispute, there is a conflict of interest. For example, here AdilBaguirov adding the Journal of Turkish Weekly , which with he has associated himself and publish there also. ] ] 19:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
	::		::

Revision as of 19:56, 17 March 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to apply 1RR rule to all Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles

1) There seems to be more editors than the ones currently named as parties that are reverting on the article. Motion to apply 1RR rule to all Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Since there's a current injunction for this case, ArbCom would have to rule on adding new parties to the case; this motion would be equivalent of the solution. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Motion to add more parties to this case

1) I would like to ask arbitrators to allow addition of two more parties to this case, i.e. User:Vartanm and User:Zurbagan. The former is mentioned in many evidence as a participant in edit warring on a number of pages and is included in proposed findings of fact as a one of the warring editors. The latter is also involved in edit warring on Ziya Bunyadov and personal attacks and is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Robert599, who used banned socks before to edit the same page. Grandmaster 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The current listing is incomplete. Anyone aggressively editing these articles should assume they are a party. Add their names and give them notice. No motion is necessary. Fred Bauder 13:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Grandmaster

I support this proposal. On my section of evidences I presented facts about edit warring by user:Vartanm--Dacy69 13:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Zurbagan is a ban material(as I believe he is indeed Robert), some newbie toying with Misplaced Pages is not an arbitration case, he is a "ban by an admin" material. Arbitrators have better things to do than wasting their time everytime some newbie start toying with Misplaced Pages. As for Vartanm, he is a new member, I don't see why a new member who was not much there when this "conflict" sparked should be dumped in this case. He is protected under "don't bite new members." Bring your issues with him. Fad (ix) 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for adding my name to the list Grandmaster and Atabek. Next time let the administrators decide who gets added to this arbitration.--Vartanm 05:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Vartanm, but I still propose that User:Zurbagan is also added to the list. He continues his attacks on other editors: despite a warning by the admin . And checkuser for this person is still delayed for some unknown reason, despite the filed formal request and my personal request on this page. Grandmaster 10:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Note: User:Vartanm has been added to the case by Mackensen here. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Motion to add more parties to this case

1) I would like to ask arbitrators to allow addition of one more party to this case, i.e. User:Davo88. He has suddenly become very active on a number of Azerbaijan-related pages (just like some other questionable editors, e.g., Nagorno-Karabakh War) and Caucasus-related pages (e.g., Orontid_Dynasty, Tigranes the Great) after ArbCom was instituted, mostly doing reverts. --AdilBaguirov 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The current listing is incomplete. Anyone aggressively editing these articles should assume they are a party. Add their names and give them notice. No motion is necessaryFred Bauder 13:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

He only had 3 reverts last week. All of which were done after an anon. IP vandalised a page, and

Why don't you tell us whats the real reason you want to add him to the list? Vartanm 22:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading this it looks like Davo88 is just a nice guy, who fights IP anons and vandals. Right? Wrong! What about reverting my fully sourced, academic and verifiable edits? and

--AdilBaguirov 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to remind you of the discussion we had in the talk page of the article about your interventions? -- Davo88 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've been adding content to Armenian History related articles for a while now, including Tigranes the Great, which I've been editing since 4 November 2006. I've included the articles about the Orontid Dynasty and the Nagorno-Karabagh War in my watchlist for a while. Is there anything wrong in reverting vandalism? -- Davo88 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously no, they just want you here so you can revert once. Artaxiad 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Davo88, do you call your "debut" on TigranesTheGreat as an "edit"? This is your early supression of information, where you removed the sentence "Greek inscription..." And then you ceased until mid-January 2007. --AdilBaguirov 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He never removed anything its in the bottom. Artaxiad 00:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur w/ user:Artaxiad, user:AdilBaguirov just wants to include all active Armenian users in[REDACTED] so they can all revert once. user:Davo88 has a clean history in wikipedia, he has never been blocked, let alone even been warned about an infraction! - Fedayee 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil wants to add all of the active Armenian users to the list because he thinks all the Armenian users are against him. Plus he wants to make the number of Armenian users bigger, because he wants to get an underdog symphaty. It's just me against all the Armenians... you get the point. Vartanm 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Comment by parties:

This policy is most threatned here, and this is one of the major reasons I have not contributed much in the mainspace of the articles. It is unfortunitly a loss, no one is respecting it or seem to not understand it. Some believe it is a form of balance, others believe it is a pass for a 50/50 coverage. There are hardly any articles involved in this dispute which adhere to NPOV policy. And Armenian editors are also to blame. But particularly Adil and Dacy have absolutly no use of this policy at all. Throwing some obscure source from somewhere and then pushing this fringe position not only as simple position, not only the 50/50, but pushing it as far as 100/0. And many of my attacks directed against members was particularly my innability to enforce this policy. I think most of the edit wars will be prevented if people accept to adhere to it. I believe the Arbitrators should read this recent happenings in the talkpage of this article. Fad (ix) 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also believe they shoud read that article which concerns two parties of the conflict, and while perspective of one party (Armenian) is given, some users tries to remove another perspective. It is ironic that user:Fadix speak about NPOV supporting those who remove it. As for nexus for my edit and NPOV - Urartu page should be studied. Here all answers to continued false accusations by user:Fadix And if Britannica and Columbia encyclopedia and works of prominent scholars in the matter of question can be called obscure sources then I should leave Wiki. NPOV was also completely removed from such pages as Monte Melkonian and Armenian Revolutionary Federation. Solution would be if 2-3 admins will be appointed to monitor and facilitate ensuring NPOV on Armenia-Azerbaijani related pages.--Dacy69 16:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is funny how you are enough naive to think that suppositions might fool arbitrators. Newspapers like the The Independent, the European parlement or independent investigators like Steven Sims etc. are not just yet another party, as just like Armenia they have accused Azerbaijan. This is called the majority position. As for your accusations, I don't remember ever questioning Britannica, care to show any diff? Yet, I am waiting you to prove I have edit warred or POV pushed, my evidence section document you having done just that. Fad (ix) 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I complained about your false accusations, incivility and insults which are unbearable. You just insult people on talkpages and let other expat editors to do editing and rv. That was my point - on ARF you insulted - Fedayee reverted. Artaxiad reverts, you support him.That is it - I never told about your edit war. As for Britannica - since you accuse me of villifying and putting obscure sources - I just show that, inter alia, among my edits I presented views and referenced from Britannica--Dacy69 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ask Francis, Golbez or any other administrators involved in articles like PKK, I supported Fedayee, because there was a concesus on the use of the term terrorism and terrorist. It took about 2 years of conflicts and finally a concensus was established. And no, I have never encouraged others to revert war, to the contrary. So, are you actually confirming that I do not edit war? What what does expat refers to, I wonder. Fad (ix) 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Verifiability and sourcing

4) Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Original research

5) Original research is prohibited. This includes a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position; an argument is permissible only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the specific topic of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant and appropriate. Personal analysis, however insightful, cannot substitute for attribution. Fred Bauder 17:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Article probation

6) Where user conduct issues seem to revolve around a single articles, and where there are a large number of editors involved, and those editors are not disruptive otherwise, it may make more sense to put the article itself on probation rather than individual editors. Administrators are empowered to block or ban editors from editing the article for misconduct like edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruption relating to the article on probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

7) Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal or external conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Misplaced Pages discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Misplaced Pages articles are not a forum for the continuation of real world disputes by other means.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Artaxiad 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nicely worded. Picaroon 02:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The point I was trying to make was that it was an all out war, before arbitration committee stopped it. Vartanm 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is apolitical

8) Misplaced Pages is apolitical and an organized attempt to reverse that shall never be tolerated

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed. Fad (ix) 04:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A Wikipedian is a Wikipedian

9) Members should consider eachothers as equaly Wikipedians regardless of faith, ethnicity, social class, belief or any other social construct unless a user is harming Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed. Fad (ix) 21:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed. Artaxiad 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! But I hope ArbCom will decide who is "harming Misplaced Pages" and not just us, don't you agree? --Neigel von Teighen 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree. Fad (ix) 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fair editing freedom

10) Any kind of attempt of a member for avoiding someone else to contribute according to the policies shall never be tolerated.

10.1) No editor is permitted to prevent any other editor who is abiding by the official policies of Misplaced Pages from contributing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed on behalf of User:Dacy69 --Neigel von Teighen 14:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

10.1, proposed adjustment of wording for more idiomatic English. This probably needs a little work. For instance an editor who is banned from editing a Misplaced Pages page is free to edit the rest of the encyclopedia as long as he conforms to Misplaced Pages's policies in doing so, but he isn't permitted to edit the page from which he is banned, even if he makes otherwise-acceptable edits. But I don't think that's the kind of thing this proposal is about. --Tony Sidaway 10:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewording; English is not my mother language (Spanish is). --Neigel von Teighen 11:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there’s a Misplaced Pages policy that covers this issue, which I listed below, i.e. WP:OWN. It holds that no one owns the articles in Misplaced Pages and everyone has a right to edit them. Grandmaster 13:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and revert warring violates this principle. I beg to order ourselves and fight for NPOV and civility in WP. --Neigel von Teighen 17:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of articles

11) Ownership of articles. If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and allow them to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Grandmaster 11:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This template is not even needed, its obvious anyone can edit it. Artaxiad 19:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is needed, as some users try to prevent others fom editing certain articles. Grandmaster 20:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah like March Days or Urartu, if the reverting stops a solution can be reached. Artaxiad 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of the dispute

1) Misplaced Pages has been disrupted by a serious of editing disputes centered around the political and ethnic constitution of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sources

1) Sources in English include 1993 UN Security Council Resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan: Seven years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki (1994), ISBN 1-56432-142-8 Online. Articles in the New York Times include "Trying to Tell a Truce From a War", By MICHAEL WINES, May 27, 2001 restricted access, "Armenia and Azerbaijan Remain Stalled in Talks", By KATRIN BENNHOLD, February 12, 2006 restricted access, "Hopeful Signs Appear in Solving a Post-Soviet Impasse", By C. J. CHIVERS, February 2, 2006 restricted access, "Attacks in Caucasus Bring New Tide of Refugees", April 7, 1993 restricted access Front page stories, New York Times. Conflict history: Azerbaijan, conflict history: Armenia, and conflict history: Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Irronically, the main problems are not on Nagorno-Karabakh, beside the table Adil added. But the bordering articles as well as articles not related with Azerbaijan. Francis and Golbez have done a good job on the main article. Fad (ix) 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problems are on Nagorno-Karabakh, which is the most troubled article and which was protected endless number of times long before most of parties to arbcom joined Misplaced Pages. But the disputes and edit wars also go on many other articles, related to Azerbaijan and Armenia, so it is not limited to a certain topic, even though that topic is the main cause of problems. Grandmaster 07:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true, the main article was in an unusual relative peace before Adil came back from his wikibrake. Fad (ix) 13:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Edit warring

1) Numerous parties to this dispute have engaged in edit warring including, but not limited to, AdilBaguirov, Aivazovsky, Artaxiad, Eupator, Grandmaster, Elsanaturk, Azerbaijani, Mardavich, Atabek, Fadix, Dacy69, TigranTheGreat, Vartanm, and ROOB323.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Please check my edit history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 16:22, March 11, 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

AdilBaguirov

1) AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a participant in the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by AdilBaguirov

1) AdilBaguirov has made personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Artaxiad 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. Anything that could constitute a "personal attack" from me pales in comparison to what my accusers, such as user:Artaxiad (aka user:Nareklm), have done against both my persona, other individuals, and Wikipedian community as a whole (see specific evidence about their massive sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, insults (as far as using the f-word towards me), etc. --AdilBaguirov 21:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Stay on topic please, usually when users get off topic they know there wrong. You have attacked others, see stay on topic. Artaxiad 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also you should stop saying Artaxiad and Nareklm, your not going to get me blocked because of that I changed my username there not socks. Which F word? Artaxiad 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad (Narek), are you a bot or a person? Seriously, this is weird. To begin with, your reference of my alleged attack has no personal attack, insult or harrassment towards anyone, if anything, the text reveals constant attacks against me from others. Secondly, why did you support my motion against ROOB323 below (you put your name right under mine), where I presented this evidence , and now ask "Which F word?"

