Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Baku Ibne, et al.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following commentary was moved from the original request. -- Grunt đŸ‡ȘđŸ‡ș 21:40, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

I can confirm that Tabib is being harassed by one or more users. After blocking Osmanoglou for repeatedly vandalizing several user pages, I've received several childish e-mails from him calling me gay, etc. Not sure whether anything can be done about this from a technical standpoint, since this vandal appears to have dialup accounts with T-Online, NetZero, and other dynamic IP providers. But it should be looked into. Rhobite 23:22, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
I ask the ArbCom to investigate this "user" in terms of his possible affiliation with either User:Baku Ibne OR User:Rovoam (aka anon 64.136.xx.xx). This "user" was "born" today (March 4) (see, his contribution log) and instantly attacked me. Actually since March 1, I am constantly harassed by "new users" who emerge from nowhere and instantly start attacking me. Here's the list of these "users": User:Baku Ibne ("born" March 1); User:Twinkletoes (same person as "Baku Ibne", "born" March 2); User:Kiramtu Kunettabib (also "born" March 2, probably has no relation to "Baku Ibne" but may have connections to User:Rovoam); User:Kiramo Bemik ("born March 3, most probably same person as "Kiramtu Kunettabib") (see his deceitful post in my talkpage); and now this User:Dubistdas Letztearschloch, who I suspect is the same person as "Kiramtu kunettabib" and "Kiramo Bemik". Hope ArbCom will bring clarity to this issue. And I am sure, the more you investigate this case, you, including Grunt, will see that this is really an unprecedented case of malicious public harassment of a Wikipedian by a well-organized group of persons. --Tabib 12:19, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

To Tabib[edit]

I find rather hypocritic from your part to tell us all here how you have proved this or that and how you are attacked... when you yourself have participated in the Armenian genocide entry and tried to introduce revisionism of the second most studied genocide. I wonder how after trying to make of wikipedia a Turkish government propaganda webspace(in the Armenian genocide section at least) you could have the face to picture yourself as a victim.

Another note, there are many historical mistakes in your posts, and some are even basics such as locations etc. But for now, it's beside the point, since my reason of posting this was to ask you a question in regard to what I've said: Tabib, after your attempt of revisionism at the Armenian genocide section, why should anyone believe your sincerity?-Fadix

This groundless accusation has no relation whatsoever to this talkpage. And I'm not going to respond to this yet another attack and provocation by another Armenian editor. To make it clear to neutral and honest editors, here are my edits (or "my attempts at revisionism", as the user above termed it) at "Armenian genocide" page: first edit, putting label disputed; second edit, restoring label disputed. By the way this label is still there and should be there as long as the dispute remains. --Tabib 18:09, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Tabib, in my answer, I did not refer to your ethnicity, because I considered it totally irrelevant, what matter here is what is posted from someone, and not his ethnicity, yet your first answer dedicated to me you tell me: “yet another attack and provocation by another Armenian editor.” This is purely offending, I don't see why my ethnicity is of any relevancy. Do you see reason why you should bring my ethnicity into the picture and catalog me as another Armenian editor to ignore me? I was to defend you, because as I read, it is obvious you were attacked unfairly, I was waiting your answer before supporting you because of the cheap attacks you were receiving. But after your answer labeling me as if “Armenian” was an insult, and using that to ignore me, I retract from my initial personal decision to support you.
Secondly, and this is a question of honesty and trust. You claim having added the label disputed and editing it later. This is not only what you did, you changed the population numbers as well to introduce your biased figures. -Fadix

This is turning into a scandal![edit]

Will we ever be spared dirty tricks and yet more exclamatory wisdom from user Tabib. After previously catching this user red handed, trying to rig opinions (Deli-Eshek Talk/Parviz), we learn that there seems to be much more under the tip of the Eiseberg!!! On top of that he whines into everybody's ear and files countless "complaints" apparently solely to devert attention from his own immoral conduct. I fear we may soon be dealing with looser Tabib. Some one do something to spare us this cabale!!!--LIGerasimova 19:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Attacks continue![edit]

Dear ArbCom members,

I am still attacked by User:LIGerasimova (see her recent attack[1] re-posted in my talkpage [2]). Simultaneously, User:Rovoam still continues his disruptive actions ([3]). Moreover, I am concerned about recent actions by User:Fadix who apparently came to assist Rovoam in pushing for biased nationalistic POV in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. Unfortunately, given the lack of knowledge among other neutral editors on the Karabakh issue, I am completely left alone to fight this group.

