Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Evidence

Response to Atabek's "evidence"
As stated here, Atabek has a habit of giving false descriptions of diff's (basically, lying). I will go through each of his points showing that the "evidence" he is posting against me isn't even evidence at all, as the diff's do not support his allegations.

====Personal attacks, harassment, intimidation, bad faith by Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani Section====

1)Atabek claims that I started an "attack" on him by putting the sock puppeteers category on his user page.

First let me start off by showing everyone for which users the sock puppeteers category is for:

"This category shows users which have been found to have created multiple accounts, or sock puppets, to abuse Wikipedia policies, or are strongly suspected to have done so."

Now, everyone remember that User:Tengri is a confirmed sock puppet of Atabek. He then says "This was an intimidation with a purpose of provoking me, and in fact, User:Hajji Piruz clearly spelled it out here" and he uses this diff to support his claim that I "clearly spelled" out my intentions to "intimidate" and "provoke" him.

Here is what the diff says:

"Tariq, his false accusations are personal attacks right? Cant you do anything based on what you've seen here? I will definetly go to mediation though. Tariq, you should also know that Atabek was initially supposed to be blocked for a period of 1 year according to the arbcom, but for some reason the administrators changed their mind at the last minute (I think because of lobbying by another user involved in the Arbcom on Atabek's side)."

'''Now where in this diff that Atabek provided, is his claim supported? No where, this is a clear lie.'''

I will also refer you to User:Tariqabjotu's comment on the issue which I have posted on the bottom of this section

2)Assuming Good faith does not apply to editors who have a history of making reverts and then putting in deceiving edit summaries (such as reverting good edits and calling them vandalism, as on the Safavids page). Assuming good faith does not apply to a user who has continuously made personal attacks. I could go on and on....I have outlined that here:

3)Atabek then goes on to claim that I called his edits vandalism, using this diff. Lets see what the diff says:

"Atabek, your last edit on this article could be considered vandalism. Do not removed every single edit when all you want to do is change one part of the article. It is not Kansasbears obligation to re-do his edits simply because you felt like removing everything over one or two sentences on another section. I restored Kansasbears edits. Next time, only change the part of the article that you have a problem with, instead of removing entire legitimate sections."

I never called his revert vandalism, I said it could be considered as vandalism. Furthermore, I even went to User:German-Orientalist's user talk page to tell him about Wikipedia's rules.

4)He claims that I "threatened him with a lawsuit" just because I said "Note that in the real world, what Atabek did is a serious offense and could have ended up with a lawsuit, so I do not want users reading this taking this lightly." This is fact, in the real world, people sue all the time for slander, infact, Donald Trump was talking of suing Rosy O'donald. Interesting, Atabek himself is assuming bad faith (although it doesnt apply to me either) by saying that I wanted to sue him. I never threatened him with a lawsuit, another distortion.

5)He claims this comment is "bad faith", furthermore, he claims that "inability to engage in talk page discussion and justify his point, dismissing a talk page opinion saying POV and OR, and not for the first time." yet as one can see from the talk page of that article, I not only started the discussion on the talk page, but have brought up my ponits as well:

6)None of the "evidence" he posted in this section support any of his allegations of "personal attacks", "harassment", or "intimidation".

====Battling along ethnic and national lines Section====

1)Interestingly, the quote he posts in this section supposedly "proving" that I attempted to divide Wikipedia along ethnic and national lines actually says that I was concerned that he was attempting to do that. Since Atabek posted the excerpt, it clearly shows that it was him who was trying to divide Wikipedia along national and ethnic lines.

2)The part about the Grey Wolves is content, how does that fit into his section about me trying to split Wikipedia up along ethnic and national lines? We were having a content dispute in which Atabek and Dacy69 were continuously removing an entire sourced section.

====Revert Warring and Wikistalking by Hajji Piruz Section====

1)First I would like to point out that this is Atabek is not respsecting AGF by claiming that I am wikistalking him.

2) Caucasus Campaign, Yeprem Khan and Qajars were both on my watchlist. The reason I edited the Caucasus Campaign article was that one forgets about these articles when you have so many other articles on your watchlist. When Atabek edited it, it popped up to the top of my list, so I checked it out, and made an edit completely unrelated to Atabek's edit

3) Aryan is also on my watchlist. I have lots of articles on my watchlist which I have watched and forgotten about and never editted unless they popped up to the top. Must I show the entire world my entire watchlist before Atabek stops accusing me?

