From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Giovanni33 (again)[edit]


User:MONGO and the WTC[edit]


User:ProtektYaSelf, a sock of User:Neutral Good/User:BryanFromPalatine, is back[edit]

Asgardian violation of restriction[edit]

Violations of WP:HARASS[edit]

The previous 2 reports were removed from ANI by a bot after 24 hours, without any resolution. I posted this report at ANI because User:Babakexorramdin was not a subject of Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom cases. User:Babakexorramdin attempted to reveal a personal identity and falsely associate me with a different real person. A few days ago, he left an edit comment:

Although he is denying any linkage to a real person in his comment [12], but rather some ancient term, which no longer exists, I have finally contacted the alleged person linked to me, and Babakexorramdin was apparently contacting this person, accusing him of being myself, and harassing him on a regular basis via email. I have an email evidence.

I do believe User:Babakexorramdin was misled by prior SAME allegation of User:Artaxiad - [13], for which he was banned - [14]. User:Kirill Lokshin then deleted all of references to the full name of person (Javid ...) falsely associated by Artaxiad with my account. Now, over a year later, User:Babakexorramdin makes the same claim. The question is how did Babakexorramdin get information to make such claim if Artaxiad is banned and links are removed for a year now.

I am also a subject of harassment - [15] by User:VartanM and by User:Fedayee here - [16]. They previously also harassed another Azerbaijani contributor, User:Ehud Lesar, which resulted in ArbCom case, where their allegations were proven false. VartanM recently made another statement on archived ANI report [17]:

  • Atabek was not careful enough, as on several occasion he edited unlogged from University, Work and Home and made almost identical statements that were also made by the alleged identity in press briefings.

I don't know of any Wikipedia rule, where contributor must provide his identity or any other non-admin contributor (VartanM, participant of 2 ArbComs) is supposed to investigate other people's personal identity and then (falsely so) use it in his incessant edit fights. Atabek (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You said "[Javid is] some ancient term, which no longer exists". That's simply false, "Javid (جاوید)", which can be used as a verb or a noun, is a common term of endearment in Persian, Kurdish and Urdu meaning "the eternal" or " be eternal". --CreazySuit (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the essence of report, which is harassment? As I said, there is email evidence of harassment directed against both myself as well as real-life person, whose name was used to falsely associate with me. Atabek (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It has a lot to do with Babakexorramdin`s explanation...If I was more cynical, I would say you`re forum-shopping to try to drive away editors with whom you were in conflict, in order to gain an advantage. But I think you're just reading too much into Babakexorramdin's edit summery, which appears to be an innocent compliment. It's ultimately your word against Babakexorramdin's word, as emails are not verifiable, and can be manipulated. --CreazySuit (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Nothing more to do here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous claim, and with all assumptions of good faith, I doubt User:CreazySuit could serve as a neutral party in argument vs. User:Babakexorramdin. I am not forum shopping, but only seeking to remove the revision reciting someone's name, for which I will follow advise to request that from oversight. I don't know Babakexorramdin, neither have any grudges against him or had any interaction with him in order to seek his removal. Revealing someone's identity (the intent) by false association, making the person subject to harassment by email or real life is a violation and has nothing to do with intent of Wikipedia in first place. As a matter of fact, I never sought to ever seek the real life identity of VartanM, Fedayee, Artaxiad or other contributors who were engaged in edit conflicts with myself. I don't see a reason why they should be doing so. Atabek (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster and Atabek[edit]

While I am aware that the Arbcom restriction ended on April 11, I (and VartanM as well) did still respect 1RR to not spread another series of revert wars (since it seems both Grandmaster and Atabek thought they were still under restriction). But this has become out of proportion since Grandmaster and Atabek continue to revert without reading. They ignore talkpages and their justifications in them has little to do with their reverts. See Grandmaster’s last justification for example and see what has been reverted. Either Grandmaster did not read the justifications or has completely ignored on purpose what has taken me countless hours to write and explain.

First evidence that Grandmaster did not read what he has reverted is that the version to which Grandmaster has reverted is not the original version as he claims; he reverted to the version which contained Atabek’s changes of yesterday. I already explained the problem with that addition more than once.

Atabek’s added text contains this: the mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Caucasus and Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name "Turkmen" for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they "Turkised" the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan, thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris.

And this is the text from the note provided: the mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name "Turkmen" for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they "Turkised" the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris.

Note that Atabek copied word for word the author and dishonestly added the word Caucasus and removed the information in the parentheses about the former language of Azerbaijan. Atabek was already warned to not do that, to not take sections of texts from authors and incorporates them in articles as if he wrote them. He has to re-word them or place them in quotes. Besides, it was already explained that what Atabek has added is irrelevant to the article or at least he threw it in an incoherent way in an already incoherent and disorganized version. Also note Grandmaster’s justification, when the version he reverted does not even speak of the Turkmen once. Grandmaster has used a disagreement in the talkpage used as an example to work on an irrelevant argumentation to revert me, when his argument is irrelevant to the content he re-introduced. Grandmaster and Atabek continue thinking that justifying reverts is to add just text in the talkpage regardless of if it is relevent as a justification of the revert itself.