Because ROOB made a personal attack before, so it was justified to say it. Second your edit summary is self-explanatory. Artaxiad 00:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Original research by AdilBaguirov

1) AdilBaguiov has engaged in original research

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Opposed. There is no OR -- I have commented on user:Aivazovsky's included maps, where he misrepresented what is clearly written on them (i.e, if dates were about early 1920s, he would suggest they support his theory about certain borders being like that until 1931 ).

As such, I did not introduce a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea; did not define or introduce new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms; did not introduce an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; and did not introduce an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article. --AdilBaguirov 21:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators have just to check NK article to see another example of original research, where Adil tries to pass the whole Karabakh population as NK and push it on to include it. Fad (ix) 22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's your misinterpretation, that has been soundly disproven. You have a long record of trying to deny and supress facts and evidence -- you've done this on the Nakhichevan page (going as far as denying what Armenia's own chroniclers of the time have clearly written), and do this on the Nagorno-Karabakh page (such as with the fully-sourced and verifiable census table). --AdilBaguirov 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you. Sure. Fad (ix) 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the arbitrators should review that AdilBaguirov is still continuing with original research. And shows no inclination. Fad (ix) 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, here he claims the European parlement line is false. He's being doing this from the beginning, deciding what is accurate so what goes in the articles. Fad (ix) 03:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeap, to say "Azerbaijan denied European Parliament (EP) a visit to Naxcivan" is false, since there was no official request from the leadership of EP or any resolution asking or requiring a permission to visit. Hence, my correction, that a request of a few MPs was denied, is correct, precise and NPOV, and certainly does not qualify for OR. Meanwhile, what constitutes OR in your first example, that Armenian language is Indo-European, and that those words are from ancient Persian language? --AdilBaguirov 06:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Independent is a notable source and confirms that, you on the other hand claims it is not true. You are claiming a "truth" which is called original research. As for Indo-European, Armenian is indeed an indo-European, but claiming that all Armenian words are etymologically Persian, thosefor Persian terms should be used insteed is OR. Fad (ix) 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

More, AdilBaguirov does OR by choosing when scholars are saying the truth and thosefor should be included or are not saying the truth, so they should be excluded. Here, De Waal, for AdilBaguirov should be removed. And here, De Waal should be added. Fad (ix) 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Conflict of interest by AdilBaguirov, Tabib, Dacy69 and Atabek

1) AdilBaguirov, Tabib, Dacy69 and Atabek (used as meatpuppet) are party in the real life Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute, one member is official part of the negotiations regarding Nagorno Karabakh(Tabib), AdilBaguirov and Dacy69 are official representatives of the position of Azerbaijan republic in the United States.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Their edit reflects that, as being major parties in the real dispute, there is a conflict of interest. For example, here AdilBaguirov adding the Journal of Turkish Weekly , which with he has associated himself and publish there also. Fad (ix) 19:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Fadix

1) Fadix has made personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed and supported by evidence Atabek 19:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazingly the same inaccurate statment as Adil, Zuljan NOT Zuljian, there is no "i" he is a Slovak author and it is about time you guys stop using the word "Armenian" to insult scholars. Another evidence you provide is not a harassement it was retreaved from Artaxiad talk page. The arbitrators could read the context as well as the last part of my message as an answer to Artaxiad requesting to figh back. I said and I quote: The answer is not fighting back, but enforce Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. Those are the best tools against blind nationalism. Araxiad did revert war and did disrupt Misplaced Pages and I was trying to deal with this but thanks to you Dacy and Adil my tutoring FAILED!!! The rest of the harrassements, for the rest I did harass and take all the responsability. Fad (ix) 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Fadix has a long-string of various personal attacks, harassment and insults towards myself and other editors involved, always starting first, and always being asked to cease and desist: , , , --AdilBaguirov 22:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have confirmed it, and even said that under the same circumstances I will do it again. I wonder why you push something I have admitted and even gave for you evidences by saying that I will do it again. You have disturbed Misplaced Pages, I will lie to save someone from being murdered, I will steal to save someone from murder. Understand? Fad (ix) 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that everyone would understand from your statements is that you are the one who disturbs the Wiki community, not anyone else. Before finger pointing, one should take a good look in the mirror. --AdilBaguirov 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK good, leave others understand that then. Fad (ix) 02:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While Arbcom is considering this issue user:Fadix continues on every page accuse other editors and make personal attacks , --Dacy69 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I attacked you there too, next? Fad (ix) 15:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, are you confessing to have been violating WP:NPA?? I.e.: are you recognizing (by saying that those articles would be sabotaged until Dacy69 is not banned) that you have no interest in following consensus, hearing other opinions, learning from other people (anyone has too) and, finally, collaborate instead of sabotaging? --Neigel von Teighen 09:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I admit, I have never denied it, I plainly admit having attacked him, I never denied it and plainly said it in my oppening statment of this case. I have followed WP:Ignore_all_rules which is also a policy. I have more than two years experience on Misplaced Pages and I can know who are here to contribute in good faith and who are not. This guy came along with Adil and started editing various articles and engaging in edit wars, getting closed articles one after the others. Most he had touched were locked. And then, after starting an edit war, always the same patern, after disturbing the mainspace and creating this putrid atmosphere, he will go on the talkpage and justify his edits, not open to compromise but enforce without any compromise the entirity of his proposition, then requesting mediation, to "prove" he is right. Just like when this case was about to be accepted, he said that it was about proving who is right and wrong, who will get punished. I will continue attacking those who take Misplaced Pages as a hostage. Not doing so would be worst. Someone come in the talkpage, discuss and respect members, and this before engaging in an edit war, I will be more than willing to discuss with that person and respect him/her. If that person start engaging in an edit war and get the article locked and then goes in the talkpage and request mediation not for compromise but believing that it is a tool to enforce his position. Then, sorry to say, but a disturber will be treated as a disturber. Assume good faith is a guideline, it doesn't mean that one should assume good faith with a vandal. Just like No Personal Attack does not mean to leave a bad faithed, Misplaced Pages disturber to continue disturbing articles. You don't know who you are defending. Fad (ix) 00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

At least from where I come from, there's principle called A confesión de parte, relevo de prueba' (="After confession by party, no more evidence needed"). --Neigel von Teighen 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Fedayee

1) Fedayee has made personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose, Could I please get a link by a third party as to where I personal attacked someone? Thanks - Fedayee 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Artaxiad 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Note the username (nickname) "Fedayee" is extremely offensive to all Azerbaijani, Turkish and Kurdish inhabitants of Caucasus and the greater region. Fedayee, originally an Arabic word, has been adopted by a mix of Armenian ASALA terrorists, irregulars, mercenaries from the Syria and Lebanon (where those ASALA terrorists got their training in the 1970s and 1980s)), and army soldiers and officers as nome de guerre (although it was adopted before the Karabakh war, it has become especially widely used since), during which such slaughters of innocent Azerbaijani civilians as the Khojaly massacre (February 25-26, 1992) were committed, where 613 people are just confirmed deaths, with another two hundred listed "missing". All in all, over 20,000 (half of which were civilians) Azerbaijanis and Kurds were killed (plus a small number of Jews), and about 800,000 Azerbaijanis and Kurds were driven out from their currently occupied lands by the "fedayee". To all innocent victims of the aggression and occupation by these "fedayee", the term is as offensive as "Shtandarten Fuhrer SS" or "Storm Trooper" would be for any WWII victim (whether Jewish, Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian, and other Soviet and others). Everyone has such sensitivities, including Armenians, who too would be unhappy if Azerbaijani or Turkish users would choose certain nicknames -- this is why Misplaced Pages has a policy against using inappropriate user names. Despite repeated hints to user:Fedayee to change his name , he consistently essentially defended his choice, and expressed pride in the actions of his role models. Misplaced Pages is not the place for loud sounding names of some blood-thirsty killers -- if one wants to be a "hero" or tough guy, he should go into the open, a battlefield, and prove his worthiness (as opposed to massacring civilians). --AdilBaguirov 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats from your point of view, Fedayee has nothing to do with ASALA, so stop causing random trouble you find many things offensive, I find the Azeri government offensive and what? let go of it. Artaxiad 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL you must be joking Mr. Baguirov. You cannot get as POV as what you said in your essay about my nickname above. This proves that all you write, all you think is nothing but an Azeri POV pushing of things and you are emotionally driven. I or the arbitrators dont care what you think of my nickname. You my friend have nothing to provide so you go through all this trouble to POV push your POV on my nickname? haha. You're not gonna teach me a history on what my nickname means. For you, every Armenian is an ASALA connected person. I'm sure it was ASALA that fought the Azeris in Nagorno-Karabakh too... right (rolling my eyes)? What you do is you create flames, flames so people get angry and burst and throw insults at you. Then you can easily use it against people. It's not gonna happen...you can call Iranism Nazism, you can call me a Nazi, (which can be viewed as a personal attack!) I don't care because it is a violation of a wiki rule called POV. Weak attempts to lure me into a trap to personal attack you. My nickname had nothing to do with Azeris when I chose it, fidain is the equivalent of "armed volunteer". Anyway i'm not gonna argue, I will patiently wait for the day you are banned. (btw nice try on the inclusion of Jews in your comment above, it's not gonna convince anyone that my nickname is something Nazi). And wow I hope the Arbitrators are reading Adil's comments like this one "if one wants to be a "hero" or tough guy, he should go into the open, a battlefield, and prove his worthiness." Irrelevant comment, noone's gonna take you seriously man. - Fedayee 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So you still refuse to change your nickname, and you laugh "LOL" at the victims of the Karabakh war, particularly the Khojaly dead and survivors? --AdilBaguirov 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Khojaly dead? thats sad buddy, both Armenians and Azeris suffered, Fedayee's were the least who committed civilian casualties. Fedayis have no business in killing young ones, it may have been the army with the help of others. Artaxiad 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, manipulation of words Adil, I laugh at your accusation that my choice of nickname was to poke fun of Azeris. What do you think I am that I would laugh at the victims of war where 6,000 of my countrymen were killed...why do you stoop so low Adil? I mean do you seriously think I would be doing that? Do you think Armenians are heartless monsters Adil...have Kerim Kerimov Mammadhan's caricatures affected you that much? - Fedayee 00:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by ROOB323