====Supporting and taking advantage of socks and meats by Hajji Piruz Section====

1)Atabek claims that I supported the IP sock puppets on the Safavids article. He provides the following diff to show that I "supported" the IP sock puppet. Now lets look at that diff here:

"Dacey, do you realize that you just reverted grammer, spelling, and wikilinking edits: 

''What you reverted had nothing to do with the consensus, they were just fixes...Those edits didnt hurt anything, infact, they were improving the article. Dont blindly revert, the anon was actually improving the article by fixing the minor mistakes.''"

I supported the anon's edits. The diff I posted on the above comment clearly shows that the anon's edits were not malicious but were actually improving the article.

Again, the diff's he supplied do not prove his allegation.

I will also refer you to User:Bushytails' comments regarding the Safavids issue, which I posted here.

2)Atabek claims that I "joined sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer User:Pam55 and User:Behmod in revert warring" as if there is some type of conspiracy. Well, Atabek frequently joins Grandmaster and Dacy69 in revert warring, but I have never accused him of such a thing. Why he would even assume this is beyond me, looks like he isnt AGF.

====False and baseless accusations by User:Hajji Piruz Section and Further attacks, harrassment, and baiting by Hajji Piruz Section====

1)Atabek makes a very clear lie here. He states that I started an "endless" thread on User:Tariqabjotu's user page when infact it was he who started the section while he was canvassing against me:

Furthermore, Atabek says that I rejected CEM after he contacted administrator User:Bobak. This could not be further from the truth. CEM requires users to settle their own disputes, give themselves the proper punishment, etc... this would not work, as Atabek several times clearly said that he will simply ignore me. This is outlined here. I clearly told him this several times, yet, as usual, he never bothers to read other users' posts or reads them and decides to ignore them.

Also, here is the message Atabek posted on User:Bobak's talk page (is this anyway to ask for a mediator, by going and attempting to tarnish the other persons image before hand?):

"Hi Bobak, once more congrats on your recent promotion to administration. I think the user right above (Hajji Piruz, aka Azerbaijani) is in need of mediation with me, after editing my user page without permission, obviously intimidating me, and further having courage to accuse me and even demand apology :) when I complained about his disruptive behavior to various admins and noticeboards. One of the admins suggested using CEM, so should I get even involved with this and could you be a mediator in this case. To be frank, dealing with this user is a waste of time for me, he is only after hunting and blackmailing certain users rather than contributing anything useful to the articles. Perhaps, page by page mediation of content instead would be more useful. Any suggestions? Thanks."

Atabek goes and makes his continued false accusations against me (see here) and wants to contend that he was looking for a neutral mediator? Thats ridiculous!

2)Atabek accuses User:Tariqabjotu of being on my side, thats simply ridiculous, as Tariqabjotu has made clear several times that he is neither on my side nor on his side. Now that Tariqabjotu has posted his evidence, it is very clear that Tariqabjotu has not taken any sides in this dispute:

3)Several administrators have said that arbcom would be the best option, which is why I asked for an arbcom.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Atabek has posted no evidence at all proving any of his allegations against me (what he did post is distorted descriptions of diff's that falsifying what the diff's actually say). However, I do acknowledge some fault in this dispute, as there have been times where, due to the immense canvassing, personal attacks, false accusations, making Wikipedia miserable for me, etc... that I got frustrated to the point where I cracked a little bit (who wouldnt after all of that harassment?). Atabek, however, has admitted no guilt whatsoever. Here is what I posted on Tariqabjotu's talk page:

"''Hello. I know I am not 100% innocent. How much can a guy take before he snaps? I'm sure there are instances where I have gotten frustrated and said somethings, I acknowledge, and am looking forward to your statements. I am confident in the evidence I have compiled, and I have made a ton of good contributions to Wikipedia (I am an active member of 3 Wikiprojects, I have created 40+ articles, 3 categories, two templates, made good contributions to several more). I am confident that if I present my case well, post all of my evidence, the administrators will see that it was Atabek who has gotten me to do the things I did, because he kept pushing me and pushing me. This goes back months Tariq, its not a new developement. I've been constantly pushed, I really cant take it anymore. If we go to arbcom, then we'll settle it there, even if the admins decide to ban us both (but again, I am confident in the evidence I have). I will post all the evidence regarding Atabek's disruptive behavior, against me and other users, to show that its not only me that he does this to and that its his general behavior. I appreciate your concern, but I really cant take it anymore. If we're both banned, the so be it, but I'm confident that the admins will see that what I do on Wikipedia in terms of behavior makes me look like an angel compared to what Atabek does, but I could be wrong. Thanks again. Looking forward to our next chat.''"

