Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Case Opened on 18:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties[edit]

Statement by Dmcdevit[edit]

I'm making this request as a third-party initiator that has become very involved in this dispute as an administrator only. Don't be fooled by the number of parties I've attached; I'm not going overboard, here are actually more tht could have been included. This is a very wide-ranging nationalist dispute with so many participants willfully engaging in blind edit warring, personal attacks, and sockpuppetry, that resolution has become impossible. Every party here has been blocked for edit warring, incivility, or some combination of the two.

There can be no dispute resolution as long as the parties persist in WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND mentalities, endlessly reverting. Additionally, no amount of encouraging them to seek out mediation has resulted in any attempts to resolve the dispute with peaceful means. In fact, the 10 parties listed have a combined total of 13 blocks from me alone in the last month. An injunction is needed as soon as possible, and I expect to see several paroles or bans as a result of arbitration, for the parties with no capacity for working with others. I suspect with so many parties, the nature of the dispute will become obvious when they all give their statements, but I'll expand if it isn't clear. Dmcdevit·t 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the issue here is not some unresolvable nationalist dispute (the content dispute is not considered during arbitration anyway), but the actual conduct issues(edit warring and incivility) of some of these parties that make a resolution impossible at this time. That is what arbitration seeks to resolve. Dmcdevit·t 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grandmaster[edit]

I would like to respectfully disagree with some of what has been said with regard to the situation. Saying that no dispute resolution was tried is not entirely accurate, I personally initiated a dispute resolution with regard to one of the articles that are mentioned above, i.e. Paytakaran. Please see: Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/January_2007/Grandmaster It is currently underway, please check Talk:Paytakaran. Also, I initiated or supported a couple of RfCs with regard to disputed issues. [1] [2] Unfortunately, they did not generate much response. I know that some of other above mentioned people, for instance Dacy69 also tried dispute resolution procedures. Also, the disputes were mediated by wiki admins, and I would like to specifically mention Francis Tyers, who made a tremendous contribution to resolution of disputes between the parties. I would like to add that for people not familiar with our region such intense disputes may seem strange, but one has to bear in mind that the two countries were engaged in a war that took thousands of lives, and therefore the people from our region take the issues with more passion than those who were not affected by such tragedies. I don’t think that banning the current group of editors will help resolve the situation, it means that all active users representing these two countries would be banned, and those who take their place would start everything all over again. If you check Armenia-Azerbaijan related internet forums, you’ll see what I mean. Instead, I would recommend that the wiki community should be more active in monitoring such heated disputes related to this particular topic and help parties to find middle ground. My negative experience with RfCs shows that no one is really interested in what is going on these articles and some admins see the only way of resolving the problems by blocking and banning active editors. Grandmaster 12:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement. Another point I would like to mention is that Armenian users try to blame the problems on new Azerbaijani editors. Indeed, the number of Azeri editors has recently increased, and so did the number of Armenian users. It is a natural process, which will continue as many more people become aware of Wikipedia. So the number of contributors from both sides is now almost equal. This changed the situation, because previously due to numeral superiority it was much easier for Armenian users to remove edits they did not like, as they did on Paytakaran, for example. When 3 users make reverts in turn, they do not risk violating 3RR, so they took advantage of that. But now it is more difficult to do that, and their attempt to remove the info they don’t like results in an edit war with involvement of a larger number of editors. So it is not the behavior of newer Azerbaijani users, but rather the fact that Armenian users lost numerical superiority, which resulted in more edit wars. I do not think that punishing certain people will resolve the situation, because there will be more and more contributors from both sides joining Wikipedia, and this situation will repeat. I think there should be some sort of a commission or board of respected and experienced editors, who would monitor Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles and help resolve the disputes. Usually it was only Francis Tyers, who tried to mediate and resolve the disputes, but since disputes erupt on almost every article that concerns both sides, it is beyond the capacity of one person to resolve all the disputes. I think this is something that arbcom might consider, as only repressive measures will not resolve the problem. Grandmaster 16:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AdilBaguirov[edit]

The case has become complicated, in part due to so many editors involved, and in part due to shortcomings of the legal and procedural rules governing such disputes. As the rules and spirit of Wikipedia clearly states, anything that is verifiable, from authoritative source(s), and has been presented and discussed on the appropriate Talk page, has the right to be featured in an article (in this case, for example, Tigranes the Great article [3]. If someone has legitimate counter-arguments from authoritative sources, they too can go through the same procedure, present and discuss it on the Talk page, then either remove or most likely, modify/add their information to complement the other information. However, under no circumstances, should the properly cited, verifiable, truthful and properly presented and discussed information simply be constantly removed, sometimes without any explanation, and at other times, simple "because" someone just feels like it -- in contravening of all scholarly and historical sources.

