User talk:Artaxerex/ Archive 1

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 09:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment
Firstly, please don't put comments on my user page, use my talk page instead. Editing other people's user pages (rather than talk pages) is considered vandalism, but I assume you were not aware of that. Secondly, I have not vandalized nor removed content from Reza Shah's page, unlike you. I merely asked for references, and I noted that due to the recent one-sided edits the article has become imbalanced and POV and thus does not meet GA criteria anymore. Shervink 10:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Reza Shah
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Reza Shah, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Rayis 17:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Note
Regarding comments such as this and this: I must remind you about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. These are two of Wikipedia's offcial policies, and they have to be followed. Thanks. Khoikhoi 03:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reza Shah research
I appreciate your avid interest in this topic! I have added a note regarding the efforts of Allied Powers against Reza Shah during WW II which I hope can steer general fact finding activities in the right direction so that we can have an accurate picture. Mehrshad123 21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of Vandalism
I am not clear on why you reverted my fix to a previously vandalized article and accused me of "vandalism" for doing this - you also said that I should use the discussion page. If you had read the discussion page you would have seen my lengthy comment on the on-going vandalism ---> Please be aware that you have violated at least two policies of Wikipedia in doing so.

Your report to WP:AIV
You recently reported User:Mershad123 to the vandalism noticeboard. I have removed this report, as it is quite clear that this is a content dispute. In the future, please refrain from reporting content disputes at the noticeboard. You may wish to try dispute resolution instead. Natalie 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Natalie. This person has a long history of sockpuppetry, Vandalism, and Personal attacks on editors as well as desciplinary action. I will proceed with filing a formal complaint on behalf of all the other editors. Mehrshad123 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

content dispute
I understand your frustration - content disputes can be very frustrating. Going through dispute resolution will probably be the easiest way to solve your problems, and will hopefully yield a better article in the long run! Natalie 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Artaxerex for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Mehrshad123 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Shervink, Mehrshad and SG Plan for a Major Vandalism
- Holy smokes! That article has gotten way out of control. My suggestion is to use the last known "good" version, and then add in any useful/NPOV information from the recent edits. What do you think? ♠ SG →Talk 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Arti.Heads Up! I've just read this piece of jem in [Talk:shervink|shervink]'s talk page. Enjoy!

Well, we could leave that article as-is for a few days while we separately create a new one at User:SG/Reza Shah. Once we make an article that is sufficiently neutral and accurate, we could move it over to the actual Reza Shah page. ♠ SG →Talk 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC) This is reaching crisis proporations - I have fixed some of the damages, but reading through it, I find that the vandalism done by "Faranbazu" and his sockpuppet accounts has been on-going for weeks and it is extensive throughout the article. I will try to contribute more time in removing the falsified, nonsensical information and references, but would appreciate help from other editors in this work. Shervin: thanks for the heads-up. You should be able to get through now. Mehrshad123 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

W A R N I N G
You have commited yet another violation of wikipedia policy in removing the Sockpuppet tag from your user page. Mehrshad123 06:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Mehrshad, I understand that you have to produce some evidence. But I may be wrong. Any how, in these types of discussion what counts are citations and references to pieer reviewed (Phew I spelled it right!) journals. As Scott mentioned the criterion is verifiability (is it the correct spelling?). In the Western tradition this together with a balanced approach are of great importance. Cheers 17:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK and apparently you are Greek using a misspelled Persian shah's name (who fought with Greece) for your account which is bizarre on its own. What exactly are you saying? That "Eastern People" are not reliable so we should believe the lies you call sources because you they are "Western"?  Using lies and Mythology as a source is not accepted here. I must say you are quite hillarious among other things. Mehrshad123 18:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked
Checkuser has determined that you have used a sockpuppet to violate the three-revert rule. Therefore, you have been blocked for 48 hours. Please read our policy on multiple accounts before you return. Heimstern Läufer 08:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For your further use of sockpuppets, your block has been extended by 3 days. Please take this time to read our policies and realize this behavior is unacceptable. -  auburn pilot  talk  08:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your message
I have a class to go to in a minute and will be back in about 1 hour and 30 minutes, at which point I will be able to look into this situation. Natalie 22:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I have taken a look at the article and at the talk page, and I don't feel like I can render any judgment in this dispute. Dispute resolution isn't really my field, and this is a more complex dispute than some. Please take a look at the options in dispute resolution for more help. Natalie 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock-auto|1=24.81.87.152|2=

Iranian pages
Please do not use western sources as main sources for writing Iranian history as you don`t want to use Iranian sources for writing western history and explaining domestic policies of western governments. There are hundreds of books and articles by Iranian scholars around and in English language. They have direct understanding of Iran. Western sources can indeed be mentioned as supplements. Most western scholars have primitive understanding of Iranian modern history and big majority of them are not even familiar with persian language. Michkins 15:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Information about Nazi ties at Reza Shah and elsewhere
Somebody has pointed out that some of the information you contributed to articles such as Reza Shah may constitute plagiarism. I'm asking you to review what you took from the sources and adequately paraphrase so that the problem is resolved. As plagiarism must be removed from articles, if you do not act ASAP this information will be removed. The Behnam 16:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will. Unfortunately, these sourced material are constantly being deleted by some editors without any valid argument or providing any reference for doing so. Please look at the comment above which asks me not to reference Western sources!!

