Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik

Response to Tajik
I am not familiar with the activity of User:NisarKand, neither did I ever edit any page related to Afghanistan. So obviously my addition of accounts suspected of being User:Tajik is unrelated to anon IP's initial report above. It has been proven by numerous checkusers, as well as ANI and admin talk page discussions, that a user persistently trying to edit Safavid dynasty with the same POV every single time from the same IP region listed above is User:Tajik. Whether he claims himself as not Tajik but German-Orientalist or else is not relevant to the essence of sockpuppetry violations. Also, I did not make any claim against User:Kansas Bear that he may be Tajik, as the diff does not even show my edit. Finally, in this edit, the template which remained was on History of Anatolia (not Turkey) that is a geographic region not a state. And I still suggested on talk page [Talk:Ak Koyunlu] that template on Iran can be reinserted if reformatted the same way as History of Anatolia, because it unnecessarily clutters the page right now. Atabek (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * NisarKand has plenty of sockpuppets, including User:Tajik-Professor which was used as justification by you, Grandmaster, and User:Thatcher131 to get Tajik banned. Your cooperation with one of NisarKand's sockpuppets is also known: . Though you deny any responsibility, it is clear that NisarKand knows/knew you before and that both of you worked together. And your most recent comment on the checkuser page was also most certainly coordinated with that of NisarKand. Interestingly, now that it is confirmed that the accusations against Tajik were wrong, NisarKand's sockpuppet was de-blocked while Tajik is still blocked. The responsible admin, Thatcher131, denies any responsibility for this well-schemed "screw-job" and the members of the ArbCom do not respond to any e-mails. And you, Atabek, continue your slanders against Tajik. It's quite surprising, since it is you who is pushing for POV and ignoring sources in the Safavids article. Everyone who was involved in the Tajik case knows that you were secretly in contact with various others "behind the curtain". And you still continue your disruptive edits. Most of the time, you automatically and systematically revert other Wikipedians' edits WITHOUT even READING them: . Amazing, Atabek, amazing! BTW: Greater Iran is also a cultural and geographic term and is not identical with the country Iran. The term is used by scholars, such as Richard Nelson Frye (whom you love to quote). His most recent book is called "Greater Iran".


 * Tajik, regarding your statement:
 * Everyone who was involved in the Tajik case knows that you were secretly in contact with various others "behind the curtain"..
 * Thanks for the humor :). I have nothing against "Greater Iran" term, as long as it's used in proper historical context instead of nationalist POV in Wikipedia. Among those, trying to purge any instance of words Azerbaijani and/or Turkish/Turkic from Safavid and other articles, has no objective but that of extremely intolerant nationalist views. Good luck. Atabek (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)