In fact, reading the article you will note that important sections have been removed from it, such as organization and context. Never did Atabek or Grandmaster justify the removal of those additions. Not once… they didn’t even bring it once in the talkpage. Once reverted is an accident, but with the number of reverts without addressing the rest of the text is not an accident. If they both had a problem with the word Turkic, they would have changed the term leaving the re-organization of the text and the new elements added there. But instead the Turkic term was used as a pretext to remove information and re-introduce redundancy and/or irrelevancy. Thanks. - Fedayee (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Fedayee just reverting, I actually added a reference to the article, which was quite relevant, claryfing historical identity of Azeris, questioned on the talk page. Fedayee first supported the reference saying "the author like the rest is basically saying what I have been saying". Then he made a revert to his own prior version, obviously not even checking that he reverted a reference which he just supported [18].
Not quite sure what exactly Fedayee is reporting at AE, when it's clear from the page history that others like User:VartanM and User:Eupator, bunch of anon IPs and User:Aynabend were involved in edits and discussions besides others reported and reporting. Atabek (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Atabek's reply is evidence that he does not read before replying, Fedayee above has shown that Atabek copied word for word from an author and introduced it in the article without presenting it as a quote, which alone warrants the revert. Secondly, Fedayee already quoted from the same author and the same work which is a clarification of the prior pages: The concept of an Azeri identity barely appears at all before 1920. [19] but regardless clarified that he does not see the relevancy.
While my and Fedayee reverts were justified, Atabek and Grandmaster in their reverts removed sources and the texts which were referenced by:
  • The Kingdom of Armenia, M. Chahin, Routledge (2001)
  • The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict Causes and Implications by Michael P. Croissant Praeger/Greenwood (1998)
  • The history and conquests of the Saracens, 6 lectures, Edward Augustus Freeman, Macillan (1876)
  • An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires by James Stuart Olson, Greenwood Press, (1994)
  • Archives Historique et Politiques, ou Recueil de Pièce Officielles, Mémoires et Morceaux Historiques, Inédits ou Peu Connus, Relatifs à L'Histoire des 18e et 19e Sciècle, Maximilian Samson Friedrich Schoell, Libraire grecque-latine, Original issu de l'Université du Michigan (1818)
  • History of Armenia by Mik'ayel Ch'amch'yants', Bishop's college press, by H. Townsend (1827)
Not once did they even justify their removal, not once did they even say anything about that content. In fact they don’t even look at what they revert and ignore what others write. VartanM (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You fail to mention that every time you and countless socks assisting you (check the history of the article) reverted the article a large chunk of sourced information was removed. I read what I reverted and I reintroduced the source that Atabek added to the article on purpose, because it was removed for no reason at all. Fedayee and VartanM are both involved in POV pushing in that article, trying to deny the existence of Azerbaijani people in the region. Instead, they promote fringe theories about existence of Turkmens from Central Asia in the region, while reliable sources were cited that Turkmens of Central Asia never lived in that area. I cited more sources on talk and moreover, I asked a person who is knowledgeable on the subject and who wrote the article Azerbaijani people to an FA standard to take a look at the dispute. However, instead of pursuing WP:DR, Fedayee chose to report me and Atabek here, obviously trying to divert attention from what is actually going on on that particular article. Grandmaster (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
And I don't understand what me and Atabek are reported for. Neither me, nor Atabek violated the 1RR limit, and both me and Atabek provided extensive comments and quotes on talk. I don't think anyone provided so many sources and comments on talk as I did, and I'm the one who asked for a third party opinion, trying to resolve the dispute peacefully. So what editing restriction have we violated? The version that I reverted contained blatant original research, such as this: The large scale Turkic migration brought also the linguistic Turkification of a number of the Muslim people in Transcaucasus such as the Shirvanis. It is attributed to a source (P. Croissant) which never even uses the word "Shirvanis", and Shirvanis were not an ethnicity, it is a regional denomination that covers all people living in the region of Shirvan (which has no relation to Armenia), including Turkic population. Turkic population could not be Turkified. It is just one example. The other sources mentioned by VartanM have no relevance to the article, as they deal with deportations of Armenians, but not with Azerbaijani Turkic population. But VartanM and Fedayee keep on reintroducing the OR claims in the article, failing to properly read all the sources quoted in much detail on talk. Grandmaster (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Grandmaster claims that he has reintroduced Atabek modifications on purpose, what I forgot to add was that he also reintroduced this edit, if he indeed did read the content he was reverting and did the reverts on purpose then he purposely left a misleading comment here to falsely justify his revert by claiming that he reverted to the original version.