1) ROOB323 has made personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. One such evidence was reported here: --AdilBaguirov 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed. Artaxiad 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Eupator

1) Eupator has made personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Aivazovsky

1) Aivazovsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Clevelander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an Armenian participant in the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Checkuser Request for User:Zurbagan

1) I have a reason to suspect that this person is a sock of Robert599 (talk · contribs), who used socks MarkHessen (talk · contribs) and Վաչագան (talk · contribs) to create the article about Ziya Bunyadov for character assassination purposes. Zurbagan (talk · contribs) appeared two days after the aforementioned accounts were blocked and immediately started editing the article about Ziya Bunyadov, edit warring and making personal attacks on other users on talk. Check his contribs. I would like to ask for immediate checkuser of this person. Thanks. Grandmaster 06:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a strong evidence that user:Zurbagan is a sockpuppet. Please compare edit of established sockpuppet user:Jalaleddin and edit of user:Zurbagan - - use of similar language, same POV, the same references across two different pages. Interestingly, user:Artaxiad made similar edit --Dacy69 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored his quote obviously and don't even say things like this, regarding your editing at Urartu, and Artaxiad 19:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem you rarely engage yourself to talkpages and just rv or restoring someone's info. I do the same sometimes if I support that opinion but I have a bulk of discussion, e.g. on Urartu. My friendly advise is not to copying obvious POV of obvious sockpuppets.--Dacy69 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I come and go enough, I explain my reverts daily, that user is new I don't think calling him a sock puppetry and a vandal is going to help its uncivil and biting newcomers is not recommended, the material looked good to me. Artaxiad 06:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Checkuser Tabib

There are other edits and a number of accounts created from the ip that Tabib used and they are from Azerbaijan; however the edits by the other accounts are childish, not concerning the issues Tabib was concerned with. So essentially, no evidence of sockpuppeting by Tabib was found.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Results of checkuser requested by Fadix Fred Bauder 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Checkuser Request for User:ROOB323, User:Vartanm, and User:Aivazovsky by User:Atabek

The patterns of some of these users' edits are astonishingly similar. For example, User:Aivazovsky at ] says:

I find it difficult to deal with User:Dacy69, User:Atabek and especially User:AdilBaguirov.

and at about the same day, User:ROOB323 wrote at ]:

It is very difficult to deal with this two users User:Atabek and User:AdilBaguirov

Further User:Aivazovsky writes at ]:

I can discuss issues with Azeri users such as User:Grandmaster and come to eventual compromises

and then comes from User:ROOB323 at ]:

Although there were some conflicts with User:Grandmaster, but eventually we were able to come a compromise

Also, User:Vartanm and User:ROOB323, as it can be clearly seen here ] are engaged in coordinated edit warring at Monte Melkonian

Thanks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If you're attempting to prove that User:ROOB323 and I are sockpuppets, then good luck. According to his profile ROOB323 lives in California. I live in Ohio. We most likely have completely different IPs. So we happen to agree on Azeri users, that doesn't prove anything. -- Aivazovsky 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

loooooooooooooooool oh my god, WOW!!!!!!!!!! This is the funniest thign I ever heard. WOW Atabek, I really can't control my self laughing, it is just so hilarious that all your other tactics did not work out and you came out with something like this looool. I can't believe it. What can I say, nice one looool go ahead and prove it. ROOB323 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Coordinated edit warring? We simply removed the irrelevant sources added by you. None of the sources you provided contained the information that you were trying to add to the article. Three of them didn't even mention Monte Melkonian.Vartanm 17:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and lets not forget that Atabek knows first hand what a sockpuppet is Tengri. --Vartanm 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser Request for User:Batabat

I ask that the administrators investigate User:Batabat. In this user's short tenure on Misplaced Pages, he has defended Adil's behavior of User:Khoikhoi's talk page and he created a user page that only consisted of the following text (also see here for evidence: ):

“

Greetings from Batabat! It is a miraculous place on the border between northern Naxchivan and Zangezur, that is today called Republic of Armenia. Paradise!!! No wonder Armenians want that place. We don't mind - they continue to want it.

”

It should be noted that the Republic of Armenia has never laid claim to Nakhichevan, the autonomous Azerbaijani exclave seperated from the rest of Azerbaijan by Armenia's Syunik province. This was an obvious attempt to provoke a response from Armenian editors. His clear unconstructive attitude towards the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is a violation of Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. It has been claimed that Batabat is a sockpuppet of User:AdilBaguirov, though this has yet to be proven. -- Aivazovsky 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

User:Batabat wasn't proven to be a sockpuppet of anyone, so it's premature to claim him a sockpuppet of User:AdilBaguirov or anyone else. User:Batabat is blocked based on suspicion (not proof) of sockpuppetry and cannot defend himself in this case, so your accusation looks more like a one-man party.

Regarding User:Batabat's comment which you're trying to use as incrimination, any user has a right for his opinion expressed on his own user page, as long as it reflects the truth and does not violate Wiki policies. And it's not quite visible why what User:Batabat said is a violation, given the fact that majority of ordinary Armenians (including yourself at Qazakh page), lay claim on Azerbaijani lands on just about every Misplaced Pages page. Here is just one example, which should be actually considered as Misplaced Pages:NPOV violation, at ]:

No, we admit that what is now Republic of Armenia, as well as half of Azerbaijan, has been populated by Armeninians since antiquity, whose percentage decreased only due to Turkoman invasions in 16-18th cc (except in Karabakh and some other areas). And much of the area began to become fully Armenian again after the Genocide and influx from Diaspora. And we fully intend to restore the Armenian population to the rest of these ancestral lands, bit by bit.--TigranTheGreat 14:37, 5 February 2007

I think this kind of hate attitude is really counterproductive in balanced approach to editing. Atabek 06:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What is so racist about that comment? I see nothing wrong. Artaxiad 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Batabat is not a sock and has been unblocked. Grandmaster 13:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So much for user:Aivazovsky accusations above! It shows that Aivazovsky and some other users are ideologically and politically motivated, acting in bad faith, ready to accuse those whom they view as "enemy" of anything to achieve their disruptive aims. It's unbelievable that user Batabat has been blocked for so long, by the way -- on one hand an innocent user, who is not a sock, is blocked for a month, and on the other hand, a multiple-time convicted sock and meatpuppet, harrasser Nareklm (user:Artaxiad) is blocked "indefinitely" and then unblocked. Only shows that the former is just an honest and simple person, who just wants to contribute his knowledge and expertise to Misplaced Pages, whilst the latter is a cunning and shrewd puppeteer, who learned how to abuse the system to his and his possy's benefit. --AdilBaguirov 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WOW!!! I have missed this one, really, this is the best of all. Politically motivated? You are accusing, you of anyone else someone of being politically motivated? You who have with Dacy organised you know what to come here in Misplaced Pages to extend both of your websites and use Misplaced Pages as your servers? You both with the political affiliations you have? What would you have said had some scholar working with the republic of Armenia organise with high members from the Armenian assembly of America to come here and start contributing in Azerbaijan related articles? You really made my day. Really. Fad (ix) 16:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant you have used socks also, Batabat comes out of nowhere and starts replying everywhere where Atabek has replied the admins have the right to indef him due to the disruption per checkuser. The block on me is different you love mentioning things repeatedly. Don't attack me when you call Fadix a "fag" and you evaded your block with 3 different ips. Artaxiad 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough! Stop your constant personal attacks. I have never used socks, the Check User proved that to your dismay. Had I've used socks, I would have been blocked. Having bunch of sockpuppets seems like your domain, user:Mikara (ooops, Narek. Or is it Artaxiad?). Also, I never evaded any blocks, and that has been thoroughly addressed (the system logged me out after a while due to not checking the box at login, and I always post under the same IP set). Also, what do you mean about fag, which meaning ? All your actions are indeed very tiring. --AdilBaguirov 23:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "fag" is a insult funny how you go and show me a link its common sense, oh and its Artaxiad if you didn't know, check your block log buddy, you've been blocked for 3 IP evasions. Artaxiad 23:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to check - I know I was not evading anything or anyone, and the admins involved know that too. And I would most welcome an additional, new investigation, so that this thing is cleared from my record, Mikara (where you not only created a sock, but also falsified its Talk page, including lengthy exchanges from another users' Talk pages to make you appear "older" and "unbiased" -- that shows a very much pre-meditated attempt to fool everyone and evade all blocks. Speaks volumes about you). --AdilBaguirov 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and how you deny you evaded your block when obviously they were you, after you get blocked, an anon appears and starts reverting. Artaxiad 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Grandmaster has revert warred

1) Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has revert warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would like to add supplementation. Check the reverts based on his edit summary counts. It does not include all the reverts. Fad (ix) 18:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is another piece of forged evidence by this person. No diffs, no search results, just baseless accusations. Grandmaster 10:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Count them yourself, that section clarify how the data was collected. Press "Ctrl + F" and count them in your edit history, or ask Francis if you want. Then the other condition by excluding the word previously used and so on. Calling evidences forgey or using term such as "by this person" is only affecting your own credibility. Fad (ix) 13:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have more than 7300 edits, you mean to say that you personally checked them all? And since when the word "person" is an insult? Grandmaster 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

another piece of forged evidence by this person is an insult. But don't worry I don't have a sensible heart. The only personal attacks I consider are those for instance when Atabek compare Iranism with NAZIsm and get users infuriated and than report that he is harassed. You indeed have that much total edit, check your edits on the namespace of articles, and you will slice a very significant portion. And no I did not check each, I used the research function and counted each hits. And I can tell you that very few times were you reverting vandalism as per your edit summary, check it. Not to say those reverts are not all, as it is edit summary based. It is clear that you have the highest number of reverts alone, this is abusive given that you are not an admin and are not doing sysoft control. Fad (ix) 14:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to provide any proof other than a suggestion to count myself? Grandmaster 17:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't expect me to post 508 diff are you? Restrict your hits on your edits on articles namespace. I leave you choose any neutral contributors to rerun the count. Fad (ix) 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually do. No one will take your word for it, like "Fadix counted, and it is so". Grandmaster 21:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have read the rest. I told you to choose a neutral user to count them. I have explained how I counted them in the evidence page, so the user you will be choosing know how to proceed. Fad (ix) 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I used your method to count edits with summary rv or rvv for User:Eupator. I did not bother to count all of them, just the last 500 edits. Out of the last 500 edits made by him 82 had rv or rvv in edit summary. I’m sure that if we count all of his edits with such a summary, it will be one of highest numbers in wiki. Of course it is not all rvs by him, because he did not mark all of them as rv. He rvd edits by me, Adil, Dacy69 and others with the summary of rv or rvv without any explanation. Just an example, here he reverted all of my edits to Paytakaran without any explanation. If you are so neutral, why do you not mention the disruptive activity of Eupator and do not propose a ban on this user, who did more reverts than anyone else? Grandmaster 06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsatisfying, do the test with Eupator and come later. You are assuming. Eupator mostly contribute with articles which have nothing to do with Azerbaijan, do the test and exclude what happened after Adil came. Fad (ix) 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna exclude anything, rv is rv. Eupator made 518 edits with the summary of rv or rvv. I did not search for any other word, so the real number of this user’s reverts is much higher. Note that I made more edits than him, while I made more than 7500 edits (more than any other party to this arbcom), he made about 5800. You said that I “very severely edit warred”, what do you think of edit warring by Eupator then? Grandmaster 08:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you said that you found in my contribs "72 edit summary with the term restort". What is "restort"? I never used that word. Grandmaster 08:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, now be glad to remove his reverts in talkpage as I did with you. Also, most of your reverts concerned also either Armenians or Persians, most of Eupator reverts were done in articles which had nothing to do with Azerbaijan. He reverted Armenian nationalistic POV, there was no opposition for most of those from any established members. While yours had opposition. As for restort, reread, past tense included. Just make a search on "restor" you'll find them. I have no reason to lie there. Fad (ix) 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Most - how many were on articles which had nothing to do with Azerbaijan? I know that he took part in every single edit war between Azeri and Armenian users, while me or Adil or Atabek did not. Moreover, he was reverting articles to support Iranian users, while he was not even involved in any discussion in talk of those articles. Despite your claims of neutrality, you defend Eupator, and the reason is obvious. Grandmaster 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, will you ever come clean? Here are the articles Eupator was most active with.