I may be very busy at work these days (until sunday), so I am worried that these persons may try to undertake a new provocation in Nagorno-Karabakh page. I am also worried about your silence so far. I know these cases ususally proceed very slowly, but I still want to hear something from you just to make sure that my case is not forgotten and is being considered.

Since this is my first appeal to ArbCom, I dont know the procedures and presentation style very well. Therefore, I would appreciate any advise/suggestion from you on the presentation of my evidences.

Please let me know if you need further clarification or additional info on my case against User:Rovoam, User:LIGerasimova and "Baku Ibne et. al.". --Tabib 15:47, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

It is standard arbitration procedure to wait for a period of a minimum of one week after the opening of a case before proposing any decisions, except for temporary injunctions. If you wish to propose a temporary injunction please do so either here or on one of the other talk pages associated with the case. -- Grunt đŸ‡ȘđŸ‡ș 20:13, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Rovoam exposes his real face. What next for Tabib?[edit]

Dear ArbCom members, dear fellow editors,

Due to my work schedule I could not visit Wikipedia yesterday (Mar 17) and was surprised to see today (Mar 18) how many drastic changes have occurred just in one day of my absence.

User:Rovoam finally demonstrated to you all his real face and his real intentions by vandalizing various pages which have relevance to Azerbaijan and/or the discussion over Nagorno-Karabakh page content.

Here’s the list of the pages he vandalized within 24 hours (March 17-18):

and even

Now, I hope, you can better understand my case against this person, my concerns regarding his extremely disruptive, biased and malicious edit and discussion behavior which continued for almost 1,5 month.

However, I want to share with you my concerns about the way the case is being proceeded. My primary concern is that some of you may view the actions of the involved parties in isolation from the context, which may lead you to some deeply wrong conclusions. In particular I am worried that my reverts of Rovoam’s edits and vise versa will be looked at from the prism of the same “unhelpful amount of revert warring” without differentiating between the two actions, meaning that my actions may be misunderstood and virtually equalled to those of Rovoam.

I saw the proposal by Grunt in which he suggests that “Tabib and Rovoam have engaged in personal attacks on each other. 64), 65”.

This kind of problem statement implies that Rovoam was not the only one, allegedly I also waged personal attacks against Rovoam. There is another deeply wrong and distressing suggestion, also by Grunt, to restrict my revert limitation (along with Rovoam) to one revert per day “For an unhelpful amount of revert warring on a wide range of articles
”

I want to state straightforwardly that I do not accept such problem statement and such accusations.

First, bearing all responsibility, I want to state that throughout the whole history of my activity in Wikipedia, I did NOT wage personal attacks neither against Rovoam nor against anybody else. My critical remarks on Rovoam’s vandalism, disruptive and dishonest edit and argumentation behavior can by no means be construed as “personal attacks”. Unlike Rovoam who set forth numerous spurious accusations and provoked me to conflict with him, I always acted honestly calling a spade a spade. All my critical remarks accusing Rovoam in vandalism and dishonest conduct were proved by concrete evidences, therefore are well-grounded, unlike Rovoam’s numerous spurious ungrounded accusations against me. Whenever Rovoam or anybody else vandalized the pages, I openly said that this is a vandalism; whenever Rovoam brought extremely biased pro-Armenian statements I openly stated that these are the pro-Armenian propaganda statements; whenever Rovoam put a deceiving edit summary in order to confuse public opinion, I openly exposed his intentions. Therefore, taking out my words where I call Rovoam’s action “vandalism” for example, and looking at this instance in isolation apart from the context and circumstances within which this accusation was voiced, is completely wrong. If someone has a different opinion, then let him/her bring evidences so that we could address the issue properly incident by incident. Otherwise, without any evidences at hand, any claims alleging I waged “personal attacks” against Rovoam are totally groundless and should be disregarded.