This is unfortunately what happened on this particular page (for editing of which I got blocked), and despite my edits being fully presented and discussed, and using a URL reference to Encyclopedia Iranica, provided by a third-party user on the Talk page, my edit were reverted by two editors (who later also got blocked), and neither the edits were re-instated by the administrators, nor have the participants of the article's edits been warned about unacceptability of removing discussed, verifiable and authoritative information. In addition to being blocked for reinstating 3 times in a row such crucial edits (and thus, admittedly, potentially breaking the 3RR rule, at least in its loose interpretation), I also received the block first (at least 10 minutes before the other editor), and received it for a significantly longer time (72 hours versus 48 for the other editor). In justification of the block, admin Dmcdevit claimed that I didn't discuss the changes -- which means he clearly overlooked the Talk page or otherwise didn't dwell into the issue at all, as I have been presenting pages of sources since last year. In fact, admin Dmcdevit makes the same statement in regards to other pages [4], such as Stepanakert and Mamed Emin Rasulzade, despite the fact that there are pages of sources presented by users like myself, whilst the other side often doesn't present anything.

I'd like to also emphasize the following: I've been active on Wikipedia since early summer of last year, and never been blocked, despite editing the very same pages, with the very same editors involved. Often, the discussions would be heated, but nevertheless not result in blocks for anyone -- perhaps because several administrators, such as Khoikhoi, Golbez, etc., were actively participating in the discussions and thus dwelled into issues. However, in case of Dmcdevit, it is very different -- not only does he appear not to have done full research into the matter, but not having much of prior exposure to the Armenia-Azerbaijan issues, he jumped on the matter just recently, since about mid-January 2007.

So then why did I, who has been on Wikipedia long enough and has done tons of writing on many Talk pages and many edits of articles, never been blocked until last week? And suddenly, in the course of a week, I am blocked twice by Dmcdevit, in both cases for 3 days? Why? How did I suddenly become an "edit-warrior" now? Perhaps it's not me, and other editors, who have suddenly all become offenders, but a hasty decision was made?

Additionally, Dmcdevit made a coment in our private e-mail exchange (in which, I naturally appealed to him to take another, deeper, look, and unblock me) that is troublesome and threatening: "You're just going to have to sit it out. And if you're more combative afterwards, you're going to be sitting it out much more in the future." (date Feb 20, 2007 10:14 PM)

I hope Dmcdevit understands that this is not about him or me or anyone else in particular, but about the quality of the articles, which are underserved when radical decisions on blocking active editors is made in haste. Things get heated sometimes, but that doesn't mean we should all be trigger-happy. I look forward to working with Dominic in the future, but hopefully, he will use his blocking privileges only as a last resort, and instead, warn those who violate the rules and spirit of this encyclopedia and remove properly discussed and sourced verifiable facts.

Also, in my exchange of opinions with Khoikhoi, I've suggested to place a permanent semi-protection on all Azerbaijani and Armenian pages, to forever prevent IP vandals and socks from reverting and vandalizing pages -- it would help enormously, I think. --AdilBaguirov 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atabek[edit]

I am glad to see that Dmcdevit-t has taken the initiative of pursuing this problem through a dispute resolution. Though some of the blocks, whether by Dmcdevit-t or else seem to be applied rather in arbitrary or summarizing manner, it's quite understandable that administrators cannot always concentrate on a particular edit conflict on such a broad scale and cannot always be even handed.

I likewise think that both sides shall be encouraged to discuss their differences on Talk page prior to making any edits. This is effectively done by myself at Talk:March Days, Talk:Qazakh, Talk:Safavid dynasty, Talk:Musavat,Talk:Armenian Revolutionary Federation and Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. I have had encountered problems trying to invite other users to do so:

1. On March Days page, User:Aivazovsky has completely removed the entire content of the site and refused to contribute to Talk:March Days. Please, note, that this was the same content which was mediated between User:Tengri and User:Nareklm/Artaxiad, with participation of third party User:Srose. My request to provide comment and discuss the removal of several paragraphs of well referenced and balanaced material was left unanswered by User:Aivazovsky. The removal was further supported by User:Artaxiad, who earlier agreed to the same mediated version, ignoring an appeal by User:Srose regarding March Days content [[5]].
2. On Qazakh page User:Aivazovsky has published material which lacks any scholarly basis and persistently referenced a blogger, claiming him to be a Canadian scholar, and PhD. Yet he was unable to provide a single reference to journal, book or conference publication of the named reference "scholar". Sufficient evidence was presented on Talk:Qazakh by myself and several other users, yet User:Aivazovsky not only persistently disagreed, but also did not provide any strong argument thus bringing to deadlock.
3. On Azerbaijan Democratic Republic,Azerbaijan pages, User:Azerbaijani has been persistently edit warring, replacing scholarly publication references with links to freelance websites or fragments of POV opinions. He was often joined in revert wars by User:Mardavich and User:Nareklm in a coordinated fashion on this and several other pages. All three users again refused to discuss their edits on Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and Talk:Azerbaijan.
4. User:Nareklm, who was caught with a sock recently changed his username to Artaxiad, however, if we look here [[6]], we can see that User:Nareklm has used Artaxiad sock before switching, along with Nareklm username. He also had another sock called HayasaArmen.