172 Tiridates I of Armenia -Nothing to do with Azeri
144 Armenia -Little to do with Azeri, and the subject of his edits even less
81 Yerevan -The current city, little to nothing to do with Azeri
66 Nakhichevan -Having to do with Azeri and Armenians
64 Nagorno-Karabakh -Having to do with Azeri and Armenians
50 Armenian Genocide -Nothing to do with Azeri
41 Armenians -Nothing to do with Azeri
37 Orontid Dynasty -Nothing to do with Azeri
37 Tigranes the Great -Nothing to do with Azeri
35 History of Armenia -Little to do with Azeri, and what he was working on, even less
34 Khojaly Massacre -Having to do with both Armenians and Azeri
34 Urartu -Nothing to do with Azeri
34 Ani -Nothing to do with Azeri
31 Arsacid Dynasty of Armenia -Nothing to do with Azeri
29 Bagratid dynasties -Nothing to do with Azeri.

Do I need to find the rest? Check the history of his contributions. His support of Iranians IS RECENT, he retaliated against Adil, Atabek and Dacy invasion. Check most of Eupator reverts, check against whom they were directed. Fad (ix) 18:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. See the evidence I've compiled here. Picaroon 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad has revert warred

1) Artaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Nareklm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has revert warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. See the evidence I've compiled here. Picaroon 22:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad has been meatpuppeting

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See the evidence here. Grandmaster 13:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. No evidence, that I allegedly wrote it. Artaxiad 21:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

AdilBaguirov has revert warred

1) AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has revert warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I will like to add supplementation to support that he did just more than revert warring, his edit wars have closed many articles which were never closed before. See.

Note Interesting, and how is one to prove that all those articles were locked because of me? Many were locked before, others were locked on different versions -- some on my versions, some on others. Yet what is most important, none of my edits violated any policy and rules -- all were scholarly, academic, verifiable and properly cited and sourced. So this whole argument is based on a weak foundation. --AdilBaguirov 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This supplement is relevent to show that the locking of articles, for most, Adil had most of the blame to share. Various articles were NEVER locked before Adil. Fad (ix) 18:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. See the evidence I've compiled here. Picaroon 22:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad blocked

1) ~~Artaxiad has been blocked indefinitely~~

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note. Kirill Lokshin 13:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Provisionally unblocked, based on promises of good behavior. Kirill Lokshin 09:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me note, for anyone unclear about this, that the blocking was an emergency measure related specifically to the attempt at revealing personal information (and, hence, the unblock is due to my being reasonably certain that this particular behavior won't be repeated). The other issues being discussed here will be considered by the Committee in due course; but they do not require any emergency action at this point, given that the matter has already reached arbitration. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Kirill, just see the post by User:Fadix below. Your "reasonable certainty" about this particular behaviour not being repeated has only resulted in this:

Adil and Tabib were contributing under their real name, the information thosefor is under public domain. And the harassement was appopriate...

Thanks. Atabek 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

- Krill can read you don't have to quote me there. Misplaced Pages remaining apolitical is above every other policies and guidelines here. If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore them. That is what I did and will do it again. Fad (ix) 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think by saying "blocking indefinitely" and then unblocking the user, who violated perhaps the most fundamental Misplaced Pages rule, you only opened a "can of worms". This shows that it would be sufficient to attack, threaten, harass, stalk, create sockpuppets, etc. for an established user, and then ask for forgiveness (for 3rd time now). Better then not block anyone at all, and have a complete anarchy. And if someone gets a physical threat, obviously none of you, as administrators, will care to take responsibility. Atabek 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is simply ridiculous, we both know that no one will be physicially threaten, it is not as if Artaxiad provided an information about someone who does not do similar things in real life regardless of the consequences. Two of the users contribute with their real names here and the information is easily available on google, it is public domain, they knew the consequence of their act by registering under their real name. I admit that Artaxiad by providing another name did it wrong, as no user by that name was contributing here so it would be considered as revealing personal information. The Arbcom on the other hand should consider the harm that this would cause to the real person. In this case none. Persian and Armenian users here are not active with such stuff in real life, neither elites in this domain who are known to have very strong published opinions, just like the majority of contributors on Misplaced Pages they do mistakes, and should be shown how to act. This should not be compared with an organized attempt by an originized and financed elitist group to reverse the apolitical nature of Misplaced Pages and this is worst than any misbehaving having been done. I always said that this was not about content dispute. This is worst and the Abrcom should have this in mind. If it does not take position on the principale that Misplaced Pages shall remain apolitical under any circumstances. This case then is worthless, I attacked members because I knew something, my attack was a "devoir du citoyen." Fad (ix) 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fadix is actually guilty of similar offence, i.e. harassment by revealing and distorting personal info. See evidence below:

"Tabib who has voted, works in a tink tank organization which work with political parties in Azerbaijan, was a real life friend with Adil, who has associated himself with think thank organizations members of the republic of Turkey, like Sedat Laciner, and even got articles published by their journals, among many things denying the Armenian genocide and adhering to Laciner ultra nationalistic views."

"Look around you and check who are contributing, Tabib is a known leader of some tink tank organization working with Azerbaijan political parties. Adil has a specialisation on media information, particularly the internet. What do you seriously think someone with some form of graduate degree in international relations and who has a specialisation in the transmission of this information will do on the internet." Grandmaster 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Public domain, I don't think anyone would have any problems if Zundel would have contributed in Jewish related articles and being treated this way. I have never revealed names of someone who contributed under another alias even though I had informations on them. Adil and Tabib were contributing under their real name, the information thosefor is under public domain. And the harassement was appopriate. Adil is a known contributor to Sedat Laciner extrem right newspaper, in which he denies the Armenian genocide and accuses Armenians of having exterminated 2.5 million people. Adil is a published Zundel, there is no way that he will be treated fairly by any Armenians by full knowledge of knowing how prejudicial this guy is. Tabib had in his site materials denying the Armenian genocide and the rest of the information about him is public domain. I have done nothing wrong there and I will do the same now and ever. I will never permit Misplaced Pages to be controled by organized and financed political groups who use it as their servers. Fad (ix) 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Before listening to further attacks and discussion of personality by User:Fadix, which obviously does not contribute in any way to the ArbCom case resolution, I suggest the administrators to review the information on the list of Turkish diplomats and officials murdered by Armenian extremists in the course of 1970 - 1990s, with two diplomats murdered just in Los Angeles . And then I like the administrators and arbitrators to think how dangerous it can get when one user in this conflict is trying to reveal the identity of even unrelated persons, thus attracting more hate attention. I am rather puzzled by this continuous leniency towards User:Artaxiad/User:Nareklm after two sockpuppets, persistent edit warring, personal attacks and now harassment. This is all while, User:Batabat was baselessly accused of being "suspected sockpuppet" after 3rd day of his appearance and blocked permanently. Now there is User:Zurbagan/User:Robert599, who is involved only on 2-3 pages revert warring and POV pushing on Armenian side, yet again let go free. May I see the reason for such obvious double standard? Do Azeris have somehow more default guilt than Armenians? If this kind of attitude persists, I think Azerbaijani users should just leave Misplaced Pages. I am not trying push any POV, but it only seems the brunt of attacks is always directed against Azeris, while they're the ones who have their land occupied, they're the ones who have 800,000 refugees on the ground, they're the ones seeking peace despite all the attacks against them. If Azeri User:AdilBaguirov is accused of attack, despite providing tons of referenced material, it's a big deal that even catches the attention of administrator. If User:Fadix and User:Artaxiad openly coordinate their attacks and insult others, with User:Fadix even trying to justify that he should attack, it's OK for administrators, forgiveable. Why? Please, let us know if we should leave now. Thanks. Atabek 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We eat babies also, we cook them and than eat them. What relevency does the above have? I agree that Robert should be blocked, he has done nothing else than throwing oil in the fire. While I see him as yet another person disturbing Misplaced Pages you see him as yet another "Armenian." And please STOP!!!! MAKING THIS AS AZERI VS ARMENIAN! This is again, about an organized group. Azeri members are more than welcome, who I will never welcome are Adil and Dacy and you his meatpuppet. You guys can not contribute in good faith, as you are not here for that purpouse. Misplaced Pages is not your servers, you guys have enough website for that purpouse. Fad (ix) 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand Atabek because he is really not being honest and fair, he never admits his use of sock puppets for example one of his, Tengri a confirmed sock. Another thing he's incivility towards me and other editors, . You should also see this, WP:AGF regarding me and the new editor. Artaxiad 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad/Nareklm/Micara, while sockpuppets of yours were identified and blocked, despite yourself being an aged user by the time those were caught. User:Tengri was confirmed due to using the same IP as myself within first week or two of our appearance. Obviously, it was our initial lack of experience or knowledge of Wiki regulations. Though it was never proven, and can never be proven that Tengri was myself. However, the extent of your personal attacks, insults and outright racist statements on your talk page after the blockage is well documented on the evidence page, the most grotesque among them calling AdilBaguirov, myself, Dacy69 and GrandMaster as "pan-Turkist nerds" and linking to Nazi page. I am delighted to present these and other proofs of attacks here: , , , ,. My suggestion to you, instead of writing back and getting more evidence in return, just wait until arbitrators decide. Atabek 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This level of sophistication is an issue there. You know pretty much well that you guys could "eat" members like Artaxiad like cake, and this is why I have asked such members to step out. It takes a little satisfaction in doing that. You have compared Iranism with NAZIsm, didn't you, and you're offended with being accused of a Pan-Turanist? Artaxiad is probably a teen or a young adult and some members were able to discourage him following the Ararat arev path, all this work on him was wasted when you, Adil and Dacy came and corrupted members including him. Also, sorry to decieve you, but it can be proven that you and Tengri were the same user. IP crossing, not only directional would pretty much demonstrate that(which means user one having using IP of user two, and user two having used the IP of user one). But we don't need to go there as it was clear that you were not being honnest and lacked consistancy. Here let me give an example. You say here and I quote: Khoikhoi, who gave you an assumption that Tengri and myself is the same person. He is my friend, and I did use his computer last week. But it does not mean we are the same person. But you also said: As a result my friend Tengri who used my computer about a week ago, was accused of being myself without any legitimate proof on hand. You can come clean and just admit it, but you had the occasion to come clean and you did not. In fact in all this, neither you, nor Dacy nor Adil have ever recognized having done anything wrong in all this process of edit warring and closure of articles, you guys had even the audacity to accuse me of edit warring, when I am an advocate of harsher consequences for edit warring, at least 72 hours. Fad (ix) 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That comment was made out of frustration due to the admins lack of action with regards to Atabeks remarks against me and Armenians in general. Also Adil, Dacy69, Atabek and Grandmaster have jointly vandalized and locked up Armenian articles that have nothing to do with Azeri issues. But I was unblocked so Its a new start you really try to get users blocked who are of Armenian descent, you should assume good faith. I'm not the only one who has said comments like this while blocked although I have to worry about my conduct, but I'm done here, I'm not going to argue with someone about my block because its point less, you should follow Misplaced Pages guide lines, part of Assume good faith, and also don't bite the new users. As far as I know the admin loskhin has given me a new chance and that is sufficient. Artaxiad 03:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am in difficulty to see what contribution user:Fadix has made in Wiki except groundless and numerous accusations and continuos insults. In the meantime, he does not want to see contribution of others. At least, mine was has been appreciated by several neutral editors. user:Fadix does not appologize for insults - instead he tries to justify them. He insist that he continues to do what he is doing - destructing the spirit of Misplaced Pages, denies cooperation and rejects to work together towards consensus. He wants assert his POV and jettison of others' (non-Armenian) edits. From one page he travels to another with the same set of accusations and rigid dogmatic denials of the right of Azeri editors to make contributions in Wiki. He puts watershed in Wiki - (you, Azeris, mind your pages, we care of ours) I regret that thus far nothing has been done on that. --Dacy69 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are pretty much mistaking yourself as me. I have not fingered Azeri members as Azeri members, as you Adil and Atabek have done against Armenian members. You three have come here with a single purpouse. I admit having slandered the three of you. Neither of you three, and certainly not you nor Adil are here to contribute in good faith. You guys are intelligent people and highly educated, you should really have better things to do than taking Misplaced Pages as hostage. Azeri members are more than welcome, I see them as Wikipedians as much as any other users. But you Atabek and Adil, I don't consider you three as Wikipedians, and you could be Armenians this would not change anything. You three should indefinitly be blocked from here a symbolic decision for those political groups who might decide to do the same. Under no circumstances an organized attempt to revert the apolitical stature of Misplaced Pages should be allowed. As for I having done anything positive. I have actually tutored many Armenian members to become good Wikipedians. Some of whom I have been very harsh with. In my evidence I did not justify members edit wars, misbehavings, all of you have protected eachothers and created this polarised atmosphere of Armenians vs Azeris, you have made any possible contribution between Azeri and Armenian members very difficult next to impossible. I accept the consequences of my acts and will pay the price, but will do it again, again and again. Not to say the way you are corrupting other Azeri members. Fad (ix) 21:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, this is workshop page, it's not for lengthy discussions. Kirill unblocked Artaxiad, which I think should not have been done given the fact that Artaxiad was already let free once before being caught with sockpuppet, while being a well experienced user with several months of experience to know that sockpuppeting is not good. Most importantly Artaxiad's proven actions undermine the integrity of Misplaced Pages as safe contribution environment, I am sure he will prove this with his actions once more. It's not because of personality (personalities can change with rules) but ideology that drives him, which can never change. Besides that, I don't see reason for your lengthy textual diatribe above on this page, which has no use for admins or arbitrators. I suggest moving your ad hominem to another discussion page or to evidence page and piling it all up there. Maybe someone will care to read it. Atabek 06:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You were caught with a sockpuppet too, Tengri nothing happened. Artaxiad 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich edit wars