Second, my actions and my struggle against Rovoam’s conduct in Wikipedia can in no way be equaled to Rovoam’s disruptive actions. It is ironic that I have to justify myself and my actions here, whereas, (sorry for being a bit immodest), I actually deserve a much better treatment for what I did so far. My actions should by no means be taken out of the context and viewed as a single isolated element. Grunt believes that I, similarly to Rovoam, was involved in an “unhelpful amount of revert warring on a wide range of articles”. It is such a distressing and frustrating charge! I want to believe that I was not trying in vain being under immense pressure for more than two months, suffering extremely cruel and spiteful harassments by various users and their army of sockpuppets, operating alone in an environment where people know almost nothing about the subject you are involved in and therefore, you have to explain so many issues from the easiest to most complex ones and constantly be on alert in order not to allow people like Rovoam to confuse and deceive people and benefit from their lack of knowledge in the area. Just imagine, what would happen if I would not revert Rovoam’s changes. He would continue spreading his propaganda to various other Azerbaijan-related pages and would continue to ignore my arguments and repeated calls not to introduce unilateral controversial changes until the issue was solved. And I would have no other option but to watch quietly all of this. I want to repeat: Rovoam’s extremely disruptive, biased and dishonest edit and argumentation behavior left me no other option but to direct all my efforts to battling this kind of behavior. Therefore, I do not think my actions were “unhelpful” if they served to prevent vandalism, extremely biased and dishonest editor conduct. My actions were legitimate reaction to those of Rovoam and were aimed at protecting Wikipedia, as well as the principles of honesty and truth I believe in from malicious encroachments. Sorry if this sounds a bit too artistic, but if I was not really believing in what I am saying, I would leave Wikipedia long time ago and would save a lot of energy, time and nerves.

In short, I want to tell you as much clearly as I can, that ANY unjust restriction placed upon me as a result of this case, will mean that Rovoam and his methods gained victory. It will not matter whether Rovoam will be expelled from Wikipedia forever or will be banned for a long-term period. He will achieve his major goal of discrediting me and undermining my position in Wikipedia. Considering that my area of interests lies in history and politics of Azerbaijan, Turkey, Caucasus, Iran, Eastern Europe, where there are a lot of controversial issues remaining, any restriction placed upon me will be used by my future possible opponents as an unjust advantage and as a propaganda tool against me in my future activities. Whenever my possible future opponent will run out of arguments, he will have a good pretext to refer to this case and use my unfair punishment for undermining my position and arguments. Thus, this unfair punishment and discrimination, if materialized, will significantly restrict my ability and willingness to contribute to Wikipedia’s development both by providing more information for page contents and also, for contributing to development of Wikipedia as a neutral and reliable source of information.

At the end, I ask ArbCom members to 1) avoid hasty decisions, 2) be as much attentive as possible in dealing with this unprecedented case and 3) make your judgment based not on *impressions*, but on *facts and evidences*. I also ask Grunt to reconsider his position regarding putting any kind of restrictions on me in Wikipedia. I am prepared to answer any of your questions regarding the present case in general and the issues I raised in my message in particular.--Tabib 21:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Guilty without evidence?[edit]

The present message is inspired by my earlier communication with Grunt in his talkpage.

Dear ArbCom,

In Proposed decision page Grunt, when responding to David Gerard who opposed putting revert limitation on me saying "I really don't see evidence this is necessary", wrote "Try FoF 7 above." It took me a while to realize that this was a reference to “Revert warring” section in which I, along with Rovoam, am being accused in “unhelpful amount of revert warring” in such pages as Safavids, Nagorno-Karabakh and Caucasian Albania.

I do not want to repeat myself, as I already said in my earlier message posted in ArbCom noticeboard and above that these references are looked at badly out of the context and these actions were definitely NOT “unhelpful” in terms of improving relevant Wikipedia articles and protecting them from POV edits and vandalism. I want to reiterate once again that I am currently being accused without any evidences presented against me in Evidence page, which is itself a unique situation.