Your edits on the Pahlavi articles
Please refrain from adding extensive controversial edits to these articles. Your edits have been discussed at length and almost all editors have disagreed with their inclusion, so please either stop adding them or try to discuss your proposed edits first. As a second remark, do not refer to other editors' edits as vandalism. This is a bad practice, please be civil and assume good faith according to the wikipedia spirit. Shervink 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from deleting sourced historical facts. If you want to dispute them, please do so and provide references. This will create NPOV tone and balances the article. Thanks Artaxerex 01:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It has already been discussed at length. Attacks directed at the subject of the article are not exactly what is meant by NPOV. In any case, after the many discussions we had and your many efforts to undermine a reasonable discussion by resorting to sockpuppetry, the burden of proof is yours, not any bode else's. Shervink 08:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that deleting of the valid references and erazing of the contribution of other editors are considered vandalism. You have consistently deleted very important references. You have also used this article to delete very important historical facts.

There should be a consensus for deleting these facts. It appears that like many of your compatriots you do not have any respect for the views of the "Other". You are more than happy to eraze the view of what you consider to be the "minority". I have news for you, You will not suceed. Artaxerex 06:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Artaxerex" I am issuing a stern warning to you to stop calling editors "vandals". You are the one that was engaged in fraud and sockpuppetry for months on, you are the one that incessantly instigates Personal Attacks against highly experienced and reputable editors, and you are the one that is committing all the vandalism in order to satisfy what is clearly a severe hatred and personal vandetta against Persians. It is quite supernatural that you have not been banned already, and seriously I am getting tired of spelling "Artaxerxes" incorrectly so that I can address you. Mehrshad123 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down
Arti, Please stop bashing other editors and making assumptions about their motives. I understand that this whole conflict may seem unreasonable to you because of the mostly baseless rejection of your additions, but your constant insults to the opposing editors are proving quite disruptive and counterproductive. Considering that real discussion has finally opened up, it is especially critical that you stop this behavior so that we can move forward with the content dispute. Please stop these insults - even if you think that your remarks are true - so that we can better resolve the dispute at the two Pahlavi articles. Thanks a lot. The Behnam 16:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your past and present behavior
Greetings. Regarding the above post by Behnam and your response here, you are accusing me of bad faith and again directing attacks at me, to speak nothing of the fact that the rest of your argument is original research. This is simply not acceptable. For the last time, I expect you to first prove your intention to act in good faith (since you have been proven to act in bad faith many times before) and your realization that your past and current behavior has been wrong. I can accept nothing short of an apology with a sincere and polite tone indicating that you realize your mistakes. Moreover, I think you should apologize to each and every user which you have insulted on that talk page for the past few months, and there have been many. Only that, combined with a consistently civil and respectful tone, will put you in a situation to be taken seriously again by me and others on those articles. Shervink 08:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Artaxerex)
Hello, Artaxerex. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Requests for comment/Artaxerex, where you may want to participate.Shervink 10:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy
At this point, there is nothing constructive about warring over the content:


 * 1) Your edits are undone immediately by others,
 * 2) With discussion open on the talk page, any further edit warring makes you look bad,
 * 3) There is no deadline on Wikipedia, and it is a crap source anyway. This information does NOT have to be on the current page all of the time.

Most of the problems that I found with you proposed inclusions were about presentation more than the actual sources you used, which is a good start. Unfortunately the attempt to discuss is distracted both by Shervink's "I'm suddenly offended" whining and your incessant edit warring over the material under discussion. As I've noticed that an RFC has been established on your conduct, it is especially important that you remain on your best behavior from now on. This means no further edit warring and no further personal attacks or incivility. The edit war isn't necessary - Wikipedia can wait - and there is no point in insulting Shervink & company (despite what you think of them) because this will not resolve the content dispute. All incivility will do is strengthen their RFC case against you.

Sometime soon I will contribute an "Outside view" to your RFC. When I do this, I hope that I will be able to say that you modified behavior along the lines that I advised. Thanks, and sorry for another lecture :-) The Behnam 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that Shervink's sudden sensitivity was counterproductive, and I am disappointed that it stalled discussion progress. Regardless of the wrongs that Shervink and company may have committed, it is important that you perform no further edit warring or incivility.  Just do that, and I'll take note of it in the RFC on your conduct, and hopefully the whole thing will collapse.  Then we can work on the complicated content dispute again.  So basically, both sides have not been acting as well as they should have, but your only responsibility is over your own conduct.  You do that, and hopefully the others will give up on trying to 'hunt' you and come back to the table over the content dispute.  Thanks again.  The Behnam 16:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Referee list
I don't think mediation has started yet on this case, so I don't think I'm actually on any referee list. In addition to yet another personal attack from Mehrshad, it seems that he has decided to oppose me acting as a mediator based on the usual vague "he is not really Iranian" whining. I'll look into some options for dealing with Mehrshad's pattern of incivility. In the meantime, we'll just have to see how this goes. I'll put up my outside view on your RFC sometime soon - right now I'm brainstorming. Regards, The Behnam 18:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Mehrshad has been a problem. I remember giving him warnings back in April, but obviously his behavior didn't shape up.  He and similar users (who generally think cais-soas is a reliable site, lol) have deemed me "not Iranian" because I don't support nationalist bullshit at every turn.  None of this changes the fact that I am half-Iranian, but what is somewhat amusing about it is that it shouldn't even matter if I am Iranian or not.  Editors don't have to be Iranian to edit Iran-related articles! Apparently they don't believe Iranians are capable of objectivity, and are surprised to meet one who is.  They also have this practice of putting my name in quotes to imply that I am someone else - this strangeness has gone on for a long time on Wikipedia. In any case their conduct amounts to harassment, and while its absurdity can be amusing I overall would like it to stop.