1) Mardavich edit wars on article's where he is not a regular contributor, and in many cases has never edited the article he reverted before. This may indicate tag team reverting, reverting after being asked to revert or wikistalking. Examples: .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Also complaints from other, unrelated, users: --AdilBaguirov 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think this case deserves special attention. He also does the same on other articles (e.g. List of Iranian scientists and scholars), but these are relevent to the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute so I only posted these. NagornyKarabakhian 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose account, likely sockpuppet of Jidan. Khoikhoi 22:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tabib revert war

1) 1) Tabib revert warred in a verry abusive way. see.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, Fad (ix) 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed, Artaxiad 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If Tabib, an occasional contributor, "warred in a very abusive way", then how would you describe the way Eupator edit warred, considering that he made more reverts than anyone else? Grandmaster 11:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we are getting nowhere. Grandmaster, Tabib nearly entirly only reverted, and in support of you. Misteriously when you needed reverting and could not he would reappear out of nowhere to do the job. Just like he would come out of nowehere to vote. Fad (ix) 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So what? At the time we were the only Azeri contributors, of course he would revert in support of me, like you reverted in support of Eupator or Tigran. And he has a right to vote too, which he did. Grandmaster 07:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why it is obvious? Eupator and I, did revert various other Armenian contributors. Why is it OBVIOUS? Grandmaster that Tabib being an Azeri should edit to the version of another Azeri contributor? Tabib was not contributor, but everytime misteriously when you needed another hand, he would just come out of nowhere. HE was used as a revert account and misteriously only when you came on Misplaced Pages, not before. Fad (ix) 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Dacy69 edit war

1) Dacy69 edit warred in a verry abusive way. see.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Fad (ix) 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On my section of evidences I left comments about false accusation and forging of evidences by User:Fadix --Dacy69 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, your evidences on my forging of evidence will be taken into consideration. Nothing will justify the fact that the majority of the articles you had touched were closed and that as my evidence shows you and Adil with Atabek organised from outside of Misplaced Pages to come and take articles as hostage. When a user only engage in articles which close, there is no evidence at all that will ever justify that. Fad (ix) 00:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to propose separate sections for edit warring of various individuals, because there's a proposal that lists all people who did, and this person did not edit war more than those who propose this fact finding. In fact, Dacy69 was trying to add accurate info, which is attested by User:SilkTork, who mediated the dispute by Dacy69's request, so it is those who repeatedly removed verifiable info are to blame for page protection, i.e. User:Eupator, User:TigranTheGreat, User:Artaxiad, etc. Grandmaster 10:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actualy it is necessary, Dacy69 and Adil have not only edit warred, it is evident from the evidence page that they have just more than edit warred. Adil has closed many articles which were never closed before, Dacy69 by coordination acted as his meatpuppet. TigranTheGreat and Eupator did not close most articles they have touched. Eupator in particular has a history of editing Armenian editors who push their POV too and opposed editors such as Ararat Arev. Fad (ix) 13:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No one edit warred as much as those 2. Tigran even got protected Nakhichevan after his revert war with Aivazovsky, in addition to getting all other articles blocked because of his edit wars with different Azerbaijani users. Grandmaster 19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha! You pinpointed something interesting thank you. Yes, Tigran revert warred, and yes both Aivazovsky and Tigran revert warred one against the other. I reverted Armenian users myself. Here is a clear differences between the Armenian users here and the Azeri one. Armenian users have conflicts among themselves, they disagree with eachothers, they revert eachothers. You guys on the other hand, gang, never ever in any conflicts among you, not a single message in the talkpage of the other, but so well coordinated. You change your mind, misteriously the others change their minds. This is actually called meatpuppeting. As for the amount of revert war, we both know that no one has as high of a correlation between his presence and the closure of articles as Adil, Dacy and Atabek. And I have documented that they came here organised to take articles as hostage. This is worst than any misbehaving having been done by any users, and yet you have not ever blamed them. I did blame various Armenian contributors, you have blamed not a single Azeri contributors. Fad (ix) 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see arguments among Azeri editors you should study Azerbaijani pages related to its political leaders and human rights - just an example. As for coordination - I presented evidences how Armenian editors concerted their efforts in rv. Besides, it is easy to monitor situation from the watchlist. It has nothing to do with meatpuppeting. It is just common interests on certain subjects. (Once when was a novice, I even complained about Artaxiad how he follows me and he told that he has 400 pages in his wathclist) And again - in evidences you presented only one article was blocked after me. The rest - after Armeniana editors, including two after Eupator. So what - you are blaming me why I touched them ? It is my right and justifiable if I put well-refernced info (as for example in Urartu, Armenians and some others. I improved them which was affirmed by neutral parties. Guys who reverted me with no discussion or weak arguments - they should be blamed for closure of those articles. My or Grandmaster or someone else strongness does not depend whether we blame or not our expat editors. --Dacy69 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh Pleeeeaazzz. Can't you come with anything better than that? Armenian editors edit because you edit articles related to the Armenians. While you guys have meatpuppeted for articles which had not to do with Azerbaijan but to do with Armenians. As for organisation, there is ample evidence of coordination and organisation in my evidence page. You have yet to address those. As for your claim that only one article was closed after you irrelevent, absolutly irrelevent. Administrators lock articles because of an edit war, when they lock it means there is an edit war, and all of the articles I have cited you engaged in those edit wars. When most articles that you have edited lock, there is no way you can accuse anyone else. One, could be coincidence, two, also, three..., hmmm., 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. Try finding any other users beside Adil, you and Atabek with such a correlation between their presence and the locking of articles. Even Artaxiad does not have such a record. And this is not about watchlists either. Fad (ix) 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you who such other users are. User:Eupator and User:TigranTheGreat, plus User:Artaxiad from time to time. All the articles that got protected involved them relentlessly reverting contributions of Azeri editors. Grandmaster 06:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Show me, easy to make claims. Show me that anything major was happening before Adil returned from his Wikibrake. Show me what other editor who closed the first article he touched, the second, and the third, and the forth and the fifth etc. Don't claim, show me. Show me what Azeri article which has not to do with Armenians which was invaded before Adil came, this is not one, two, three, it is 4, 5, etc. Fad (ix) 13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Before Adil joined I was the only regular Azeri contributor. And check how many times the article about Azerbaijan was protected: . Also check the logs for such articles as Nakhichevan Nagorno-Karabakh Caucasian Albania , Urartu , etc. They all got protected many times before Adil or others joined Misplaced Pages. Grandmaster 13:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand the word "invaded" that you use. Every user has a right to edit any article he wants, and if anyone prevents him from doing so, it is a violation of WP:OWN. Grandmaster 13:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you are actually confirming what I have been saying. The logs actually show that AdilBaguirov is nothing but a disturber. Before Adil arrival Azerbaijan was last protected on March 16, 2006 because of some anonymous IPs. Then the next time it was on October 14, 2006 for edit warring. And as can be seen from the article history, not Tigran neither Eupator were edit warring, you were one of the edit warriors who caused that protection. The next protection after that was after Adil came back from his Wikibrake. It was on January when Armenian users have retaliated by joining Iranian members in editing Azerbaijan related articles. While it was wrong, it was clearly a retaliation as Armenian members were not much bothering about Azerbaijan related articles which had little to do with Armenia, when Adil, Dacy and Atabek started invading Armenian articles, it has done nothing than making the situation worst. The next lock, AdilBaguirov was involved, I don’t care if the edit was justified or not, as the main issue is not content dispute but BEHAVIOR. Now Nagorno Karabakh. Check carefully the block log yourself, beside the IPs war, see why the article why locked after the compromise version. Grandmaster I was trying to establish the CONCENSUS version which AdilBaguirov decided to reverse. You even engaged yourself reverting to his version. Check the articles history. See the recent edit warring on the content. We left that statistic OUT, you accepted to not add it back. Yet you reverted to his version after he came and decided to take once more the article as a hostage. Caucasian Albania article, I don’t see why you bring this one, some IPs and then Ararat arev, which behaviour was condemned by ME, Eupator and other Armenians, we supported his block. He was doing nothing but spamming. Urartu, the last lock before Adil returned from his Wikibrake was on May 11, 2005. Grandmaster it was locked TWO DAYS after AdilBaguirov came back from his Wikibrake. Before that the article was locked over a year and a half ago. To say the truth actually, AdilBaguirov has locked more articles then disturbers like Ararat Arev, what makes it difficult in this situation is that you are STILL supporting him and are using the “He wants to ban Azeri members” card. Dacy and Adil will never adhere to the policies; they came here for a purpose, and are using Misplaced Pages as their server. And I have never denied wanting them being blocked indefinitely. Because it is actually the only option, they could be Armenians, Persians etc., they are disturbers, along with Atabek who has done nothing than acting as Dacy meatpuppet. Also claiming that there is no many Azeri users is to not assume good faith, because you are directly implying that non-Azeri users can not contribute to the articles by adhering to the policies and guidelines. Oh and I wasn't thinking that I need to clarify what I meant by invasion. Not every users are allowed to contribute, disturbors, edit warriors, POV pushers who do nothing other than disturbing Misplaced Pages and are "ban materials" are not allowed to contribute. Invading here I meant by POV pushing. When someone goes on in Armenian articles to do nothing other than to claim the person is not Armenian, or this person, this groupe etc. are terrorists. It is called article invasion. Those edits are not done in good faith. Fad (ix) 15:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Armenian users were editing articles like Nakhichevan, Utik, Ganja, Paytakaran, etc, all those areas are located on the territory of Azerbaijan. Nakhichevan was a constant battleground for many years. Let’s look at Paytakaran. The article was stable and no edit warring was going on when Armenian users were editing it without any opposition. Of course, they presented the facts from a certain position, excluding any mention of Caucasian Albania and ignoring sources they did not like. The edit wars started when I made edits to that article, but does it mean that I am to blame? As soon as I tried to add referenced information about the connection of that territory to Caucasian Albania Armenian users started reverting all my edits, and when I was supported by other Azerbaijani editors, the article got protected twice. So you can present this as my fault, and say that Armenian users are not to blame and the article never got protected before I started editing it. However the truth is that the article was stable until someone tried to present the opposite view. This is when the Armenian users, who guarded this article started edit warring and relentlessly reverting, and you were one of them. I applied for dispute resolution despite your opposition, and your reluctance to support dispute resolution speaks for itself. The same happened in any other article that Azerbaijani users tried to edit. Those who reverted their edits violated WP:OWN and neutral mediators confirmed that Azerbaijani users only tried to add accurate info. Grandmaster 11:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am still amazed that you still don’t understand the difference. All of those articles you cite have to do with Armenians too, there is a differences between articles involving both and an article which only involve Armenians and not Azerbaijan. As for Paytakaran, Grandmaster you were clearly on the wrong, people started reverting you and removing not on the information on Albania, you did MORE than that, you even added an Azeri town name for the province and added it back. And two days ago, I have checked in Minorsky work, on page 14-15, he makes it clear that Baylakan is NOT related with Paytakaran. You were in the wrong, and check how slowly you have changed your version during the mediation, not making the same requests. You were in the wrong, can you accept that? Do you really believe that I reverted you because you have edited it? A neutral user not involved on the conflict mailed me and asked my comment on the revert war on the article. Right when I have seen you adding some Azeri term which had not to do with the province, I have reverted.

