User talk:Tabib/Archive1

Archived messages January 24-March 26, 2005

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Azerbaijani/Azerbaijanian

Please see Talk:Azerbaijani language. I suspect that the rough consensus is to keep this page at "Azerbaijani" - if the group of people who maintain this page agree to move it, we will be happy to do so, of course. Noel (talk) 15:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia style is that people generally reply on the User_Talk: page of the person who wrote a message to them (that way, someone doesn't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person whom they are having a "conversation" with), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. Not everyone on Wikipedia uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), I but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

World War I

I'm curious why you removed the links to Armenian Genocide from the World War I article. -- Planders 16:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Planders, Thanks for the question. The earlier version read as follows:

"April 24: The events commonly referred to as the Armenian Genocide begin in the Ottoman Empire".

My edition was as follows:

"April 24: Ottoman government starts deportation of Armenians accusing them in collaboration with the Allies."

The reason why I made this edition is first because, the earlier version was categorical, leaving no space for alternative opinions, especially given the fact that the "Armenian genocide" is a highly controversial issue, that involves more politics than real history. Second reason is because, I believe, WWI page should be more accurate and authoritative, and links to such controversial and disputed politicized articles should be avoided in order to refrain from nationalist propaganda. I think, the current version is more even-handed and leaves space for both points of view.

Turkmen VS Turkomen/Turkomans etc

I'm prepared to believe that the different "koyunlular" aren't "Turkmen", but just so you know, the word Turkoman when used as a search currently redirects Turkmen to the "Turkmen" disambiguation page. So it'd probably be handy if you know any more on the topic to create an article on the ethnic group. There's a bit of a start near the end of the Oghuz Turks article, but I don't know enough anthropology etc to make a serious attempt at it. BigHaz 02:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks BigHaz for this interesting comment.

First, I want to explain why I changed "Turkmen" to "Turkoman". It's noteworthy that in Turkic (by this I mean primarily Azeri, Turkish and Turkmen languages, which belong to Oghuz branch) there is no distinction between these two terms. Both are referred to as "Türkmen(ce)". And this reflects the fact, that historically these names, as well as the word "türk" (Turkish, Turkic) were historically used interchangeably, referring to wider Turkic tribes ancestors of present-day Turks in Turkey, Azeris and Turkmen. By compoarison, in ancient times, there was no distinction between Ukrainians, Belarussians and Russians, which were all Slavs.

My goal in changing "Turkmen" to "Turkoman" was to make a technical distinction between these two terms in order to be able to portray the history of Turkomans not merely as history of present-day Turkmen in Turkmenistan, but as part of a wider historical context involving present-day Turks in Turkey, Azeris in Azerbaijan, Iran and Iraq (btw, the latter are more widely referred to as Iraqi Turkomans).

After creation of Turkey and Turkmenistan, the names "Turk(ish)" and "Turkmen" were sort of "privatized" by these respective countries. While this development is natural, it has also created lots of confusion in history. Thus, for example, the White Sheep and Black Sheep Turkomans came from Central Asia in XI-XII cc. and certainly, they are kin to present-day Turkmen in Turkmenistan. But, by calling them "Turkmen" we confuse ourselves and do not understand that since the time these tribes left their homeland in Central Asia, they had a different historical route, apart from their Turkoman kins which stayed and became present day Turkmen. They established states in the Caucasus, eastern Anatolia and Iran, their culture and language, even racial features was impacted by the local conditions. They played a decisive role in the formation of ethnic groups which today are called Azeris and Turks.

In short, I want to reiterate that by differentiating between "Turkoman" and "Turkmen" (as I previously noted, in Turkic there's no such distinction, only "türkmen, türkmenler in plural") by the term "Turkoman", I meant to portray a wider historical ethnic group of Turkic tribes, as opposed to "Turkmen", the term I prefer to use only for the present-day ethnic Turkmen living in Turkmenistan, northern Afghanistan, parts of northeastern Iran.

Sorry, if the reply seems too complicated, but so is the history as well. As to your suggestionm to create an article, I would be glad to do that, in fact I was planning to create a different article under name "Turkomans". Can you please help me to cancel redirect of "Turkoman" to "Turkmen" so that I could start working on the Turkoman page? Thanks, in advance and please, feel free to contact me on this or other questions should you have them. --Tabib 12:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Hi. An anon was messily editing the article today (replacing linked wiki-code with plain text), and i reverted him twice during RC patrol. After the anons last edits you fixed some of his changes. I just rolled back everything to the last good edit before the anon edit, and hence also rolled over your edits. I think most of your edits were only fixes of the anon edits anyway, but could you check if I have removed a contribution of yours? Thanks, and happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 15:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the Flag man!

Spread the gosple, teach them! Good to see our cause being defended!--Deli-Eshek 18:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you guys leave your "Turkish cause" where it belongs?!!!