This is while on all pages, I edited, I participated extensively in talk pages, often attacked and accused baselessly of puppetry. It's difficult to blame either Armenians or Azeris in this case, and it's immaterial who does the first revert. Actually in many times, Persian editors arbitrarily join/coordinate with the Armenian side and vice versa, but all of this is a content detail. It shall be understood, that both Armenian and Azeri people have suffered a long and bloody conflict taking thousands of lives, and with thousands of refugees on one of the sides still continuing to suffer in refugee camps. As long as this conflict is not resolved in reality, the effect of emotions on activity of a particular editor associated with either side is difficult to avoid. But arbitrary blockage, such as that applied by Dmcdevit, will not solve this problem either. Arbitrary blockage of one or the other side's contributors gives more leverage to other warriors to gain or do further reverts often expressing a gratitude to administrator for blocking "the enemy". This is the case in particular with Safavid Dynasty and March Days pages and only embitters the conflicting sides. It shall be kept in mind, that some of the editors mentioned above on either side are also valuable contributors to Wikipedia in any case, and indefinite and deliberate blockage of those will not establish peace, there will be always other new users, who may be even less qualified, joining from both ranks and having the same conflicts.

Suggestions:

1. I think the first and foremost step to solve this conflict in Wikipedia is to have an independent administrator or an arbiter who is knowledgable in contents of the disputed articles. Administrator Dmcdevit has openly stated in private correspondence that he does not claim to be "any more qualified to address the content concerns than the parties" and that the "area is not his area of expertise" (February 21, 16:43). But that's the root of the problem, that if the administrator is unfamiliar with content dispute (which is a source of the conflict), it's difficult for him/her to come up with a fair judgement instead of blocking. Administrator Khoikhoi has demonstrated some of this knowledge. But in any case, whoever that one chosen administrator is, he or she shall be the judge independent of yet agreed by both parties as more or less of a balanced expert. Both parties should have sufficient trust and ability to rely on this administrator in any administrative concern.

2. Both contributors and administrators shall stick tightly to the Wikipedia 3RR rule, which has been recently violated very often. It's important for the administrator, who is a subject matter expert, to carefully review every request and make a fair and balanced judgement.

3. Both sides should establish a committee of even number of people, with equal representation from both sides. This committee of balanced experts will be consulted with for any kind edit by other users and shall support/coordinate with the actions of the appointed independent administrator. This shall be done on any of the national or ethnic-based editing conflicts.

Thanks and I hope we will be able to achieve a fair and just resolution as well as permanent peace. Atabek 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dacy69[edit]

Well, I have reported my view about my blocking by user:Dmcdevit. Since it is another topic I will write only about it. But I am happy to provide explanation and furthet info why I believe that user:Dmcdevit blocking was unfair and double standards.

I'd like to start that it is apparant that Armenia and Azerbaijan related pages are vandalized and sometimes modified without justifications. Or there is attempt to present strict POV and to clean up pages from negative information. As for me, in most cases I have discussed my edits, supplied well-referenced information. My opponents usually deleted it. I have participated exstensively on talk pages. I have created several non-disputable (thus far) pages. Three times I made mediation offer which was not accepted by Armenian opponents - Urartu, Monte Melkonian, Armenian Revolutionary Federation and plus another on page Iranian Azerbaijan to Persian editor --User:Ali doostzadeh. Two times I filed request for assistance - [7], one is still open[8].

I'd like to touch to certain pages just to produce examples.

On page Urartu I requested Assistance, got it and resolved my dispute. (We argued about a section of Ethnic Composition) But then my opponents made another attempt to reintroduce their arguments and created another chapter (Urartu and Armenian Ethnogenesis) and for that purpose continued deleting my edits there.

On page Armenian Revolutionary Federation I made edit based on the referenced information. I wanted add more sources and more information but the page got protected. Without much discussion user Fadix insulted me 2 times [9] and threatened with edit revenge on other Wiki pages [10]. User Fedayee also insulted me, in supporting Fadix claim [11]. I filed 2 complaints about personal attacks but no measure has been taken except warning for 1st insults after which Fadix insulted a second time.

My edit on page Monte Melkonian is well-referenced. I proposed mediation offer for that page which is not accepted. I wonder why opponents, if they believe that I am wrong, don't accept mediation offer. I made explicit and informative edit summary on page Armenians.