Now, coming to the more serious issue, you just again above suppose and do not assume good faith: “Of course, they presented the facts from a certain position,” Grandmaster, Paytakaran is an Armenian name, for an Armenian province, it was a specific entity, Caspiane could have its article, both relate to different periods. What you did was to add irrelevancy in that article. The problem in that case was not more that Armenian editors were having a problem with Albania, but that you had a problem with the fact that it was an Armenian Province. Check what you supported on the Khachkar article, you did just the same, you dissolved that article. Fad (ix) 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I provided tons of references that Paytakaran was part of Albania too, and they all were reverted by you, Eupator and Tigran. I provided references that Paytakaran was known later as Baylakan, you may have references stating otherwise, but you cannot suppress the info, you should include all the existing points of view, so you clearly violated the rules. And you yourself were involved in Safavid dynasty and Iranian Azerbaijan articles long before Adil joined Misplaced Pages, and both of those articles have nothing to do with Armenia. I never objected, because everyone has a right to edit any article he wants. Grandmaster 07:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You did nothing such; you have gradually changed your version, while I have been always constant. The article is about the province of Paytakaran, you knew that all along, yet you have added stuff which had NOTHING to do with it, the province of Paytakaran was never ever called Baylakan, you claimed that, and then not being able to document that, you switched for a town which was sometimes transliterated as Paytakaran. I told you that no one prevents you to create an article about the town you are referring too, neither Kaspiane, but you would just not listen, you were clearly wrong, admit it, just admit it plain and simply Grandmaster. As for Safavid Dynasty, yes I was involved on that article, which was soon after I have read a work on Iranian history, I added information according to that source, which was deleted by Tabib. I left it as if and did not engage in the mainspace. But once in a while I discussed about it. As for Iranian Azerbaijan, it was during a poll, and my opposition was based on a guideline. You wanted to call that place “Southern Azerbaijan”, and my position was that, for most readers of Misplaced Pages, Southern Azerbaijan refers to the Southern part of the republic of Azerbaijan, not Northern part of Iran. There too, I was right, as neutral editors also opposed your version basically bring my criticism. Fad (ix) 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What's ironic, is that Fadix thinks that 1) he and his possy are the only one's who can edit pages, all others are "invaders", and 2) that all "Armenian" pages have nothing to do with Azerbaijanis, whilst "Azerbaijani" pages are: "All of those articles you cite have to do with Armenians too". Indeed, the articles Armenia or Urartu or Tigranes the Great have "nothing" to do with Azerbaijanis. --AdilBaguirov 07:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Above say it all again. I’ll drink the day the Arbcom takes a decision preventing you to continue disturbing Misplaced Pages. Fad (ix) 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Such approach is a violation of WP:OWN, which holds that no one owns the articles in Misplaced Pages and everyone has a right to edit them. Grandmaster 08:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Fadix, you talked about invasion, what do you think about this voting, where the Armenian users voted in support of this article with an obvious POV title? See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Republic_of_Azerbaijan_Controversy. Do you think it was a good faith vote? Note that the article had nothing to do with Armenia, as per your claim. Grandmaster 09:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, and I don’t remember having voted there. But neutral contributors did ask to keep it, while you guys have opposed the position of neutral contributors. Udi is an example and an Admin still deleted it even though there was no consensus, just like Nagorno Karabakh war was promoted even though all of you have in mass opposed to it. And just like Atabek supported to keep the category Armenian terrorism. Fad (ix) 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of thurd party contributors voted to delete or merge it, check again. And Khachkar destruction is another good example of how the Armenian users first voted to keep the article (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khachkar destruction), and five days later renominated it for deletion (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khachkar destruction (second nomination)), which caused real amazement of third party users. Grandmaster 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

When you will stop being that prejudicial? "Armenian users" and the song goes on. Grandmaster, there is NO precendent in creating two articles about the EXACT SAME THING. But yet you ganged and opposed to its removal. The deletion is so obvious that you could even not add it in the article on what qualify as speedy delete. Fad (ix) 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Atabek edit war

1) Atabek edit warred in a verry abusive way. see.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Fad (ix) 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Artaxiad 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Opposed with counter evidence of false accusations by Fad (ix) presented at . Atabek 09:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:TigranTheGreat edit warred and trolled

1) User:TigranTheGreat has been engaged in edit warring and trolling

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Grandmaster 13:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Artaxiad Harassment and Incivility

1) In addition, to meat- and sockpuppeting already shown, User:Artaxiad (formerly User:Nareklm) was also caught with harassment/stalking and incivility , , , , . The user's contributions to Misplaced Pages are persistently disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 19:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed. --Dacy69 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this user has been engaged in edit warring, sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, harassment, incivility, deleted Azerbaijan related images (this might be not the complete list of his violations) and it is hard to find anyone who made as many violations as this person. Still he got away with everything, while many people were punished for less than half of what he's done. Grandmaster 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed. Additionally, user:Nareklm (user:Artaxiad) threatened revert wars and more of his sockpuppetry to admin Dmcdevit: "if you guys want to play this game i will to, im not stupid i know how to find these things out, and i promise you its not going to be nice rv wars will start, im not threatening but alot of us are becoming inpatient"

He also expresses his intentions to user:Fadix on 13 February: "Hmm you are right i agree, but we should learn how to fight back because that is what we are known for i have a few tactics but i can't list them here, you remember that email?" A few minutes later on the same page he openly states : "we need more hyerer here" (that is, we need more Armenian meatpuppets - Hyerer's. He also constantly harasses me and others, claiming to be government agents, government employees (? which is hardly a bad thing had it been true), affiliated with political parties (which once again is hardly a bad thing had it been true), etc. --AdilBaguirov 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I made it clear it wasn't a threat second stop reading my talk page, thats stalking. Artaxiad 21:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting how Adil, Grandmaster and Atabek accuse me of stalking when they read my talk page constantly and follow my edits in other peoples talk pages. Artaxiad 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also stop saying random false things, I never said we need more Armenian sock puppets so don't put words in my mouth. Artaxiad 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all very funny -- and who is reading my talk page as if its his bedtime reading material? Who responds, on my talk page, to a third-party, within a minute of him posting smth? No one is interested in your talk page -- everyone is only interested in your attempts to suppress information, that are counterproductive. --AdilBaguirov 23:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Who replies ? I did and?... Artaxiad 23:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Topic probation

1) All articles relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and associated geopolitical disputes are placed under probation. Any uninvolved administrator may, upon good cause shown, ban any user from editing a related page. "Related page" is subject to the administrator's discretion. If, after three months, normality has returned to this topic area, the probation may be suspended.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on a similar remedy from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming. Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is establishing a "list" of administrators empowered to ban, to reduce confusion. I think ten would be the maximum. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support, but disagree with the "list" idea. The remedy Mackensen linked from had no such idea; it is hard to arbitrary pick 10 administrators too. Misplaced Pages:Mentorship however... - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Topic probation