That pretty much sums things up. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Hajji Piruz Section
1)In this section, Grandmaster accuses me of causing all the problems, wikistalking, and edit warring on almost every Azerbaijan related article. Where is the evidence to support these two claims? He can in no way prove that I am the cause of every single problem, and he in no way can justify his accusation that I am edit warring on almost every Azerbaijan related article. I am an active member of three WikiProjects: WikiProject Caucausus, WikiProject Azerbaijan, and WikiProject Iran. He cannot tell me what I can and cannot edit. Grandmaster also claims that I am Wikistalking Atabek, again with no evidence whatsoever.

Grandmaster should post his evidence instead of making accusations without any back up.

Supporting the banned User:Tajik by Hajji Piruz Section
1)This has been discussed in my response to Atabek. Assuming good faith in a new user is what every Wikipedian is supposed to do. Regardless, I did not support the IP address at all, and why is this even being brought up, does it show that I did something wrong? Absolutely not.

Disruptive editing by Hajji Piruz Section
1)As his conribs log shows, Piruz is mostly engaged in editing the articles about Azerbaijan republic and Azerbaijani people.


 * Firstly, I would like to say that no Wikipedia rule forbids me from editing any article. I can edit articles about China, Djibouti, or whatever, you cannot tell me what I can and cannot edit.

2)Grandmaster said: ''For example, Azerbaijani people is a featured article, mostly written by User:Tombseye, who brought it up to the FA standard by providing for all major points of view on the subject. I understand that we need to be bold in editing and don’t have to agree every edit with other people, but when it comes to a large revision of an FA article, a certain caution should be exercised to preserve its quality. Piruz made a large rewrite of one of the sections, inserting controversial claims without reaching consensus with other editors. His edit even contained such outrageous claims as “However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are not ethnically Turkic, but are mainly descendants of the Caucasian and Iranic peoples who lived in the area prior to Turkification”. [104] It is enough to check any credible encyclopedia to see that Azerbaijanis are Turkic people: [105] It would be logical to consult with the person who largely wrote the article and other involved editors before making such dramatic changes that damage the quality of the FA article. But Piruz failed to do so and his edit led to another edit war on that article, where socks like Pam55 were also used to make rvs.''


 * FA articles can be improved, and I improved it.
 * I removed absolutely no information from the previous version, I simply added information and re-organized.
 * Grandmaster's concern about that sentence which he mentions in this article has been met and revised. For the record, let it be known that although Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people (a fact that I never changed), all encyclopaedia's do agree that Azerbaijani's are not descendants of Turkic peoples.

3)Piruz goes around Azerbaijan related articles and removes the word “Azerbaijan” as the name of the country, replacing it with a reference to Azerbaijani people or something else: [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] I fail to see the point in such editing, maybe arbitrators can.


 * Lets look at these diff's more closely:


 * I never removed the country Azerbaijan for the sake of removing the country name Azerbaijan. When you are talking about a person, you call them an Azerbaijani, I simply Wikilinked Azerbaijani to Azerbaijani people. When you are talking about Azerbaijani literature, I Wikilinked the term Azerbaijani to Azerbaijani literature. When you are talking about the Azerbaijani language, I wikilinked Azerbaijani to the language. These were all legitimate fixes, improving the articles. This is why we have such articles as Azerbaijani literature, Azerbaijani people, and Azerbaijani language.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Grandmaster has posted absolutely no evidence.Hajji Piruz 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Dacy69
====user:Hajji Piruz (formerly user:Azerbaijani) disruptive activity in Wikipedia Section==== To response to the comments by Dacy69, I will have to respond to each statement seperately:

1)"Indeed this second Arbcom case was reopened because of disruptive activity of user:Hajji Piruz."


 * No, this arbcom was opened (by me) because of a dispute Atabek and I were having. Other users, such as yourself, decided to drag others into it.

2)"He is the only one who has most severe violations of a number of Wikipedia rules."


 * Where is the proof? Post some diff's to support such a bold accusation. Infact, I have always stuck to Wikipedia's rules and policies, and have practiced them literally (especially AGF).

