User:Fadix/evidence supplement

My conduct on Paytakaran article
It is truly amazing that Grandmaster would accuse me indirectly to have edit warred when I have only edited the article once. . The article history speaks volume of what really happened there. The reason of my revert is based on the new guideline Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). I did not waste my time into reading everything he changed in the article, when right on the first line Grandmaster has added something against that guideline and he was well aware of and even contributed on its talkpage. Grandmaster reverted me by reintroducing an Azeri town name for a historic Armenian province. 

Grandmaster say I have opposed mediation, but he does not say why. Here I explained what was the problem. 

I refused mediation because at the time I didn’t even know what the conflict was about, I just reverted because of a new Wikipedia guideline I was trying to enforce. When someone add something, it is to that person to justify it, it is not my homework to after seeing something against a particular guideline to filter in that persons edit what is OK or what is not. If that user believes the rest of the edit is OK, he/she should add it back and drop the piece against that particular guideline, and not blindly revert a guideline enforcement.

Nagorno Karabakh
AdilBaguirov claims that even Golbez reverted to his version. But obviously Golbez forgot, as one of the main disruptions of AdilBaguirov on the Nagorno Karabakh article was actually adding such tables which were discussed in the mediation which involved Golbez. And AdilBaguirov actually re-added such a table after Golbez left a little and Grandmaster started an edit war at the same moment. ,, Of course AdilBaguirov helped in and even added and re-added his stuff. Which contained such a table which was long discussed. See the history of the edits starting with July 5, 2006 and so on. Here is the various times I have explained in detail why those tables are the population of Karabakh but not Nagorno Karabakh which represented 1/3 of the territory and where Armenians were concentrated. Those were the justifications of my recent revert of AdilBaguirov back to the consensus version. ,, , , , ,. It basically degenerated. ,, , ,. In this whole affair I have reverted the article. One revert on January 31, 2007. . Another one on Feb 8 one day later. . Grandmaster knew it was the consensus version, doesn’t matter as he reverted a consensus to AdilBaguirov version. Even Tabib in the past stopped re-adding those tables. I have quoted from the actual sources AdilBaguirov has quoted, see the diff. I have provided above which contradict AdilBaguirov tables itself. True, I have reverted too much, this was one of the few times I have reverted that much and I admit maybe it was excessive. But I have attempted to preserve a consensus which took months to achieve. AdilBaguirov has just recently added back the thing. And I have stopped because the only way to stop edit warring is to leave AdilBaguirov toying with the article and get his version against the consensus version, even when him himself knows that the table does NOT represent the figures of NK.

Another note, AdilBaguirov claimed he didn’t edit Nagorno Karabakh much and that I have edited it more than him. Too11 shows else as AdilBaguirov has edited the article 6 times more than I.

The RFC and InShaneee
It is amazing Grandmaster bring this RFC. Fred Bauder was one of the arbitrators in the cases involving Cool Cat, Cool Cat brought materials he already had presented on that case and was hounding me since he never accepted the arbitration ruling. Grandmaster signed the RFC knowing the most relevant accusation was not true and Grandmaster already knew that but signed it regardless. And Cool Cat removed this false statement a week after he filled the case. InShaneee signed it about a month after Cool Cat filled it as a retaliation of my comment about him. As he signed it only a little over an hour after I made that comment. Also, Grandmaster very well knows that two blocks there were imposed because he toyed with the report incidence. Those blocks were consequences of Grandmaster report while Grandmaster at that time made the same sort of uncivil comments. Example. ''Fadix, don’t look for good excuses to avoid providing sources to support your claim.... You take offence when I say that you don’t read the sources, but it’s true. ...You may continue making personal attacks to cover up your inability to back up your claims with reliable sources,..., Nice try at spin, Fadix, but I don’t claim anything. , You again present your wishes as facts. , OK, it’s time to expose your another attempt to misrepresent the information.'' But unlike him I didn’t cheap shot by reporting someone for things I do myself. Both first blocks by InShaneee should never have happened and they were clearly an abuse of his administrative privileges. And there were indeed administrators who disagreed on them. All this Grandmaster very well knows it. The third block of InShaneee was indeed valid and there was block material and I even reported my own personal attack and paid the consequences. The last block. This was what the administrator who blocked me had to say about it. 