In the course of other disputes I was insulted too (e.g. by user:Eupator. Armenian editor user:Fedayee on page ARF and Persian editor user:Ali doostzadeh on page Iranian Azerbaijan made open threat to launch edit revenge on other Wiki pages.

It is clear that such heated discussions should be mediated and managed by third impartial party. I found dmcdevit administrating is superficial and unjust.

I second Atabek proposals. Moreover, I believe that it will be useful if 2-3 admins will form a kind of board and monitor situation on Armenia and Azerbaijani related pages, will make judgements about references and facilitate dispute resolution, and definitely will block vandalism and punish insults.--Dacy69 21:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest to add some other Armenian users to that discussion user:ROOB323, User:Augustgrahl and user:Vartanm as they are deleting and reverting edits or involved in disputes.

I see that our opponents make cooments on contributors rather on the content of arbitration (pages, editing, behavior, pesonal attacks). I believe that it was checked several times - I mean accusation of sockpupetting.
I see also that admins try to disengage from the dispute. Here we are not requesting to resolve Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict but make, monitor and facilitate proper editing. And I think solution can be find in order to put an end the desruptive activity of certain editors and insults. As I mentioned 2-3 admin might facilitate the dispute resolution process in Wiki editing.

Statement by Fadix[edit]

If the Arbcom decide to hear this cases and this RfAr is accepted, the evidences I will be providing will be concentrated on user:AdilBaguirov, user:Dacy69 and user:Atabek disruption. I will be documenting that Dacy69 and Atabek are acting as meat puppets. I also request all the members involved here to be checkused, and I want to include also user:Tabib.

A little historic of the situation, so that the committee understand my position.

user:AdilBaguirov for a great amount of time has left Wikipedia. He left Wikipedia, with his last edit on July 25, 2006[12]. After months out of Wikipedia he came back on December 10 of the same year. One day after user:Dacy69 has registered and first edited Wikipedia, which was on December 9. Adil first contribution after his long vacation was on the Urartu article [13] which was basically reverts and supports of user:Dacy69 edits (done the same day, a day after he registered) on the same article. Also the same day user:Dacy69 had edited Armenia article [14], and the same day user:AdilBaguirov has edited the Armenia page in support of Dacy69 [15]. Basically, Dacy69 registers an account, a day later makes edits, when he is reverted he has been backed by Adil who for months hasn’t edited Wikipedia comes in support of him.

This doesn’t stop here; there are evidences of cohesion between members. user:Tabib after over two months of absence made his first edit on the Match Days article [16]. Reverted, 9 days later a new member has registered, user:Tengri, prepared, has started extending the March Days article with controversial materials as documentations to the previous user:Tabib edit, without any discussions. [17], [18] , [19] and so on. And has been later found that user:Tengri was a sock of user:Atabek [20] who registered on January 21, 2007, about 4 days after Tabib has reappeared.

More evidences of cohesion could be found on the Request for deletion of the Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I. As far as I could remember, Azeri editors have never been involved on that article. First Grandmaster vote, a little more than 2 hours later user:Ulvi I. another Azeri member vote, just 6 minutes after user:AdilBaguirov vote, less than an hour later Dacy69, user:Tabib less than a day later vote. [21] There is nothing wrong in voting, my evidence here is regarding the cohesion between members.

Also, what is suspicious is that user:Tabib who was the most active Azeri user in the past, and who does seem to follow what is happening here on Wikipedia has refrained himself on the last 2 edits on voting only. [22] [23]

Another evidence of cohesion can be found on the deletion of Genocide deniers’ category. Again, the point is not about them having voted, but the fact that they will be voting in Armenian related articles which they weren’t even ever related in, and the time frame in which those votes were submitted. About two hours after user:Grandmaster has voted user:Dacy69 has voted under his IP address 66.46.197.50, less than 2 hours later user:Atabek, and less than half hour later user:AdilBaguirov. [24]

In some instance cohesion has not only shown an organization in the action of various users, but also in attempting to reverse a legitimate request for deletion which would even qualify as a speedy delete. The cases I want to present is the one on Albanian-Udi which was submitted for deletion. user:Dacy69 and the rest of the members involved have opposed to the deletion of this article, even if there is already an article on Udi people and that the entirety of the article was coming from another Wikipedia article. It was deleted even though no consensus was achieved by the administrator, because it was an obvious delete material. [25]

Not to say, that user:AdilBaguirov has broken a hard reached consensus after months of negotiations, between members and two administrators on the Nagorno Karabakh article, as a result the article was locked two consecutive times and probably had user:AdilBaguirov not been blocked it would have been locked again. [26]

With those repeated cohesions and mass ganging, and being exhausted I have answered with rude comments, but have on the other hand not revert warred. But all the members with whom I have been rude have disrespected Wikipedia, disrespected various members and have engaged in disruptive actions. I won’t justify my rude comments, at times very rude comments and am ready to pay the price. On the other hand, I will maintain that being rude has given more positive result than any attempted way.