 * As for the other questions about RFC:


 * 1) Per WP:RFC - an RFC "can lead to binding arbitration." While my understanding is that is about a step down from an actual arbitration, based on the link it seems that it can lead to consequences for both editors.  However I haven't seen anyone acting as a real "judge" with real power at the RFC, so I think that if the RFC seems serious enough it can move to ArbCom.
 * 2) Upon moving to ArbCom, the length of a block would be decided by the Arbitrators, so it is up to them. I'm hoping that this case won't move there anyway so we shouldn't have to worry.
 * 3) Generally banned users don't see it lifted (see WP:BAN), though sometimes there are specific time lengths, after which the editor can return to editing normally. I've often seen ArbCom give ridiculously long ban lengths, such as one year.  This seems to encourage the banned users to come back under a different account sometime later (because they are impatient and one year is a long time), which in turn generates a great deal of work in trying to catch the sockpuppets.  Of course, if the ban is lifted it is expected that the user not repeat the same mistakes.
 * 4) "Wikipedia is not a democracy"... It isn't supposed to be, but often it does operate by "gang rule." Technically, content RFCs are supposed to prevent this, but they generally are not followed or are "followed" by people with the same biases.  In the end, you have to hope for neutral editors and try to get the problem editors blocked - it sounds bad, but frankly the system for blocking disruptive editors is much more effective than that of content RFCs.


 * Anyway, I've got to make some ab goosht right now, but afterwards I will make my statement on your RFC. Regards,  The Behnam 18:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added my view to the RFC. The Behnam 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks & Semitic issue
Thanks for the thanks :-). Also, on the Semitic topic, see the information at User talk:Shervink.  I didn't put it on the article talk page because I was afraid it may be off-topic, but as the nature of Iran's "stock" is quite an intriguing subject I figure that you too may be interested in reading the Iranica finding.  The Behnam 04:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Step 2
You can leave if you want to, but I'm not sure how much it will help. I interpret Step 2 as recommending disengagement so that those involved can cool down a bit, but I don't know if that is applicable with SG. I wish SG would just sit back and give you a chance but he continues to attack you on the talk page. Honestly, leaving will only delay the content dispute - everything will be the same when you come back. So its up to you if you want to take a break - the situation will probably be just about the way you left it, but a break from Wikipedia might be nice. In sum, disengagement probably won't affect the content dispute, but it may be a nice break :-). The Behnam 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration started
Greetings. Please have a look at this, since you are listed as an involved party on this request. Shervink 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification
After realizing that Vazgen didn't qualify as an "abusive" sockpuppet, I have reconsidered my ArbCom statement. Now I am preparing a pro-mediation statement instead. Just thought you'd like to know. Regards, The Behnam 01:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:RfC
I did not delete it, in fact that is not even possible. The reason you could not find it is probably because you looked at the wrong place. I archived the discussion here because that is recommended practice when you move to another method of dispute resolution, such as ArbCom. Shervink 07:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your message
I have not blocked you or threatened to block you, so I'm not sure why your messaging me about this. Natalie 00:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That wasn't any kind of verdict, just a comment on the appropriate actions in sockpuppet cases. I even prefaced the sentence by stating I wasn't familiar with the specifics of that case. Natalie 17:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 22:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. With regards to the evidence you've presented, could I recommend you try to include more diffs and make it less wordy? The arbitrators have stated that the less they have to read, the more attention they'll be able to pay (they have a lot of evidence to go through), so I think keeping what you type to a minimum and using diffs where possible, as Shervink has, is a better plan than typing paragraphs. Just a suggestion. Picaroon (t) 00:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction
Regarding this, I had nothing to do with the guy's being banned from WP. It happened long after I stopped dealing with him, when others brought the matter to the attention of ArbCom. What I said is that the behavior of such a person should hardly be considered a model for others to follow. I would just like to clarify that. Shervink 08:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Request
Can you temporarily enable email so that I can email you? I know of a past situation with similarities to yours that you may be interested in for historical reference. Regards, The Behnam 04:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex closed
The aforementioned arbitration case is closed. I regret to inform you that you have been banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. I have implemented the block. Picaroon (t) 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are now unbanned
Special K (KoЯn flakes) 09:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Socks
and have been blocked as your socks. If you carry on like this, you'll be banned again.  Ty  17:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)