Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Artexerex

 * The group is again deleting sourced materials just because they were contributed by Artaxerex. Please see here
 * * has started again an edit war calling this ArbCom irrelevant here

Vandalism and Deleting sourced materials by Shervink and his group

 * Here are only some of the sourced materials that this group has deleted repeatedly claiming that they are unreliable. (They use their majority to supress these sources but they never provide any sources themselves.)

1.	Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, Knopf, p. 23 2.	Richard W. Cottam, Nationalism in Iran, University of Pittsburgh Press, p 84 3.	Parsons, Anthony. (The British ambassador to Iran) The Pride and the Fall: Iran 1974-1979. London: Jonathan Cape, 1984. p.7 4.	Ernst Bernard Hass, Nationalism, Liberalism, and Progress, Vol.2 “The Dismal Fate of New Nations”, 1997, Cornell University Press, Chapter 2, p.55 5.	Fred Halliday, Iran; Dictatorship and Development, Penguin 6.	Trita Parsi, Treacherous Triangle--The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States (Yale University Press, 2007) 7.	Trita Parsi, Whither the Persian-Jewish alliance? BitterLemons, Middle East Roundtable, December 16, 2004 Edition 44 Volume 2 8.	Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Mission for my Country, London, 1961, page 173 9.	W. Andrew Terrill, Regional Fears of Western Primacy and the Future of U.S. Middle Eastern Basing Policy, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, December 2006 10.	Bob Feldman; IRAN: A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF A WASHINGTON TARGET, TOWARDS FREEDOM Friday, 16 February 2007 11.	Shahin Ayazi, Identity Crisis, International Relations Journal, SFSU, Spring 2003, p56 12.	Nobody Influences Me, TIME, Monday December 10, 1979 13.	The New York Times, October 12, 1971, 39:2 14.	Edwin Black Holocaust nothing new in Iran: Ties to Hitler led to plots against British and Jews, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, January 8, 2006 15.	Arthur Goldschmidt, A Concise History of the Middle East, 2001, Westview Press, p.229-30 16.	Asghar Fathi, Ed. Women and the Family in Iran, 1985, Leiden, E.G. Brill 17.	Two videos of an interview by Mike Wallace of the CBS, with the Shah and. 18.	A Swisse TV video that provides evidence from Shah's own words on the existence of sophisticated methods of torture, it shows documents related to the Amnesty International estimate of up to 100,000 political prisoners and talk about 75 executions per year by his regime. . 19.	Despite Shoah denial, Iran worked with Nazis, Washington Jewish Week, Monday, January 16, 2006 20.	Kenneth R. Timmerman in his book Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on AmericaCrown Forum; 1st edition (October 21, 2003 21.	Iraj Isaac Rahmim, Where the Shah went alone: meditations on a life under tyranny, Reason, July, 2003 22.	Younes Parsa Benab,The origin and development of imperialist contention in Iran; 1884-1921: part III, A case study in under development and dependency
 * Here is one example of the logic shervink uses in order to dismisses an important evidence -- in this case a quote from the US ambassador to Iran Julius Holmes (please note that he has laso dismissed quotes from the books published by the ambassadors Sullivan of the US and Parsons of the UK.) :
 * There is no question that there are many interesting quotes by many people regarding the Shah. But there is nothing in particular about this quote or the person (who was ambassador to Iran in 1955 and 1961-1965, which is long before the revolution) which makes it important enough to be put in the lead, or even in the article itself. If we decide to include a quote by a relative outsider such as him then we should include probably tens of others as well since there are people who knew the Shah a lot better than Holmes. In other words, the inclusion of this quote would be putting undue weight on this certain point of view. In any case, using such a quote and then making major conclusions about the revolution itself is definitely original research. For these reasons I think that this quote does not belong in the article.
 * Please note that this group at numerous occasions has suggested that Western sources are biased and I should use only Persian sources (which also they supress if it is balancing their POVs).