What I present in the above is just few examples of various other instances. Before concluding, I will make a last comment on what has been happening on the Armenian Revolutionary Federation article. user:Dacy69 actions there were against a general consensus on the uses of the term “terrorist” and “terrorism” in a wide range of articles such as the article about PKK. user:Dacy69 and the meat puppets have made various edits on various Armenian related articles, always in one direction, always negative materials, with dubious wording and without further discussion. Had they been done in good faith, we could have expected those same members working on Azeri related articles which are much more biased. For instance, there is no reference to Heydar Aliev article about his mafia and the organized crime in which he was involved in. In short, when user:AdilBaguirov came back after his vacation, he has brought with him other members who would go on meat puppeting and vilifying Armenian related articles, this is what brought all the edit warrings, there was some relative peace before that. user:Parishan, he isn’t involved, user:Grandmaster isn’t more than the Armenian members involved, but definitely user:Atabek, who by now I am starting to suspect being user:Tabib. user:Dacy69 and user:AdilBaguirov have done not much good here, they have in their account various articles which they were able to successfully lock. user:Artaxiad uses of a sock haven’t helped either, neither his request to change his name on the middle of a conflict. (ix) 03:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ulvi I.[edit]

I've been reading this arbitration for a while. It is very sad personally for me to see the result of personal and ethnic bias reaching this level. I hope this issue will be solved soon and each of us will be more reasonable to facts and acceptance of truth. One sad example is page Paytakaran, where even when Armenia's own historical sources on the region are brought, our opponents don't want to accept them. My name is mentioned here by Fadix as editing page 2 hours of earlier than someone and preceding 6 minutes someone else. I have to bring into your attention, dear Fadix, that Adil and I live in different continents. Plus to that, I think I have chose wrong time zone, instead of -3 hours GMT, I have chosen +3 hours. So picking on actions of me and Adil based on any minute or hour difference is a nonsense. --Ulvi I. 19:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Artaxiad[edit]

I personally hope this ends its getting old and annoying, I can see why Adil, Dacy and Atabek follow these certain patters they all follow adils theories online, possibly all of them are his accomplices or they obviously revert together, please see [27] these users are trying to poison Wikipedia with false nationalist theories. Scan through the news article, that is why this edit war is happening for most of these theories they have published on the site. Another thing for example on Monte Melkonian Dacy keeps on want to add that he was a terrorist why is this? to make him look bad he was a great commander in the Nagorno-Karabakh War leading 3,000 men against them and he succeed, which he wants to make that person look as bad as possible, because regarding the situation in Karabakh Adil is highly disruptive in that stage so obviously Dacy is here to help Adil revert, Adil is in Turkish news alot with his theories regarding Karabakh possible a government worker. Not to mention identical additions on Urartu, please see, [28] and [29] Artaxiad 08:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Armenian claims of alleged genocide and its constant campaign around the world (this is despite the fact that Armenians massacred an estimated up to 2.5 million Turks" Possible Anti-Armenian, [30]
  • This may seem content-related but I just wanted to outline a detail. User Artaxiad above said "Dacy keeps on want to add that he (Monte Melkonian) was a terrorist, why is this?" -- The answer: Monte Melkonian was a member and one of the main leaders of ASALA - Armenian Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia, which was considered as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Below are some links in reference.
* [U.S. State Department Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1997]
* [U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing October 8, 1997]
* [US Department of State Daily Press Briefing #190, Monday, December 23, 1991]
Thanks. Atabek 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC), P.S. The comment itemized right above this is not from me.[reply]
  • Umm dude you don't get it do you, whats the talk page for?! this is my section. Not to mention all these Azeri editors listed here cause trouble on Russian Wikipedia also, edit wars. Artaxiad 23:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fedayee[edit]

I would like to second the statement that user:Dacy69, user:Atabek and user:AdilBaguirov have been meatpuppeting. I would like to mention that there had been relative peace before the new year but since the return/membership of some users, the tensions have escalated, notably during the recent FAC of the article Nagorno-Karabakh war (which has been listed as FA now). User:Dacy69, user:Atabek and user:AdilBaguirov's negative editing has disrupted numerous Armenian related articles, from the 3000 year old Urartu to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation article which I have been working on with relative peace for a few months now. I have also asked for a peer review and 3rd person NPOV advice which has been responded to, but before I could work on it some more, the entire article became locked because of one sentence on Nagorno-Karabakh (which can now be taken care of) and constant attempts by user:Dacy69 and user:Atabek to add various statements about terrorism, not to mention user:AdilBaguirov who at one point participated in the revert war and tried to ignite a huge flame between Armenians and Azeris by saying the following during a revert: (actually Karabakh is an irrelevant topic on ARF page, it's a disputed territory, and there are several pages devoted to it.) [31] I see this statement as an attempt to completely enrage both sides and show to what extent this user will go to disrupt. user:Dacy69 also once tried to link Osama Bin Laden to Armenia which is a ridiculous attempt to vilify the Armenians [32]. It is hard to work and keep your cool knowing that Armenia and Azerbaijan went through a war just a few years ago. It is frustrating when comments by user:AdilBaguirov that generalize all Armenians as Turkic hating people are used as a possible attempt to ignite tensions between Turks and Armenians, which is already emotional due to the Armenian Genocide. [33]. - Fedayee 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aivazovsky[edit]