3)"He keep flooding Wikipedia with battles along national lines, making false accusation which resembles me activity of banned user:Fadix. Interestingly, in his evidence section he refered to user:Fadix false accusation about me which was dismissed by previous Arbcom."


 * Again, were is your proof? Its easy to make accusations, but do you have the evidence to back them up? I posted Fadixs's evidence because I wanted to remind the administrators that you have a history of this kind of behavior. Also, please show us where Fadix's evidence was dismissed.

4)"This and previous Arbcom has only one intersection - this is user:Hajji Piruz."


 * Why dont we look at the list of the involved parties in the previous arbcom:


 * It seems to me that User:Atabek, User:Dacy69, User:Grandmaster, User:Parishan, User:Elsanaturk, and several of the Armenian users, were also involved in the old arbcom, and in this one. Why would you tell the administrators reviewing the evidence that I am the only common denominator of these two arbcoms? Thats a lie.

5)"It is unfortunate that he have to distinquish editors by ethnic affiliation but this is how many views and divide Wikipedia (I rememeber when I touched article Urartu many Armenian editors started asking question what is my ethnic affiliation). Lately, user:Hajji Piruz put on my personal page ethnic category - [118]. But after all, ethnic affiliation will shed lights on many issues. For example, user:Hajji Piruz having adopted initially name "Azerbaijani" (!) supported Armenian editors with disputes with Azeri editors and lately, after first Arbcom was closed he started atatcking many Azeri editors. This is, I believe, strategy (again I regret to put ethnic affiliation here) of two groups of editors - Armenians and Iranians to attack Azeri editors. First case resulted in ban of one Azeri editors. And now they target 3 other active contributors - me, user:Atabek and user:Grandmaster, though I acknowledge on my part that on two occasions I was provoked and involved in edit warring."


 * My intention was never to distinguish editors by ethincity. Wikipedia has these categories for a reason, for organization. If these categories were not acceptable, then why have they not been deleted?


 * Because I am of Iranian Azerbaijani descent does not mean that I agree with the people from the Republic of Azerbaijan on all topics. Notice several things here, Dacy69 says that I divided Wikipedia along ethnic/national lines, while in this very comment he implies that because I am an Azeri, I should not have disagreed with these other Azeri users, but instead fought the Armenians.


 * This is almost a confession on Dacy69's part. I'll let his own comment speak for itself.

user:Hajji Piruz incivility
1)"In generall, this editor has habit to quickly accusing other editors in POV pushing, can't work towards consensus and sometimes insult editors."


 * Where is the evidence? If this is true, why havent you provided diff's? Please provide some evidence for your claims, this is what arbcom is about.'''

2)Dacy69 uses these two diff's to say that I was incivil: and


 * If you knew the context for which I said that, it would become apparent that I was commenting on the fact that he lied about what a source said. He used a source, in Russian (not Englished) and said that it supported his claim. When I read the Russian, it turned out that it did not support his claim and that Dacy69 had distorted what the content actually said in his description of it.

user:Hajji Piruz harassment
1)This section is interesting, he posts one diff of one occasion where I have believed that he did something wrong and classifies one instant as harassment...(by the way, the diff he posted doesnt even go anywhere).

Conclusion
As with the others, Dacy69 has posted absolutely no evidence for his claims.

Response to Tariqabjotu
====Hajji Piruz often assumes bad faith, divides along ethnic lines Section==== to be expanded

1)I have always followed Wikipedia's rules as stated, literally. The issue of WP:AGF has been discussed here. WP:AGF says that good faith need not be assumed when a user has a disruptive history. Again, WP:AGF clearly states:

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence."

Did I do something wrong by following Wikipedia's rules as they are stated. The first thing we are told is to follow Wikipedia's rules and policies, I have tried my best to do so.


 * You're missing the spirit of the policy. One transgression on Atabek's part (i.e. the sockpuppetry) does not give you the license to drop assuming good faith toward him forever. I know you want to pin him for lying, but there's a difference between lying and simply being mistaken. I'm inclined to think he was the latter on at least of some of the points you called lying (even if the being mistaken was in the form of jumping to conclusions or exaggerating). --  tariq abjotu  01:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz is presenting frivolous evidence Section
1)"It's sad I have to bring this up, but there is way too much evidence coming from Piruz. Some of it is largely irrelevant to the case and/or dated prior to the previous arbitration. Regardless, there is just way too much evidence coming from his direction. It needs to be summarized and excessively lengthy quotes need to be shortened, with only pertinent parts noted."