Pro_Aryan, and anti_Semitic statements

 * * Shervink and his group repeatedly have deleted any sourced material that refers to the pro-Nazi attitudes of Pahlavies. They have also deleted materials related to the Shah's disparaging remarks against women in his interviews with Oriana Fallaci and Barbara Walters (In fact, they do not allow any balancing of the extremely positive POVs in the Pahlavies articles).
 * Here is an exchange between Behnam and Rayis on the attitude of the Shah vis-à-vis Jews
 * ''In fact we should mention his belief in Jewish control in the article somewhere. The Behnam 07:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Go right a head, that's hardly a secret in today's world --Rayis 10:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess I just never knew that about him. The Behnam 12:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you saying that you think that Jewish control is not a secret? Or that it is simply not secret that he believed in Jewish control? The Behnam 13:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)''


 * Here is shervink attacking kurds who may consider themselves closer to Jews or Arabs and not Iranians:
 * shervink wrote here  "I have no problem at all with the fact that Kurds have their own culture, language, music, dance, etc. In fact, that's truly beautiful. What I have a problem with is that some of these editors deny their ancient ties with the people around them, most importantly the other Iranians, going as far as speculating whether they are more related to jews and arabs rather than Iranians!" )


 * Shervink's pro_Aryan views can be acertained from here where he writes  to Behnam an editor/(admin?) to explain why he believes "Iranians are Aryans". Behnam's response to him here is very interesting:,I have written to him here.


 * Despite overwhelming evidence of Reza Shah's pro_Nazi policies (a fact that caused him to be ousted by the British forces from Iran) shervink argues his policies was not anti-Semitic. When confronted with evidence that Reza Shah's facination with fascism, he call's it the Allied propaganda in WWII!!


 * I am also offended by Shervink's remarks that “Iranians are not Semitic” as well as his other pro_aryan_culture statements. For example, I have quoted the seminal book by Richard Cottam about the Shah's use of the title Light of the Aryans as a manipulation of a symbol to exert fascist racial sentiments. Shervink supressed it. I offered other evidences by Professor Ayazi and ambassador Parsons of the UK, he rejected it. He sees no racial significance in that Title.
 * The other editors in his group such a Mehrshad123, and SG (as well as a number of other meat puppets) are also very vocal about such matters. However, they mostly resort to name callings and  lack the level of sophistication that Shervink and Rayis exhibit.

Evidence excluding anti_women statements by the Shah

 * Here is an exchange with Melca where Rayis removes  the following quotation  of Shah’s against women cited in Oriana Fallaci ‘s book;
 * On the role of women: Women are important in a man’s life only if they’re beautiful and charming and keep their femininity and ... this business of feminism, for instance. What do these feminists want? What do you want? You say equality. Oh! I don’t want to seem rude, but.. you’re equal in the eyes of the law but not, excuse my saying so, in ability ... You've never produced a Michelangelo or a Bach. You've never even produced a great chef. And if you talk to me about opportunity, all I can say is, Are you joking? Have you ever lacked the opportunity to give history a great chef? You've produced nothing great, nothing! … You're schemers, you are evil. All of you.''


 * Mainly because sources are not verifiable. Second "source" basically cites the first one, and the first one is not online. I think from an audio link on this very page, he is asked if he has said that quote and he replies by saying "not exactly the same words". There are enough silly quotes about women already, I don't see why this one should also be there --Rayis 12:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This quote shows he was a "man". You can get the book and verify, laziness is not part of Verifiability. I'll put it back and also add his quote about Jewish control of the media and banks. These two quotes show the unknown part of the Shah which remains hidden by the sissified expatriates in the west and the Islamic republic, who want to say he remained a puppet of the planetary establishment.
 * Do you object?--Gerash77 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This quote shows he was a "man"?! what?! Read what I said again, it seems like he disputed saying such thing. Oh and please keep your anti-Pahlavi opinions to yourself. --Rayis 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rayis.. The quote you have removed is very well known and caused quite a stir at the time. It is from this book by Oriana Fallaci, who was a famous Italian journalist who interviewed many top level figures such as Golda Meir, Khomeini and Kissinger to name a few. Because you think it is silly does not justify its removal. Also because the source in not online does not make it less valid. Read the Reliable sources policy. You should know this by now. Gerash go ahead and add the quotes --- Melca 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like you didn't get my points, so I will put it in bullet points:
 * *1- There are 5 quotes, 3 of which refer to "role of women". Who is trying to make a point here? do we need this many points on one matter?
 * *2- I said there is a sound file I think linked on this very article, where he denies saying those exact words, so if it was disputed by himself, lets not push the matters. --Rayis 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * :: Rayis I get your points. 1) I personally won’t object if you remove the two other quotes about woman (others might though). As you can tell he his being quite condescending about woman. The other two quotes were added to show his other views about woman. If you want to even it up, add quotes about other subjects, as Gerash also suggested. 2) I dont know which audio file you are refering to, but he has never denied the quote from Orianas book. He has only denied the wording when it has been misquoted from the book. --- Melca 07:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)''


 * There have been similar exchanges between this group and I.