I haven't read all the statements listed here, but there are a few things that I wish to write about regarding the Armenian-Azeri dispute on Wikipedia. First, I am frustrated with the lack of attention that our problems get with Wikipedia administrators. Only a few admins have shown a willingness to become involved and help us. I don't believe that blocking most of the Armenian and Azeri users involved in this really helped anything. Second, although I can discuss issues with Azeri users such as User:Grandmaster and come to eventual compromises, I find it difficult to deal with User:Dacy69, User:Atabek and especially User:AdilBaguirov. All of these users do not wish to compromise unless all of their contributions are accepted, whether POV or not. They attempt to achieve this by tactics such as intimidation and pressuring other users to accept their points of view. Adil also pushes for his own original research to be included in the article even if it isn't backed up by any other sources [34]

Like others have pointed out earlier, there was relative peace until the arrival (or rearrival) of these users. It seems that most conveniently began contributing after the Hrant Dink ordeal had settled. Seeing that, for once, Armenian and Turkish editors were beginning to have reasonably good relations, they decided to cause problems for us. They began making disruptive edits and revisions to several Armenian articles and attacked articles such as Nakhichevan where a delicate Armenian-Azeri compromise was in place. Since their arrival, tensions have escalated to the greatest height since the failure of the Rambouillet talks on Karabakh. Aside from causing these disruptions though, it became apparent that part of their goal was to re-ignite Turkish-Armenian tensions. This was could be seen when they generalized us as expansionist (claiming that Armenia had claims to Turkey and Georgia) [35] and as Turkic-hating people [36]. At the same time, my credibility has been personally attacked by Adil Baguirov [37]. It should be noted that Adil has also gotten into fights with administrators such as User:Golbez. He also clutters talk pages by restating earlier information where a resolution had already been applied to. See this archive to see what I mean: [38]

Another issue that I had with Adil was on the Nakhichevan article where he insisted on including a reference to an HETQ piece that supposedly confirmed that the Armenians destroyed their own khachkars in Nakhichevan. However, the stones that were discussed in the article were not khachkars and nowhere does it back up Adil's assertion. Initally, I hastily agreed with Adil to include the HETQ reference in the article to prevent another major Armenian-Azeri dispute from emerging (Shah Abbas' deportations was the major issue at the time). However, as I looked over the situation again, I reversed my position and challenged Adil. Needless to say, he was unable back up his argument. See my full discussion with him on the dispute here [39] and [40]. Even after this, though, Adil continued to try and squeeze the HETQ reference in the article [41]. He also continued to insist that the Orontid dynasty of Armenia was Persian while at the same time changing the Nakhichevan history section's opening line, "according to Armenian tradition" to "according to the local tradition." [42] Adil also acted similiarly on the Tigranes the Great article insisting that Tigranes was not Armenian but Persian, even though many sources debunk his theory. [43] Note how he also accuses us of "suppressing information" as if we're the KGB or something. His goal seems to be to place the Armenian national identity into doubt as many historians and journalists have done with the Azerbaijani national identity.

My frustration with these three users and the lack of action by administrators against them nearly led me to leave Wikipedia earlier this week. -- Aivazovsky 00:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mardavich[edit]

User:Grandmaster has added me to list of parties, but I don't believe I am involved enough in the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute to be a party to this ArbCom. I am an Azerbaijani myself, but I only made a handful of edits to a couple of Armenia-Azerbaijan-related pages against my own ethnic POV. Contrary to the claims of User:Grandmaster in his statement [44], I did contribute to the talk pages of the couple of Armenia-Azerbaijan-related pages I edited [45][46], and my edits were fully explained and compatible with Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPA [47] and WP:NPOV [48]. --Mardavich 03:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ROOB323[edit]