Considering Grunt’s recent comments I want to elaborate a bit more on my “unhelpful revert warring” in all three pages (Safavids, N-K, Caucasian Albania).


Safavids[edit]

Actually, I believe that in the present ArbCom proceedings all references to Safavids should be made exclusively in terms of vandalism by anons and sock-puppets and my fight against these vandal edits. Investigating my “unhelpful revert warring” with User:Pantherarosa has nothing to do here because the current proceeding investigates not User:Tabib vs. User:Pantherarosa issue, but User:Tabib vs. User:Rovoam (and I am not talking about that German-Kurd sockpuppeteer Osmanoglou/LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne/etc., because ArbCom have already dealt with him and banned him from Wikipedia for vandalisms and public attacks against me).

I also believe it is wrong to compel me to justify my actions in Safavids page unilaterally, because if User:Pantherarosa does not have to justify his actions before the ArbCom, then why I should be questioned unilaterally for my actions (whether bad or good) in Safavids? Btw, currently I have no claims against User:Pantherarosa. I know this person well from Talk:Safavids and I know that he did not participate in page vandalism and harassments against me. He is not the sort of person who would do this.

The major problem in the Safavids discussion was that Pantherarosa could not put aside his POV linked to his ethnicity, and stubbornly denied the well-established historical fact that Safavids were of Turkic origin, arguing instead that they were of Persian/Kurdish origin. The discussion in Talk:Safavids explicitly demonstrated that my point was correct.

Contrary to accusations in “unhelpful” editing, I actually have significantly contributed to the development and improvement of the Safavids page. Before my edits this page was very underdeveloped. With my involvement in this page it became more detailed, comprehensive, higher quality and definitely more objective than before. My intervention stirred active discussion and involvement and contributions of various editors and the page became as it is now. You can compare the two versions before my involvement and after my involvement (present version) here: [4]. Having seen this development, can you say now that my actions were “unhelpful”?..

Caucasian Albania[edit]

My comments on my “unhelpful revert warring” with Rovoam in this particular page will be short, as I have sufficiently addressed Rovoam’s POV edits and vandalism in this page in my evidences (see, evidences for 28 Feb, 01 Mar, 07 Mar, 08 Mar, 10 Mar, 12 Mar, 13 Mar, 14 Mar. Most of these cases involved explicit vandalism reflected in removal of a paragraph mentioning Artsakh (area of present day Nagorno-Karabakh) as part of Caucasian Albania (1st deletion, 2nd deletion, 3rd deletion, 4th deletion], and then a more devious POV pushing (using “please” and acting maliciously as if I was vandalizing the page so far (1st ““please” POV pushing”, 2nd ““please” POV pushing”, 3rd ““please” POV pushing”.

All these cases clearly demonstrate that by my actions in that particular page I actually prevented Rovoam from vandalizing the page and pushing his POV. Rovoam was aiming at escalating the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh page content and spreading the conflict to other Azerbaijan and Karabakh-related Wikipedia articles in order to create confusion and to benefit from it. By my reverts of Rovoam in this particular page, I defended Wikipedia and my actions again served to defend Wikipedia from vandalism and POV editing.

Also note that wherever possible I tried to avoid conflict with Rovoam. For example, in this particular page, you can see that Rovoam’s edition dated 03 Mar was not reverted by me, because this was the single case when Rovoam’s edit was although controversial, but, unlike all other preceding and following edits, was not a vandalism or explicit POV pushing.

Nagorno-Karabakh[edit]

I intentionally left this most important and most relevant part to the end. In fact, this issue has been already addressed so much, that I do not have something new to say here. So, you should forgive me for possible repetitions.