Evidence that Shervink acts in a pro-Aryan group

 * shervink claims that he is not part of a group. Yet the evidence from the user talk pages show clearly otherwise;
 * Shervink's user talk : and
 * Mehrshad123 user talk
 * SG user talk:
 * Rayis Usetalk;


 * These are only a few of the users in the group, and only a few of their comments.
 * The fact is that Shervink shares in the anti-Semitic ideas of this group, cooperates with them in their edit wars, sends them messages about how to ban editors like me. However, when I provide the evidence of the group's anti-Semitic views he complains that "Artaxerex also deliberately attributes other users' comments to me. The fact that those comments were not mine would have become much clearer if he had provided the diffs for his accusations."!!

Vandalism according to Shervink

 * Here is my post to shervink reminding him of his own reaction towards vandalism of a Kurdish editor;
 * Shervink
 * 1.According to your own definition of vandalism in here([22]which reads:
 * Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Shervink 13:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)shervink
 * You are a Vandal. What is so difficult to understand here?
 * 2. I am not resorting to your level of name calling as you have done here,([23]), referring to me as A****.
 * 3. If you are concerned about one-sided POV in my suggested lead why are you incapable of balancing it?
 * 4. Your tactics in calling your co-religonists, and busing them here to vote to ban a different voice will not work this time.
 * 5. If you have concern about the content provide your sourced material and stop this nonsense. Otherwise, we have to go for mediation. Artaxerex 18:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is an exchange about showing his reaction to charges of vandalism based on his own definition;
 *  This is really too much. Artaxerex, you cannot simply go on calling everybody vandal around here. I hereby announce that I refuse to engage in any discussion with Artaxerex so long as he does not drop his hostile tone towards me and other editors. I also demand a full apology on his part to demonstrate his good faith (That he did not act in good faith so far is proven beyond doubt by his many personal attacks and repeated sockpuppetry). So long as the apology and change of behavior is not there, I will simply assume that he has not learned from his past mistakes and is still acting in bad faith. Shervink 08:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)''
 * * ''Repeated deletion of sourced materials and valid references are considered vandalism. By this definition you and your compatriot-gang have acted as vandals for a long time. You have wasted a lot of time that could have gone to valuable research projects, and during that time you and your gang were incapable of producing any shered of evidence from any academic source to support your position. I am not surprised of you getting out of the kitchen when it’s too hot. In a discussion under the possible watch of a mediator you will be expected to provide valid references for your Aryan-inspired bravados, won't you? Artaxerex 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Again, more insults, more personal attacks, no apology, no realization that your previous personal attacks and sockpuppetry have been wrong. Somehow surprisingly you were not blocked after your latest (third) sockpuppet attack. I think this proves that to have been a wrong decision. You seem to get bolder in your uncivil behavior every day. I think there is simply no room for mediation or discussion. With this behavior you simply do not belong here. You do not respect others and I have too much self-respect to waste my time listening to your insults. Shervink 08:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * About this "too much self-respecting Character"
 * ''From talk pages of Sina Karda which is forwarded to me by B,([13])

Hello Sina. It is a shame that this guy is still able to edit anything on wikipedia. I think that he should have been banned indefinetely after the several sockpuppet attacks organized by him. Anyway, I have no intention whatsoever to continue wasting my time on this childish, totally useless and weak so-called encyclopedia which cannot even manage to keep the likes of this A****** from editing. I'm out of this game and I think anybody who cares about his time will eventually do the same. I think this whole wikipedia thing is evolving into an utter failure. Shervink 22:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Artaxerex 04:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)''
 * Shervink and his group use the same tactic with minority groups like Kurdish. When I offered him a reconciliation he bragged about how successful they have been in banishing a Kurdish editor for one year.