 * I assume you are talking about my evidence against Atabek. I will try to shorten some things up, but I do feel that the evidence I have posted is relevant. I dont understand, is too much evidence a bad thing? Wouldnt the Arbcom actually want to have more evidence rather than less evidence?
 * In response to your last sentence, the answer is no. From the template at the top of the Evidence page, "Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective." --  tariq abjotu  01:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

2)"Under his racial comments section, he presents a link to a comment from February 2007, prior to the first arbitration proceeding"


 * That link, although from the 19th of February, is relevant, as it shows that the user has a history of such comments. Also, on June 11th, as soon as things between him and I really got going, with talk of mediation, Atabek, after 4 months, decided to go back and take portions of his statement out:
 * There is really no need to clarify that this is not Atabek's first round of disruption. Most are aware of the first arbitration request, given the name of this request. --  tariq abjotu  01:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, my statement mentioned above was removed by myself after a private discussion with User:Ali doostzadeh. I didn't even remember or track that page between my two edits.Atabek 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

3)"His first section on Atabek simply links to allegations from the previous arbitration proceeding"


 * That is to show prior history. Remember, this arbcom is no longer about just Atabek and I, it was turned a behavior arbcom including a lot more users than just us two.
 * See my response to (2). --  tariq abjotu  01:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

4)"Under his nvassing canvassing section, Piruz links to a few requests for checkusers that were not started by Atabek. Some of them merely have comments by Atabek, and at least one is a checkuser request alleging Atabek was one of the sockpuppets."


 * Thats canvassing because he went to those check users that had nothing to do with him to make comments about me or add my name to the lists, in order to get an admin on my case. That is canvassing.
 * The second, third, sixth, and seventh examples have nothing to do with you. The fourth and fifth examples are the same checkuser case. The first example came well before the first RfArb even opened. --  tariq abjotu  01:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

5)"Under Piruz's editing section, he cites comments by Bushytails (talk · contribs) (not involved this disrupt), suggesting they were caused by Atabek's actions"


 * They were caused by Atabek's comments, if you would like, I could dig up the entire conversation for you.
 * Not really. Each person is responsible for his or her own actions and there is no way Atabek is responsible for something someone else said. --  tariq abjotu  01:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

6)"Piruz says "Also, User:Tariqabjotu has commented on some of Atabek's accusations on Atabek's talk page, telling Atabek that the anon on the Safavids article is not me and tell him that I am not attacking, blackmailing, or harassing: No he is not. Did you even look at what you were reverting?" That is a misinterpretation of my comment; I did not say tell Atabek that the anon on the Safavids article was not Piruz; I said that Piruz did not "vandalize" Atabek's userpage."


 * Oh ok, well, the reason that misunderstanding took place is because you replied saying that in response to a comment by Atabek which not only accused me of vandalism, but also of harassment, blackmailing, etc...


 * I thought the second sentence – Did you even look at what you were reverting? – would have made it clear I was talking about the edits to his user page. Anyway, thanks for removing that piece of evidence. --  tariq abjotu  01:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As presented in my evidence, Hajji Piruz called my edits as vandalism as well . And that was not even editing a user page, as he did. The facts of his wikistalking of myself at Yeprem Khan, Qajar dynasty and Caucasus Campaign are also quite obvious. Atabek 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

user:Hajji Piruz accusation
user:Hajji Piruz brought evidences from previous Arbcom taken from banned user:Fadix - accusation which was found ungrounded. I have question to admin - whether we should concentrate on this Arbcom case evidences or go back to previous one and waste time to reveal false and baseless accusation of some banned users.--Dacy69 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My absence
My internet connect had gotten disconnected. I'm only able to connect now temporarily and probably will not be able to come back in full until Monday or Tuesday. I will proceed to post the rest of my evidence and replies at that time.Hajji Piruz 18:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Frivolous evidence by Atabek
Almost everything Atabek is posting as "evidence" are assumptions of bad faith on his part and frivolous. He engages people in debates and then as soon as they make a reply, he posts it as evidence and calls it an "assumption of bad faith". He calls this reply bad faith:

This is really ridiculous. I hope the administrators notice this.

If I have the time, I'll post some more evidence regarding this matter.Hajji Piruz 19:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)