I have been very harsh with AdilBaguirov, Atabek and Dacy69 and personally attacked them, and I already said many times I do not deny that and will accept the consequences. On the other hand I deny Grandmaster assertions that I attack people simply because they disagree with me. I attacked Atabek, Dacy69 and AdilBaguirov after they have edit warred which resulted with the locking of articles, I have attacked them only after they have started invading Armenian related articles and POV pushed. Someone respects me, can discuss, I will be more than willing to discuss peacefully with that person. That person start edits warring, refuse to listen and push his POV, and severally harm the integrity of articles and the project as an all then I am very harsh with that person and will be paying the consequence.

'''Update: Grandmaster better reads what I write than adding more false statments. I have never denied having personally attacked him. I take all the responsability. What I can say though, is that had I not attacked him, it would have done more harm. As Grandmaster was POV pushing and edit warring. I will not cross my arms while members undanger the intergrity of articles. I have also personally attacked various Armenian members, including some included in this arbitration case. They know who they are. And if Grandmaster want it really, I will add various diff. showing that I have been as harsh with some Armenian members and that I do not show the double standard he has been showing. Policies are there because they help Wikipedia, what matters above anything else are the articles and policies means nothing without them. And when articles are harmed, my action should do more good to Wikipedia than bad. When a discussion leads nowhere and that the person really is up to edit warring and does not want to listen. When that person start disrupting articles. Sorry to say, I will be VERY HARSH with that person. I will not manage my words. No personal attack and civility only works when it is question of debating in good faith and both sides are ready to make compromises and that people for a moment agree to not touch the article until compromise is made. But when everything fails and that personal attack will attract administrators there. I will attack. Policies are like laws in our society, when it is about criminal laws, common sense is all what it takes to function correctly. Sometimes it is better to not respect some laws, if what you are attempting to preserve is more important. And I have always considered that the most important thing here on Wikipedia are the articles, and I will attempt to preserve their integrity. I say that edit warring is always harmful always, because it directly harm the integrity of the articles. Personal attacks are also harmful, but sometimes it makes more harm to not personality attack someone which in this case was a disposition to stop the direct harm to an article. There is even a policy on Wikipedia which would dispence me and Grandmaster shall better be aware of it. It is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. I say that in this case, the rules indeed were preventing me to improve and maintain Wikipedia. I WILL BE HARSH, VERY HARSH with people who close articles by edit warring. On the other hand, I shall never brake the 3RR, because there is absolutly no justification beside clear vandalism to brake that rule. Edit warring can not be justified, and even though I have not justified my personal attacks, maybe now I did. Grandmaster should be able to show me that by personaly attacking those members I have done more direct harm than good on Wikipedia, just placing the policy I have broken doesn't mean much when it was to preserve a higher policy which directly affect articles(I am not talking about content dispute here). It is not surprising at all that experienced administrators are often harsh and place more importance to the article integrity than some incivility and personal attacks. I am thinking of members like El_C. El_C is one administrator who knows me very well and knows how harsh I could be. Let Arbitrators ask him if I would do anything to harm Wikipedia. That I am one of the members with the highest ratio of talk per edit in the mainspace is one evidences that I have always advocated talking, discussing. Some members are not here for that.'''

'Answer Dacy69 "speculations": As the Arbcom could check, Dacy69 indeed made various changes without first discussing them and THEN engage in edit warring. Those diff. could be checked by the Arbcom so I don't see why he is making such a false statment. The only other edits included were about his invasion of Armenian not related with Azerbaijan, and which vilified Armenians and which resulted with edit warring. Dacy69 talk about dispute resolution, as if dispute resolution was there to "prove" he is right. When someone start a dispute resolution to "prove" he is right, he is not starting a dispute resolution in good faith. Dispute resolution is about compromise, which Dacy69 time and again shown to be incapable of. When most article someone touch result in an edit warring and its protection, it speak volume of the reason why that person registered an account here.'