1.1) All articles relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and associated geopolitical disputes are placed under probation. "Related page" is subject to the administrator's discretion. An appropriate notice must first be given on the talk page. After appropriate notice has been given, any uninvolved administrator may ban any user from editing the article for good cause. If, after three months, normality has returned to this topic area, the probation may be suspended by motion at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases. Articles under probation and article bans issued must be listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is not enought I think, I believe locking the central articles for 3 months is better, changes would only be done by 3 uninvolved administrators after parties have discussed in the talkpage. The changes will be decided by those three administrators after a 2-1 agree. Fad (ix) 03:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On matters of content, admins are just normal editors, and no more authority to decide whether an edit is acceptable then any three random editors. Admins can enforce civility, and prevent disruption and edit warring, but don't (or at least should not) rule on content. Content disagreements should be taken to RFC or mediation. Thatcher131 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I was clear. Admins, I mean those experienced enought would easily know what is POV wordings. Blind probation does not work. I know of what I am talking I see what is happening. Suppose that two people are in conflict insteed of bringing this conflict in the articles mainspace, they do it in the talkpage. Probations like "you have to justify your edit" is vague. Everyone can write something and provide few sources. Then user B will revert counter justifying, then C... it does not work at all. Limit of 1 rv neither, it will encourage uses of sock, the uses of open proxies etc..., and back to square one. First thing is to settle the question of users who have done nothing than disturbing, then forcing users to use the talk page, if problem happens at least the talk page and not the mainspace will be taken as hostage. Fad (ix) 03:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Revised. The proposal is so broad that editors could feel sandbagged if they are suddenly banned from an article that is tangentially related to the conflict. Some provision for specific notice is needed. I also wonder whether this will work at all given the difficulty of finding help at WP:AE. Also, needs an enforcement provision (brief then escalating blocks, probably) Thatcher131 02:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Proposal

1) If I may propose, as a person well familiar with the roots of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, I don't think that even with all the body of reviewed evidence, ArbCom may solve the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. It has far deeper roots than Misplaced Pages. Banning of the users is not a solution either, unless those users were involved in a serious abuse of Misplaced Pages, such as harassment, libel, threats or massive external meatpuppeting with recruitment purposes. Two, three or more people will get banned, despite being contributors, and some time in future, new users will be arriving unaware of this ArbCom case on either side, and similar problems will resurface again. This is not a solution clearly.

I think the best solution would be appointing a number of independent mediators to deal with a set of troubled pages. These mediators will also cooperate with few admins for keeping the order as well as with the contributors for achieving (and enforcing the achieved) consensus. Obviously each mediator should be familiar with the content of pages. I guess even a mediation committee with 1 or 2 contributors from each side could be created and enforced.

2) Regarding Persian users Azerbaijani and Mardavich, who clearly interfered into the conflict on Armenian side, I propose restricting them altogether from creating or editing Azerbaijani- or Armenian-related pages. This may help to solve the problem as far as their involvement in this ArbCom case is concerned. I welcome short comments. Thanks. Atabek 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Banning members is the solution, Armenians or Azeris, whomever was the cause, this was not some content dispute. Armenian Azeri conflict does not justify everything that was done, taking hostage Misplaced Pages can not be justified under any circumstances. Banning is the solution!!! Mediation works when people are honest with themselves and do not think that mediation is a way to provde they are right. None of the mediation submissions were in good faith, it gave a positive result on the NK, but that was AFTER AdilBaguirov took his wikibrake. Fad (ix) 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Another point, as far as I always thought both Azerbaijani and Mardavich are Iranian Azerbaijani's. The only other Iranian Azerbaijani I have met was also very pro-Iranian. If you consider them as Persian because of their belief fine, but consider that they might be offended, so better you keep that for yourself. Also, how many articles have they edited related to this case and how many reverts they have done? If restriction should be imposed for few reverts, than having closed various article should wirth an indefinit block. Fad (ix) 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a good proposal, I proposed something similar. Indeed, all the members of both ethnic communities were involved in edit warring, Fadix tries to get rid of the most active Azeri contributors by trying to present them as a sole reason for articles getting blocked, while all those articles got protected not because of Azeri editors, but because of User:Eupator and User:TigranTheGreat, who deleted sourced info and prevented other people from editing. Tigran edit warred even with Armenian editor Aivazovsky and got the article on Nakhichevan protected, so clearly you cannot blame all the edit warring on Azerbaijani editors, Armenian editors are responsible for that more than anyone else. So in my opinion we need knowledgeable people to watch the most troubled articles on a regular basis and help resolve content disputes, as well as ensure observation of wiki rules. Grandmaster 06:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Continue seing this as an Azeri chass, good, good. For you everything is about Azeri vs Armenians. Fad (ix) 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Very bad and dangerous proposal. What you want is that a group of people control ("independent mediators" familiar with the topic), to avoid that new people that come in might begin a new dispute. Who will appoint that "mediators"? From where? MedCom's function is to mediate between people and it's always pretty busy; ArbCom, of course, not... And surely this group should have some power to regulate the article's activity, isn't it? No: let's use the institutions and policies we already have, all specialized and consensus-builded, to guard NPOV in articles and do not try to create dubiously-builded parallel systems that might even work against GNU Free Documentation License by avoiding the freedom of modifying. --Neigel von Teighen 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Indefinite ban of AdilBaguirov and Dacy69