Evidence about Shervink's style from other Editors

 * Here is Melca's views on Shervink presented on my RFC.
 * I just want to shortly write in support of Artaxerex. I think he is very knowledgeable about the subjects he writes and he has always provided valid references, even down to the page number. What Shervink is writing is very one sided. The dispute between Artaxerex and Shervink and the others began at the Reza Shah page, where Artaxerex tried to add referenced text, but was undescriminetly reverted by Shervink and others. The reason for the reverts were allegedly that the sources were propaganda and/or falsified. I tried to mediate the first time here but unfortunately this was the response i got from one of the editors trying to discredit Artaxerex: [31]. Another editor, user:Scott Wilson also tried to mediate but he was told that "your assessment is superficial and incorrect" (see [32]). Furthermore, many of the things Shervink is accusing Artaxerex of, he has done himself. He has called Artaxerex for a "wannabe historian" and made fun of his name and spelling, which i reminded him of here. Finally i can from personal experience say that Shervink very often dismisses reputable sources such as the BBC, The New York Times, The National Security Archive, The Washington Post, The Guardian etc. which he calls quote: "sensational media reports" (please read this discussion: [33]). Also to see how stubborn Shervink can be regarding sources, its enough to quickly skim through these discussions [34] [35], where he discredits reputable authors by pointing out that they dont speak Persian. I have many more such examples, which i can provide if requested. I hope that the admin who handles this rfc will takes the above into consideration. Shervink has been anything but willing to constructively resolve the disputes at the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Reza Shah


 * Unfortunately i dont have that much time to edit/watch wikipedia at the moment, so excuse me in advance if i am slow at replying to any comments regarding the above. --- Melca 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that shervink and his group have also accused Melca of being my sockpuppet and have tried to banish him. Fortunately, they did not succeed. (I know him only from his wikipedia edits). They have been successful to ban few unfortunate editors like Napht that I do not know either).

Artaxerex has been making severe personal attacks for months
Artaxerex has been making severe personal attacks for months, directed at me and others, calling us racist, fascist, chauvinist, anti-semitic, wishing us the plague, accusing us of sockpuppetry and calling all his opponents in a discussion "co-vandal compatriots" and "monarchist gang", to name only some of his remarks. Even after he issued a half-hearted apology, his attacks have been going on. A few examples of this behavior by him (and by his confirmed sockpuppets) include:

                    

He also misspelled my username as shervinak instead of shervink on a few occasions, which in the Persian language takes on a derogatory meaning:

 

Artaxerex has made use of sockpuppets for edit-warring and to evade blocks
Artaxerex has been confirmed by checkuser to have created several accounts in support of his edit-warring, and has been blocked twice for this reason:

 

Artaxerex has been baselessly accusing others of vandalism and sockpuppetry and continues to do so
Artaxerex has in general exhibited major AGF violations, accusing others of being sock or meat puppets, vandals, and referring to other editors as shervink et al, shervink's group, gang, cohort, the Iranian group, the monarchist gang, etc., despite having been asked not to do so:

                   

Artaxerex has been severely involved in edit-warring
Moreover, most of his attacks during the edit wars have been directed at me, regardless of who the person reverting him was. (In fact, I tried for the most part to stay out of any revert-warring). Examples include:

       

Artaxerex is using Wikipedia as a battleground
And pledges to continue to do so in the future:

  

Artaxerex is presenting evidence incompletely and inaccurately to attack me and to tarnish my image

 * Artaxerex quotes me incompletely and incorrectly in order to create the impression that I have made anti-semitic remarks. You can see here what I have actually said. Contrary to his claim, I have never said that Iranian Jews and Arabs are not Iranians. In fact, I have said the exact opposite of what he attributes to me.


 * He also keeps bringing up an old instance of uncivil behavior on my part, without mentioning that I have already apologized to him for that three times . I am not proud of it and I know it was totally unacceptable to behave that way in a moment of frustration, but I have apologized for it and I actually meant the apology, as is evident from the fact that I have never repeated anything of the sort since then.


 * Regarding this claim, Artaxerex is referring to Diyako (also known as Xebat), to whose comments Artaxerex has referred to a few times when criticizing me. The user was eventually banned from WP for one year, but unlike what Artaxerex claims, I had nothing to do with it. It happened long after I stopped dealing with him, when others brought the matter to the attention of ArbCom. What I told Artaxerex was that the behavior of such a person should hardly be considered a model for others to follow.


 * Artaxerex also deliberately attributes other users' comments to me. The fact that those comments were not mine would have become much clearer if he had provided the diffs for his accusations. This is even observed in his ArbCom statements, see for example.


 * Artaxerex also wrongly claims that I have accused Melca of being his sockpuppet . I have not, as can be easily verified . Artaxerex also fails to accept the other instances of suspected sockpuppetry by him which were confirmed by checkuser.

Artaxerex continues to edit war
 
 * Artaxerex continues to edit war, insisting on inserting materials that have already been rejected by consensus.

 
 * Artaxerex still continues to edit war, insisting on inserting the same materials that have already been rejected by consensus.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.