Grandmaster also claims that Atabek addition was removed for no reason; again this shows that he actually did not read the talkpage, neither my reply above. Copying an author word for word without rewording it is enough reason to revert. Atabek added that content as if he was the author. This reason was given several times as one of the reasons and Grandmaster still claims that no reason was provided. It is unacceptable that editors have to repeat themselves countless time and Grandmaster reply shows that he either ignored the replies or simply did not read them. He also wonders what he did wrong and claims that him and Atabek provided several quotations and discussed. But most of the content of their reply is irrelevant to what they have reverted. Please also note that just above Grandmaster has finally criticized one element removed by the revert by criticizing the addition of one source. But Grandmaster again assumes. He assumes that Shirvani was attempted to be passed as an ethnic group, while the term was correctly redirected to an article which correctly places the Shirvani's as the Lezgi, Avars, Udis, Kriz and Tats etc.
If Grandmaster took more time to actually read and consider what others say, he would have understood why he is reported and particularly why Atabek has been reported. What Grandmaster considers relevant coming from Atabek, are actually soapboxing materials. See here this is the sort of disruption Atabek has been doing for a long time now, without any opposition. Everyone in the discussion knows that everyone including Armenians were calling them Azeri Turks or Azerbaijani during the Soviet era. Atabek is well aware that the term was not removed for anything after 1918. How is quoting something which was not even an issue relevant? Note and pay attention to why Atabek has brought this quote, it is explained by the last paragraph of his reply: Another interesting point is that already in 1979, when Azerbaijanis, Armenians and Georgians lived in peace, author was claiming that Armenians dislike Azeris and Georgians, which was a prelude to Karabakh war and occasional Armenian claims on Georgia's territorial integrity. Note the real purpose of his reply, he soapboxes the talkpage and makes it look like a reply about the Azerbaijani's, when its real purpose is to push in an irrelevant article talkpage on how Armenians dislike the Azerbaijani's and even succeedes in introducing the Georgians into the picture.
On the subject of the anon IP's. I have already explained that if those Anon IP's were really there to support me and Fedayee, they would realize that their reverts are being reverted, including by Admins and the articles are being locked to Grandmaster version as a result, they were not helping us at all. Grandmaster could not provide one revert from those anon's which were ever left there. So why does Grandmaster bother bringing those IP's every time his conduct is questioned? Like it was explained before, those who benefited most from those anon's were him and Atabek.
Grandmaster claims that I am trying to deny the existence of the Azerbaijani people from the region, the only thing I did was attempting to keep the words used in the body of scholarly publications (which Grandmaster calls it OR). And there is more, this claim that I am denying their existence is dishonest since reading the talkpage it becomes clear that neither I nor Fedayee have ever attempted to do that. It's like accusing someone who reverts the change of the term Dutch to German or Phrigian to Armenian to try to deny German or Armenian identity. It makes no sense at all, as nowhere have we denied that there were Turkic populations in the region since the 11th century, to the contrary it was us who attempted to reintroduce this, which was blindly removed.
The only positive thing Grandmaster did about the article is to request Tombseye'sopinion. Interestingly, Tombseye agrees with Meowy proposal which is a rename, something which was done when Eupator made his additions, the result of which was a revert war. See Grandmaster's reply to both Tombseye and Meowy and try to understand the relevancy with the proposal, the only relevant material is the claim that the name was introduced by the Russians long ago. Now go to the talkpage, and read it to see how this was not the case and how Grandmaster distorted the whole subject.
I and Fedayee are ready to have mediation, as previously said, under one condition, those who are found to be disruptive in this article, should accept being banned for a period of 6 months in the related articles. This condition was provided to Grandmaster in Moreschi talkpage, and both times Greandmaster refused to answer if he would accept.VartanM (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand what I am being accused of. I did not violate 1RR, and I discussed my revert. So where is violation? Editors do not get blocked here for disagreeing with your POV. I restored the quote removed from the article by Fedayee for no reason at all, it was properly attributed to the author, if it needed fixing, Fedayee could have done so, instead he chose to rv to the old POV version by Eupator and removed many references along the way. So I was absolutely right by restoring all the sources that were removed. Also, VartanM failed to explain what Shirvanis had to do with Armenia and why the quote was falsely attributed to Croissant, who never mentioned any Shirvanis. And Tombseye never agreed with Meowy's proposal, read carefully, he proposed a different title with which Meowy did not agree. I actually think that Tombseye's proposal makes sense and could be a basis for the resolution of the dispute. It is clear from the above post by Vartan that he misrepresents the situation to have the article his way and get rid of opponents by making false accusations and supporting frivolous reports on other users, who made no violations of parole whatsoever. Grandmaster (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

September 11 conspiracies[edit]


Clarification of User:Vintagekits status[edit]

September 11 arbitration[edit]


And so it begins again[edit]

TTN and notability tagging?[edit]

Immediate removal of editing privileges[edit]

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center[edit]

Thomas Basboll[edit]

Another one - Pokipsy76[edit]





Disruptive use of sources and POV/BLP violation[edit]


Unreasonably broad interpretation[edit]