The evidences presented by me and by Tony Sidaway clearly demonstrate that in my actions I was always in conformity with the Wikipedia rules and norms of conduct. Bearing full responsibility, I can say that there can be found no single evidence which would suggest that I, similar to Rovoam, provoked revert war and facilitated escalation of the conflict. To the contrary, as you can see from evidence, I constantly tried to avoid conflict with Rovoam and come into terms with him. Initially, I tried to stay aside from the conflict, hoping that User:Aramgutang and User:Cantus may stop him from introducing such obvious POV edits. (see, evidences dated 8-14 Feb). And in fact, whenever I saw an opportunity for other editors to intervene and alter Rovoam’s edits, I stayed aside (as was the case with reverts of Rovoam and edits by Aramgutang, Cantus, Davenbelle, Chris 73, Joy, Rdsmith4 and many others). But, unfortunately, the specificity of the topic and lack of knowledge among most of other editors on the subject, put the major burden of battling Rovoam’s actions on me. Up until the end of discussion, I refrained myself from introducing unilateral changes and I repeatedly called Rovoam to do the same and to discuss in his proposed changes in the talkpage first. However, Rovoam continued to aggressively pushing his blatant propaganda and left me no option but to revert him.

Throughout the discussion it was namely I who searched for various ways for coming into terms with Rovoam. It was I who asked for third party opinion from User:Davenbelle (acted briefly as an informal mediator between me and Rovoam). When this informal mediation failed, it was again I who appealed to formal mediation, and then, as a last resort, to Arbitration. I used all the channels available in Wikipedia to solve my dispute with Rovoam in a civilized manner. Despite being under tremendous pressures and harassments by Rovoam and this Osmanoglou guy (who unexpectedly to me turned out to be also LIGerasimova, whom I believed to be a separate person), I did not retreat and stayed till the end. I did not give up to provocations and did not respond to those people same way as they did to me, did not resort to the same malicious tricks as they resorted to. And now I think it is outright UNFAIR and WRONG to blame me in being “unhelpful” to the development of Wikipedia!

I once again ask ArbCom not to equal me with Rovoam and punish me along with him. I ask those members who voted in favor of any kind of restrictions on me, to reconsider their position. I want to repeat once again, that if someone still believes that I should be punished one way or another, then there should be filed a separate evidences against me in the ArbCom evidence page. Otherwise, you may end up proclaiming me guilty in misdeeds I did not commit without any evidences for that whatsoever.--Tabib 16:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Request from ArbCom[edit]

Dear ArbCom members and fellow Wikipedians,

You can find my recent address to ArbCom in Proposed decision talkpage. --Tabib 12:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Rovoam starts vandalism again[edit]

To all those concerned:

Rovoam starts his vandalism again. ([5]). I am really sick and tired of this person. Please, make him stop! --Tabib 09:58, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be vandalizing, only editing/reverting an article to the version that he prefers. If his behavior gets out of hand I may intervene, but for now I suggest that his edits should be treat as good faith attempts to make the article better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rovoam gradually starts vandalizing the pages Nagorno-Karabakh and Caucasian Albania again. This IS vandalism, even if it is not apparent at first sight. This is a sort of vandalism which is hard to detect if a person is not familiar with the subject. He deliberately adds misinformation and tries to confuse people. He is simply starting everything from the beginning. I will have no other option to revert his POV edits and vandalism whether implicit or explicit. I call ArbCom once again to reconsider his decision on putting any kind of revert limitation on me along with Rovoam. Whereas he implicitly vandalizes the Azerbaijan and Karabakh related pages and acts under various anon IPs, I am acting openly. You may end up punishing the wrong person and the real culprit will get along with his deeds!--Tabib 04:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your judgment[edit]

Dear ArbCom!

It’s hard for me to express my satisfaction with your decision. Now, after two months, I see that I did not spend so much time, efforts and nerves in vain. I want to thank each and all of you for your thorough investigation of the issue. I also thank all other Wikipedians, who greatly helped me in my struggle against these two vandals.

I always believed that truth and honesty are the best strategies for someone to achieve what he/she wants. And this decision reaffirmed my belief. It’s very important moral support for me. Thank you all once again...--Tabib 06:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) Just don't get into blind reverting and don't let an obnoxious troll get you down! - David Gerard 08:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Baku_Ibne,_et_al.&oldid=808009911"