Just for the record, first of all I want to say to User:Grandmaster that I was never warned by any admin in my talk page. Now getting to the main point, this edit war started a few weeks ago, but before it was peaceful and there were some understanding between different users on Armenian-Azerbaijani articles. This peace lasted until this two users came along User:Atabek and User:AdilBaguirov who kept adding their nationalist theories on many articles realting to Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is very difficult to deal with this two users User:Atabek and User:AdilBaguirov since they don't accpet anything that does not match with their views. Although there were some conflicts with User:Grandmaster, but eventually we were able to come a compromise because unlike User:Atabek and User:AdilBaguirov, it was easy to get involved in a discussions with Grandmaster. Those two users sometimes tried to force their views with telling lies that their version is "discussed version with compromise wording reverting it is not the option" [49], but if you look at the discussion page, there was still no compormoise. They try to achive their goals by pressuring other users to accept their points of view. Also User:AdilBaguirov in this page [50] violated the 3RR and accusing me of vandalising the page, just because his views did not match with the vies of mine and I was only reverting to an older version which was there before until a comprimise could be made. Unless this two users stop ignoring everything that an Armenian users add or say and only adding their nationalist theories, it will continue and reach nowehre. ROOB323 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: User:Grandmaster [51] thats not a warning, thats an advice just so you know. I am really starting to get tierd of your false claims on me. You need to stop because if it continues this way. When you keep presenting false information than its going to get more complicated. You also accused me of coordination with banned user by saying "coordination of your rv activty with banned user" [52] but you don't even have a prove of that.

Another point I want to make is that User:Grandmaster doesn't even read what he is reverting as long as he sees that an Armenian user has added information he blindly removes it without even examining and reading the content just like in this article History of Nagorno-Karabakh [53] I did some re-arrangements and spell checks and improved the article, but it was reverted back by User:Grandmaster without even reading. If you look at the differences you would notice that. Like you said Grandmaseter that it is very annoying when you put a lot of effort to it and contribute and someone comes and reverts it back to their own views, is not a good thing and you do the same kind of things. ROOB323 04:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Azerbaijani[edit]

Grandmaster claims that I have been involved in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict here on Wikipedia, however, my contributions show that I have stayed out of this whole dispute and have only edited Iran related articles. Grandmaster only brings up two articles as proof that I was involved in the conflict, yet both of those articles are Iran related as well and I had only made one edit on each. I do not know what this is all about, I did not want to get involved, and I made sure to stay out of it. I do not belong on this arbcom as I have not been involved in the dispute between the Armenians and Azerbaijani's. I have made sure to be involved in Iran related articles only, and not get myself into this whole dispute between the Armenians and Azerbaijani's. I do not belong on this arbcom. Thanks.Azerbaijani 16:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by Aivazovsky[edit]

I think I should bring to the attention of the administrators here on Wikipedia the Qazakh article. It's the perfect example of an article in desperate need of administrator mediation, but has failed to gain anything so far. I'm the only Armenian editor on here defending my position and I'm being bullied by a group of Azeri editors to accept their POV. -- Aivazovsky 00:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vartanm[edit]

I joined Wikipedia in January, 2007, after I saw the long list of articles to be created in WikiProject Armenia. To better myself and to understand how Wikipedia worked, I started reading the talk pages. Soon after I "met" AdilBaguirov, Dacy69 and Atabek. These three users were all over the place, POV pushing, edit warring and vandalizing. Every article they edited was in negative form. Not a single positive thing was said about Armenia or Armenians. None of the Armenian kings were Armenian. I never initiated the aggression only responded to it. I was insulted twice by AdilBaguirov, harrased by Atabek and pushed to revert war with Dacy69. Posted by Vartanm at 04:12, 14 March 2007

I am taking a short break from Wikipedia, therefor I won't be able to defend myself. I really hope this incident is over when I comeback. --Vartanm 21:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Augustgrahl[edit]

I have been indicted in this conflict by AdilBaguirov, apparently after I removed his edit on the Maraghar Massacre page which characterized Caroline Cox as a "quest of Armenian seperatists." I have subsequently contacted him about the edit and requested that more neutral wording be used. Overall, I have not been following the conflict between Armenian and Azeri users closely, and the only other conflict I have come into was with Cool Cat over whether external links to the notoriously hateful and racist site www.talearmeniantale.com should be included in an article. I have no specific grievances against any other users, with the exception of Patriot77, who, along with several likely sockpuppets, vandalized the Khojaly Massacre article enough to have it semi-protected by an administrator and himself banned for a period of 24 hours. -- Augustgrahl 01:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cool Cat[edit]

I do not understand why my username has been mentioned on this arbitration case on a number of occasions. -- Cat chi? 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/1/1/0)[edit]

  • Recuse since I blocked some of the parties recently. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; I don't believe any possible outcome of arbitration would improve the project here. This is fundamentally a long-standing historical dispute between two national groups that happen to be represented here by particular editors, rather than a dispute between those editors per se; nothing we can do will resolve the underlying issue (as it's a function of real-world circumstances beyond our control), and simply divesting the articles of all their experienced editors won't actually help matters. Kirill Lokshin 13:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to examine behavior issues. This kind of disruption simply is not acceptable. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Kirill is probably right; the underlying issue will not be solved with arbitration on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is being disrupted by this, and we can and should put an end to that. Essjay (Talk) 04:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, this is what we do. Fred Bauder 06:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Though Kirill is right that we can't solve the Azeri-Armenian tensions here, we also can't solve the India-Pakistan tensions, the Alternative Medicine-Quackbusters tensions, the Free Republic-Democratic Underground tensions... What we can do is stop people from acting out these tensions in ways that are disruptive to Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept; concur with Jpgordon here. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept FloNight 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction[edit]

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

Passed 4 to 0 at 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC); all parties have been notified

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles[edit]

Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]

1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Passed 11-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox[edit]

2) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited.