More, the Arbitrators might read it, though it does not directly enter in on direct evidence, Here, from my talkpage. Turks who disagree with me very much, but who do not edit war = Good relation. The denialist position has been removed apparently by some Armenian POV pushers. And this is what I have requested from Turks. ,. As an answer to another Turk who asked my opinion about what was happening at Ataturk page. . A Turk ask my opinion on Pontian genocide issue, which was a conflict between Greek and Turkish users. Here my answer, even agreeing with him. 

I even started having good relation with the Turkish user by the name Lutherian who was blocked for vandalising when he started behaving. 

Grandmaster accuse me of attacking people when they disagree with me. But again, the Arbcom is free to check the discussions I had with people. I am the one who discussed most, like I said I have by far the highest ratio of talk per edit in the mainspace. And I have opposed to various Armenians who pushed their POV. Thoth is such an example who was spamming the talkpage of the Armenian Genocide page and refusing to respect NPOV policy.

I also said to Ararat arev, the vandal, who was spewing some Armenian nationalist POV in various articles what I though of his behaviour and this before he was even considered for a block. . And my answer of his uses of sock. 

The fact of the matter is that I do not support Armenians who harm Wikipedia, I am harsh with them, unlike Grandmaster who support Azeri edit warriors and make the situation worst. When I attack someone, it is clearly because that person IS harming Wikipedia. The Arbcom can check the block log of those I have attacked. They have ALL edit warred, they have caused the closure of articles. What harm did I really cause to Wikipedia by attacking POV pushers who have damaged and harmed Wikipedia by constantly revert warring? If anything, those have reported me and started behaving THEN, by knowing administrators were watching afterward. InShaneee for example landed in the Armenian Genocide article afterward realising what was happening. I have also just recently the past months stopped requesting from Armenian users to behave when I realised that Grandmaster has done NADA, NADA, NADA to stop this situation, not only has he not dissociated himself from the three revert warriors and POV pushers, but even defended them and engaged himself in those revert wars. Am I supposed to be kind, kind with people who disrupt on such way? You will only find administrators talking about my personal attacks. Will you find any administrators having any comment about me directly disrupting articles, revert warring? No personal attack is policy, for the better of Wikipedia, it supposes that contributors are acting in good faith and that by attacking them you are making discussion more difficult and convince good intentioned people to leave. Which would harm Wikipedia. No personal attack is certainly not there to act kind kind with every vandals and revert warriors who register an account specifically for POV pushing and that the result of each articles contribution the article become a battlefield with a result of locking the article. This harms Wikipedia directly. Good intentioned people can not edit an article which is locked; those people will then leave the article and stop exchanging their knowledge. Even if later the article get unlocked good intentioned people will be afraid of touching it, because of the edit war it might generate. This is specifically WHY I have in this period of two years not contributed much in the mainspace of those articles. The Arbcom shall check Grandmaster block log, and tell themselves who has harmed Wikipedia, I or him.

'''Addressing the claim of forgering evidences presented by Dacy69:Dacy69 better check carefuly my evidences and what I do claim before presenting unsubstantiated allegations. I have not claimed they were revert wars, BUT edit wars. Revert warring and edit warring both clearly classify as article disruption. Also, Dacy69 should take carefull look at the edits in question. Introducing something which would cause edit war alone does not mean anything alone. What mean something is when most article someone touch as a consequence result with an edit war. This means a lot. What also means a lot is when some of thos articles were clearly about Armenian matters which did not fit in anyway with the Azeri-Armenian conflicts neither matters. Edit wars in such a case would better fit as POV pushing, again considered as article disruption. It would take a lot of perspicacity to time and again claiming to have done nothing wrong, when those same editors edit have caused edit wars, and that the same editors actually participated in that edit wars. True, I did not document Armenian POV pushers and edit warriors here, Grandmaster is pretty much doing the job, and not once I have defended those editors neither justified their actions. I was going to do that first. The sole responsability on turning this into a chassing of Armenians by Azeri and the chassing of Azeri by Armenians lies on Grandmaster, who soon in this case has started dumping various Armenian and Persian editors for the sole reason that they were Armenians and Persians. I would have expected this from Dacy69, AdilBaguirov and Atabek, the meatpuppets, but that Grandmaster has turned this into an Azeri vs Armenian war HERE TOO, is simply pathetic, for the lack of a better word.'''