1) The indefinite ban of AdilBaguirov and Dacy69

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Those two users along with Atabek have comploted with eachothers to invade Misplaced Pages and use it as a server for their websites. For further evidence for organisation see. and more particularly the entirity of my evidence. There could be no coincidences, and with the supplementation submitted to the Arbcom which complete it. I have documented that Adil and Dacy are here for one purpouse, and they have done noting significant other than edit warring, POV pushing. Most of the articles they have touched were closed. There can be no adequate excuses for their behavior. I urge the Arbcom to check the preceding cases they took position about. The most recent one Free Republic. Conflict of interest, Advocacy and propaganda, etc. The case here is worst. And the only reason I am not including Atabek is because Grandmaster will claim again Azeri users are in shortage, even though this is not a good reason. Fad (ix) 16:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is just an attempt to get rid of active Azerbaijani contributors, who add accurate info to the articles. It is attested by third party users, such as User:SilkTork, who mediated the dispute at Urartu: Dacy69 has provided appropriate evidence in support of his edits. I have made a comment on the talk page of Urartu explaining that Dacy69 is making appropriate edits and inviting editors to talk to me if they have concerns. Fadix calls their contribution POV pushing, however AMA mediator found no POV push in Dacy69's edits. If someone deserves a permannent ban, it is those who deleted accurate and verifiable and info and prevented others from editing the articles. Grandmaster 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A detail that Grandmaster forgets to mention about SilkTork is that the Urartu article mediation was his first one. Obviously he was trying to please both sides and didn't want to offend anybody. --Vartanm 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe that repeating that I am wanting to get rid of Azerbaijani contributors will just make evidences vanish? SilkTork was wrong, as the point was not about providing evidences, it was about if the evidences brought had any relevency with the article in question. How well I document the arrival of Vinkings in America, it has no place in the article about France. And you know that the administrator who is most involved with Urartu article had just that to say about the conflicts Adil and Dacy brought in the Urartu article with Armenian contributors; RELEVENCY! Eupator had actually undertood the whole point and wanted to remove BOTH, removing what was basically what dab was considering as irrelevent. Adil and Dacy are the official advocates of the Azerbaijani republic in the US. There are various preceding cases about that, and believe me, and mark my words on that, had the Armenian assembly of America sent Armenian scholars known as pushing the official position of the Armenian republic in Misplaced Pages, I would have been the FIRST to support you to get them banned if by pushing their POV they would have actually caused countless numbers of articles getting blocked. From his arrival to now, Adil has not moved AN INCH. You can call this a chass against Azeri editors, I don't care as I swear on everything that my intentions have noting to do with them being Azeri. When have I ever reported any Azeri members in Administrators noticeboards? But I always requested Adil blockage. Dacy69 and Adil are block material, and my evidence does not leave any reasonable doubt on that. Period. Fad (ix) 21:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and, do you remember when I placed my statment? I have specificallt said that my evidences were about Dacy, Adil and Atabek, I also said that you were like the typical Armenian who had edit warred, much like the other Azeri members. I only added you when you have started dumping every single Armenian in the conflict. And even if I knew your unusual link with Tabib, I tried preventing you to be dumped with the whole bunch. You have created this Armenian-Azeri chass, I was actually trying to prevent it. Fad (ix) 21:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, it's amazing though how you're dreaming about banning particularly Azeri users, while forgetting the Armenian users some which were involved not just in revert warring, but in harassment and massive external meatpuppeting. With yourself continuously trying to even justify your own record of personal attacks with statements like "I would do it again" , while forgetting that a violation of WP:NPA is one of the most fundamental disruptions of Misplaced Pages . Please, come into terms with reality, your proposal obviously reveals the inability to think beyond ethnic lines. The objective of ArbCom is not to find winner or loser in Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, ban AdilBaguirov, etc. and keep you at freedom of abusing the articles. It's to identify and prevent disruptions in editing, which you have clearly demonstrated among others. And please, stop writing lengthy comments to every proposal, there is a talk page for that. I have doubts the lengthy comments on Workshop page will have any contribution in ArbCom decisions. Those only make it harder to read the page.Atabek 21:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Who told you that only Azeri users should be blamed? The reason why I submitted both users for indefinitly block is not on the basis of simple edit warring. The Arbcom is aware of it. Azeri users are more than welcome, you can try making this as an Azeri chass for all I care. And this has nothing, nothing to do with finding winners and loosers. Conducts are judged on behaviors NOT on how many you block from one side and then from the other to balance stuff. The Arbcom will take a decision on conduct not ethnicity. You could accuse me of various things, yet provide any evidences that I have disturbed the mainspace of articles. That there are Azeri users or not, my behaviors on editing articles will be the same. Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk... and few edits. This is how I always worked. When I edit the main, I am very cautious on what I do, when someone revert, I talk, talk, talk. So, call my edits disruptions, I await that you document I have disrupted the mainspace of articles. Go ahead and good luck. Fad (ix) 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the users are to be blocked "not on the basis of simple edit warring", then I am not sure why you made this proposal in the first place. There is no violation you can charge solely Azeri users with (which you did despite denial), while ignoring the Armenian users with similar and more extensive warring, and with one of the users being the most extensive abuser of a variety of core Misplaced Pages policies. Disruption term is applied to editing on Misplaced Pages, not just editing "in the mainspace". Attacking a user on the talk page does not help you to come to compromise and obviously prevents a civil and healthy consensus. This also is very relevant to your attempts to "fight off" User:AdilBaguirov's addition of the table at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, citing earlier consensus. I had a similar view earlier, that consensus is "holy", but, no, it can change ]. Atabek 10:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not on the basis of simple edit warring. On the basis that most articles they have touched got protected. You refer again to Armenian editors. Check Armenian editors BEFORE December 10. Check them BEFORE Adil and Dacy69 came, check them BEFORE you come as Dacy69 meatpuppet. No one with that limited time have locked as much articles have edit warred as much. No one. No one here are from the Armenian assembly of America with affiliations on Yerevan. Do I need to continue? Do you really want me to continue? No one here are the director of an Armenian organization who openly say being at war “Against Azerbaijani propaganda” That would be revealing more information’s right? The Arbcom could ban every Armenian and Azeri members here, maybe that would be good. As the new Armenian contributors who would come will contribute just as well, while we will at least have the common Azeribaijani without any affiliation or organization. Now about your question on disruption. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, the mainspace of the articles for that encyclopedia. Unless someone is making death threats or doing nothing other than bashing people, there is nothing as distributive for Misplaced Pages than a political organization who infiltrate it with a single purposes. Fad (ix) 23:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, your attempts to associate any one of us, and myself in particular, with any political or even community organization are really comic. I wish you good luck in pursuing your conspiracy theory further, continuing the "fine" work by Artaxiad, go on. It's sad though that you're still not able to move beyond ethnic lines. For you, every active Azeri contributor in Misplaced Pages is politically motivated and works for Baku :) Indeed, not just us, all 8 million Azeris are politically motivated, and including some 800,000 Azeri refugees who lost their homes, live in shacks and wagons are also all just paid "pawns of Azeri government", and you're just a freedom fighter for justice and fairness, such as banning only Azeri contributors. I don't blame you Fadix, because your conspiracy theory is a result of the activity of those same organizations you mention, such as AAA and omitted ANCA, whose income is based on monsterizing Azeris and Turks. It's the money they collect annually that ends in the pockets of handful of corrupt bureacrats and warlords in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, while contributing nil to the degrading welfare of people residing there. Sufficient to look at "Mardakert-Hadrut highway project" (length of hardly over 50 miles), raising close to 10 million every year for 5+ years, yet still not finished... And of course, the "evil" are just those neighbors, Azeris and Turks. Anyways, without further irrelevant stuff to ArbCom, this time I have to warn you not about Harassment (your charge is just too comic to be considered real, especially with regards to myself) but about simply starting to assume a good faith. And another request, yet again, please, cut this POV, it's really not contributing to ArbCom case, just wasting more space. If you have POV, write to user spaces, and discuss it. Thanks. Atabek 11:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevency? Fad (ix) 15:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, do you think that Artaxiad, who has been involved in edit warring, harassment, sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting and almost every other possible violation of wiki rules should be permanently banned? How about User:Eupator, who did more rvs than anyone else? If for you it is not Azeri-Armenian issue, you should propose a couple of permanent bans for Armenian users as well, shouldn’t you? Or it is only users of certain ethnicity to blame for everything that gone wrong here? Grandmaster 07:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, be HONEST!!! Most of Eupator reverts were AGAINST other Armenians injecting Armenian nationalist POV!!! A great deal, in reverting Ararat Arev, ArmenianNY, various IP edits. Like the stupidities about Hayaza or other stuff. Adil reverts were done against established users. Eupator has heavily reverted Ataxiad, heavily! Eupator revert were mostly done in articles only involving Armenia and Armenians, and they were against nationalistic crap. He made cleanup against teens toying with articles. They were not reverts in conflictual articles. You on the other hand, most of your reverts were in conflictual articles. Or involving Armenians or involving Persians. Fad (ix) 15:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad should have a harsh ruling against him, I don’t know what that might be, but I have never justified any misbehaving from any Armenian members. I tried kicking Ararat Arev out from here, regardless of if he was an Armenian. I tried kicking Moosh out, the guy even called me a “whore” because of my harsh opposition against him. I tried getting Thoth out from the Armenian Genocide article because of his disruptions. I also was in a conflict with Eupator about Armenia being European or not, while I said we must stick with Geographic Europe. I have opposed and been harsh with various Armenian users. You will never find me justifying any misbehaving by others. On whatever Artaxiad should have as much as ruling as Dacy and Adil, it is a clear no. Artaxiad is some young guy, without any sophistication, we could influence him easily. He actually started behaving before Adil came in. As for Eupator, most of his contributions have nothing to do with Azerbaijan. Fad (ix) 23:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How come then that Eupator has been involved in every edit war with Azeri users? Can you show me any edit war between Azerbaijani and Armenian users, in which he took no part? He even got involved in edit wars between Azerbaijani and Iranian users. Grandmaster 09:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Check Eupator reverts before Adil came, and tell me on how much you disagree on them. He cleaned those articles of Armenian nationalistic POV, just take a look at them. Fad (ix) 15:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, yes: you never have said that "only Azeri users should be banned", but it seems as you would like it so; and your "Mediation proposal" seems to be of the same kind. I think it would be very much better that you know that ArbCom focuses on process and not results. If you seek prosecution instead of trying to propose things in favor of the article, maybe you'll be the one banned and not the others. Generally, bans are placed to people that obstaculize the process and show no interested in improving the article, but to "win" against the adversaries... --Neigel von Teighen 09:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Imaglang, believe me, there are many things you ignore, you don’t have the full story. Those are not only Azeri users, about Adil, I can tell you to google his name on the web. For Atabek and Dacy I can’t reveal anything else as this would be revealing personal information. About Tabib, you could also search his name from the web. They are an organised political group, the principal figures who actually publish the official position of the Republic of Azerbaijan in the US. They have related link with a significant number of the websites regarding Azerbaijan on the net. Do I need to place a picture there? The reason I propose them to be banned indefinitely is because they have organized outside of Misplaced Pages, to come here and take Misplaced Pages as a hostage, using it as their servers. If the Arbcom would ban every Armenian and Azeri users, this would satisfy me more than if all Armenian members were not banned and that in the same process neither Adil, Dacy and Atabek. Fad (ix) 23:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Neigel, thanks for the comment. However, "Mediation Proposal" was made by me not by Fadix, you have already voiced your opposition on that proposal above. The proposal you're commenting on is "The indefinite ban of AdilBaguirov and Dacy69" made by Fadix. Just a small correction note. Thanks. Atabek 09:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix - I live in Canada and has nothing to do with your phrase "Adil and Dacy are the official advocates of the Azerbaijani republic in the US." My IP is Canadian which was checked long ago. Adil is not working for government but on private firm, as he once told, and his believe is his personal matter - whom he supports and whom don't. it has nothing to do with a right to edit in Misplaced Pages. Your bigotry is out of any sense and proportion. You are forging facts. You are purposefully distort the situation around edit process at Urartu page. Yes, some writing had no relevancy to that article. I mean Armenian-Urartu links. Yes, I believe it has no relevancy but that nexus was put there not by me; I just put correct version of that relations. And you are telling that Eupator knew that (no relevancy) - and therefore he put a new section (when he lost his arguments in the section of Ethnic Composition) Urartu and Armenian Ethnogenesis - ?! - common, you contradict to all facts.--Dacy69 14:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dacy, Dacy, Dacy, I know you live in Canada, and I know more than that, a lot more than that. As for Urartu, I have seen the reverts he was doing after dab stepped in, and what I can say is that there is no contradiction between that and what I have been saying before. Fad (ix) 23:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, these kind of cases are almost just the same. Only the topic changes (Armenia, Creationism, Atheism, whatever). I always receive the message: "you don't know the full story". Arbitrators don't, also. Atabek, I consider this ban proposal to be related with your Medation Proposal (no, I don't accuse of being a sock/meatpuppet of Fadix; I just say your proposal reflects the same idea.). And about the ban itself: if the evidence that supports it is outside Misplaced Pages, ArbCom can't do anything with it. Sorry. --Neigel von Teighen 11:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Who told you Arbitrators don't know the full story? They are aware of it. Again, you don't know of what you are talking about. Fad (ix) 15:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Another point, I don't know if you really realise who you are defending. Did you google like I told you? Check the recent contributions by Atabek on the cathegory "Armenian terrorism" while still the proceeding of this case is continuing. Also this, regarding the Armenian genocide, using the trash from the "10 question 10 answer" from official revisionist materials. And even lies about the alleged figures I provide. AdilBaguirov already toyed with an article related to the Armenian genocide. , , , . It is only a matter of time that they will invade the articles involving the Armenian genocide, they have already voted for the deletion of the cathegory about it. Not surprising as in real life Adil has published materials denying the Armenian genocide and accusing Armenians of having exterminated 2.5 million people insteed. He also has published in Sedat Laciner newspaper, an ultra nationalist fascist. They are abusing the good intentioned members advocates on Misplaced Pages, who are already in shorate. They do not need your help believe me, find the real needy ones, I am alone against 4 organized and prepared elites, does it seem they really need you? Fad (ix) 16:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, 1) I'm defending Dacy69 and not anyone else. 2) I have surely much more experiences on arbitrations than you and I know that at certain point arbitrators don't read evidence nor follow the dispute, but see how the parties managed the process because they focus on community behaivour not in content. 3) If this "elites" don't need my help, why have they requested it on Association of Members' Advocates (AMA)? And if it was requested, I really don't see where the 4 "elites" are (another arbitration-recurrent argument, of course). --Neigel von Teighen 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

By defending Dacy you are defending Adil and Atabek. As for behavior, good, like I always said this is not a content dispute. And you are mistaken if you think Dacy has requested help in good faith. Check my evidence section and see what happened to each articles he has touched. Fad (ix) 18:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching on the sidelines this Fadix's assault here not only on myself and Dacy69, but the very intelligence of admins and third-party users. Also, in whose opinion is Sedat Laciner a "ultra nationalist fascist" (wow, what a loaded description!)? In Fadix's opinion?! That doesn't count for much, now does it? The only ultra nationalist here is you, Fadix, who despite having a possy of editors who outnumber Azerbaijani editors at least 2:1, can't deal with the facts presented, and want to eliminate competition. Which is a true adherence to Stalinism, by the way -- as the "Father of Nations" (Stalin) remarked, before starting his purges in 1937, "No person - no problem" (nyet cheloveka - nyet problemi). --AdilBaguirov 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Laciner logged an account here on Misplaced Pages and later used an exposed sock, and his contribution under his IP, all of the things he has done here suffice, like going in Jewish related articles and adding stuff relating to the Armenians from his journal. Not to say, his generalisations, just like yours, about the "poisoned" "Armenian Diaspora." As for your 2 to 1. I must have to see that, where are all those Armenian contributors -here- ? I am the only down here, had I had any supports, you know you would have not stand the slightest chance. Fad (ix) 18:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Topic "protection" procedure proposal

1) Azeri-Armenian related topics shall undergo a "protective" procedure to guarrantee WP:NPOV on them. Proposed procedure as follows:

"Related pages" will be determined at administrators' discretion.
All topic related pages shall be put under Request for Comment to bring new users to edit these articles (something this topic urgently needs).
Also, most conflictive pages (decided by ArbCom or sysops) shall be put under 1RR and/or semi-protection for a reasonable amount of time.
Any administrator shall have power to indefinitely block any attempt of POV-pushing and/or edit warring after one only warning to the conflictive user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed on behalf of User:Dacy69. Note, please that this solution is based on "institutions" (I don't know how to call them) and procedures allready existing and not ad hoc created as in the "Mediation Proposal" above. The only innovation is the building, not the blocks used. --Neigel von Teighen 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Appeal prohibition

1) The ArbCom's decision on this dispute shall not be appealable by none party having participating in it, at least for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed to ensure the conflict will not reappear for some time. --Neigel von Teighen 18:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Military occupation