Passed 11-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment[edit]

3.1) Use of Wikipedia to harass other editors is prohibited. Harassment is an ongoing pattern of participation with no legitimate editorial purpose that intimidates another user or seeks to drive another user away from the project.

Passed 10-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets[edit]

4) Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppets.

Passed 11-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy[edit]

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Passed 11-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

6) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.

Passed 11-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Context[edit]

1) The parties have engaged in a number of different disputes centered around articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as a wide variety of related topics.

Passed 10-0 with one abstention at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

AdilBaguirov[edit]

2) AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of disruptive editing that includes edit-warring ([54], [55], [56], [57]), attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ([58], [59]), sockpuppetry ([60], [61]), and personal attacks ([62]).

Passed 10-0 with one abstention at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky[edit]

3) Aivazovsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([63], [64]).

Passed 8-0 with two abstentions at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad[edit]

4) 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 a history of disruptive editing that includes edit-warring ([65], [66]), harassment ([67], [68]), sockpuppetry ([69]), attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ([70], [71]), threats ([72]), and personal attacks ([73]).

Passed 9-0 with one abstention at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Atabek[edit]

5.1) Atabek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([74], [75]) and sockpuppetry ([76]).

Passed 8-0 with two abstentions at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani[edit]

6) Azerbaijani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([77], [78], [79]).

Passed 9-0 with one abstention at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69[edit]

7) Dacy69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([80], [81], [82]).

Passed 9-0 with one abstention at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Eupator[edit]

8.1) Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([83], [84], [85]).

Passed 8-1 with one abstention at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fadix[edit]

9) Fadix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of disruptive editing that includes harassment ([86], [87], [88]), attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ([89]), and personal attacks ([90], [91], [92]).

Passed 8-0 with one abstention at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee[edit]

10.1) Fedayee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([93]).

Passed 9-0 with one abstention at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster[edit]

11) Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([94]).

Passed 8-0 with one abstention at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

ROOB323[edit]

14) ROOB323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of disruptive editing that includes edit-warring ([95], [96]) and personal attacks ([97]).

Passed 9-0 with one abstention at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

TigranTheGreat[edit]

15) TigranTheGreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([98]).

Passed 9-0 with one abstention at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Elsanaturk[edit]

16) Elsanaturk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([99], [100]).

Passed 8-0 with one abstention at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

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.

AdilBaguirov banned[edit]

1) AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 10-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky placed on revert parole[edit]

2) Aivazovsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Passed 10-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad banned[edit]

3) Artaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 10-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Atabek placed on revert parole[edit]

4.1) Atabek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Passed 9-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani placed on revert parole[edit]

5) Azerbaijani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Passed 10-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that User:Azerbaijani is renamed to User:Hajji Piruz as of 5 June 2007. Newyorkbrad 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Dacy69 placed on revert parole[edit]

6) Dacy69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Passed 10-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Eupator placed on revert parole[edit]

7.1) Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Passed 8-1 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fadix banned[edit]

8) Fadix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 9-1 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee placed on revert parole[edit]

9.1) Fedayee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Passed 9-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster placed on revert parole[edit]

10) Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Passed 9-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

ROOB323 placed on revert parole[edit]

13.1) ROOB323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Passed 9-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

ROOB323 placed on civility parole[edit]

13.2) ROOB323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Passed 9-1 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

TigranTheGreat placed on revert parole[edit]

14) TigranTheGreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Passed 10-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Elsanaturk placed on revert parole[edit]

15) Elsanaturk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Passed 10-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Violations of paroles imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 8-0 at 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement Log[edit]

Log of blocks and bans[edit]

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Blocks for violation of the temporary injunction[edit]

Blocks to implement bans[edit]

User:Fadix, User:AdilBaguirov and User:Artaxiad blocked for one year to implement ban. Thatcher131 01:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad

Fadix's ban reset due to use of sockpuppet account Anatolmethanol. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks for violation of revert parole[edit]

Clarification notes

1) The revert paroles apply to all articles, not just articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan.

2) Blocks made for violations of the temporary injunction count toward the 5 block threshold in the "Enforcement by block" provision above.

Paul August ☎ 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan&oldid=1142571858"