Since we speak of it, just let take a look at the other Armenian editors, Eupator neither TigranTheGreat who did not have even the time to even placing statments here, those same editors are claimed to distrupt as much as the trio, no worst according to Grandmaster at the very least.

But, this is actually contradicted by a simple tool, here is what tool1 shows.

Number of edits.


 * 172 Tiridates I of Armenia
 * 144 Armenia
 * 81 Yerevan
 * 64 Nakhichevan
 * 64 Nagorno-Karabakh
 * 50 Armenian Genocide
 * 41 Armenians
 * 37 Orontid Dynasty
 * 37 Tigranes the Great
 * 35 History of Armenia
 * 34 Khojaly Massacre
 * 34 Urartu
 * 34 Ani
 * 31 Arsacid Dynasty of Armenia
 * 29 Bagratid dynasties

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Eupator&site=en.wikipedia.org

Now Dacy69


 * 28 Urartu
 * 13 Armenia
 * 11 Armenians
 * 11 Yerevan
 * 11 Monte Melkonian
 * 10 Udi people
 * 9 Lagich
 * 7 Cultural genocide
 * 6 Armenian Revolutionary Federation
 * 6 Nagorno-Karabakh War
 * 6 Preventive Diplomacy
 * 5 Manaf Suleymanov
 * 5 Nagorno-Karabakh
 * 5 Azerbaijan (Iran)
 * 4 Farida Mammadova

'''Dacy69 clearly invaded Armenian articles which had nothing to do with Azerbaijan or Azeris, he had invaded articles which Eupator was most active in. The articles on the top of the lists which Eupator has contributed in and which involved Azeri also involved Armenians. Eupator retaliated, not a good thing to do against the edit warrior Dacy69.'''

'''The invasion by Dacy, Adil and Atabek turned this into a war front, in which some Armenians retaliated by jumped in articles related to Azerbaijan and not much to do with Armenians. This situation has corrupted many members who before the arrival of AdilBaguirov were OK with the policies.'''

'''Also, it will be interesting that Grandmaster explains us what socks like Ararat Arev, who members like Eupator fought against too (I have yet to see Grandmaster being that harsh against disruptirs who happen to be Azeri), or this new robert. Thos guys were new members and clearly socks, THEY ARE NOT ARBITRATION MATERIALS, A SYSOFT ACTION WOULD BE ENOUGH TO FRY SUCH SOCKS OUT FROM HERE. This could do something, if the sole matter that those users are potential Armenians is enough for Grandmaster to dump them with the rest.'''

'''I am also amused to see again, that the only thing those accusing me could find is me personally attacking. And if the the Arbcom find out that those who I have attacked severaly harmed Wikipedia, by closing multiple articles, if they are indeed again, "incivilitly" say block material. Then my insignificant slanders(compared to the harms they do) against edit warriors, which I call "Wikipedia integrity vandals" a term I have coined and whould better be a policy would be placed in context. My innactions would have been clearly, CLEARLY more harmful for Wikipedia.'''

'''Those who do not recognize their actions have caused so much harm to Wikipedia, and place all the "guilt" on others here, should very harshly be prevented to do more harm. The number of articles they have touched and which closed, and many of them HAVING NEVER BEEN CLOSED BEFORE speaks VOLUME. For now, I have no time, I ask the Arbcom to wait until Friday so that they could view by themselve the new evidences I would be adding. Apparently, me the forger of evidences.'''