This is Wikipedia, an international platform, which is neither concerned with petty ethnical causes, nor adolescent POV. We want knowledge here and not a heap of unreflected quotations and personal interpretations. Who cares about your personal problems on this platform? If you have something to bolster your contributions with, in a pertinent fashion, quote your bibliographical sources with precision and hold the quotations against a contester's, saving the Wikipedia reader from your own sentimentalism. This is going too far.--LIGerasimova 00:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your apparent aggression against anything non-Turkish. Rigging postings.

? One would reckon it is some of your postings, dominated by your apparent (personal) TURKISH problems, that constitute vandalism, in this context. It is also apparent that you try to pull a fast one on Wikipedia community, by rigging postings, even asking people to contact you by email (your buddy Parviz?) This is very very bad taste and a shame . This ought to be actually put before Arbitration.---LIGerasimova 08:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have no right to wage such kind of personal attacks on me, without even knowing the problem. Please, refer to the relevant talk page and third party opinions. You simply reformulate Pantherarosa's earlier groundless accusations. I do not think you have Persian background, and therefore unlike Pantherarosa I cannot accuse you in promoting pan-Persian propaganda here, but from your recent "contributions" I am confident, you are not the person who seek an objectivity and truth. As to "my buddy Parviz", at first I thought I know that guy (user Deli-Eshek), but then I contacted actual "Parviz" whom I know and clarified that user Deli-Eshek is not the one I supposed. Is there a crime here? If for you and your "buddies" consider Cambridge History of Iran, many other respected and authoritative academic sources are "Turkish propaganda" then there is no point of further discussions with you.--Tabib 09:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NOTE:In order to bring clarity to these accusations and prevent future misunderstandings, the user LIGerasimova referred to the ongoing discussion on Safavids talkpage, which she tried to vandalize and whose arguments were recognized as groundless --Tabib 10:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NOTE also:A quote of my (--LIGerasimova 10:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) )posting about user TABIB's highly questionable methods:

Could it be that we are dealing with a sort of "Turkish Editor Mafia" on this page?

I discovered that Tabib seems to try to pull a fast one on us all: He apparently attempts to rigg this discusson with the help of some "buddies", one of them a certain "Parviz". Everybody, please check Tabib's "contributions" list. He tried to corrupt the editor Deli-Eshek (another "Turkish Cause" poster, above) and asked him to get in touch by email! He may also be using the editor aka "Ulvi I." as a sock-puppet, as could be suspected from his message to Deli-Eshek on the latter's Personal Page. Foul game should not be tolerated here. I have a big big questionmark as to possible "Turkish" motives on the SAFAVIDS article in general. A real shame! --LIGerasimova 09:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Not exactly an honourable fashion to post POV, let allone a pertinent one!

Tabib, not exactly an honourable fashion to post POV, let allone a pertinent one!

I do not involve myself in the content of the SAFAVIDS article, as I am no historian. I simply got alerted by your request for mediation. I was apalled to find you trying to pull a fast one on all of us!! You even try to hide your tracks by deleting part of previous posts: The "buddy" Parviz bit, for example (on Deli-Eshek Personal Page) Do not attempt to outsmart the public, please. You insult our intelligence! --LIGerasimova 10:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please, stop spamming my talkpage. It is not a trash for you. As to your "motives", interesting explanation, especially considering that according to [your contribution log] it is your second day as a registered Wikipedia user and in this short period of time your only "contribution" was vandalizing the Safavids page, personal attacks and spamming. So you say, you "got alerted by [my request for mediation"? Hmm, interesting start place for a newbie to start his contribution to Wikipedia...--Tabib 11:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I post on this forum as I see fit and in accordance with Wikipedia rules and regulations

I am an avid Wikepedia reader for 2 Years and my husband has been a VERY active and acclaimed editor since last summer. Unethical conduct shall not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Govern yourself accordingly. I shall alert everybody to your attempts at sneering at other people's righteously posted opinions. Take it ore leave Wikipedia! --LIGerasimova 11:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Refer to my reply above. And calm down... --Tabib 11:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Safavids

Hi Tabib,

I retracted a bit because I feel a bit uncertain of myself. The Cambridge History of Iran is a good source, and it seems fairly clear that the Safavids were culturally and linguistically Turkish by the 15th century at the latest. However, the exact position of Safi al-Din seems to be extraordinarily unclear. I would certainly be open to a phrasing which asserted more strongly the Turkic heritage of the dynasty. I'm still ambivalent about "of Turkic origins" as a phrase. I think it is substantially correct, but may not be precisely correct if we are working from a notion that we have to determine the ethnicity of Safi al-Din. Since this seems to be unanswerable, I'd prefer we avoid that, and simply focus on the fact that the earliest clear records of the family show them as essentially Turkish. john k 16:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi John,

Ok, I see. It's not surprising that people get confused amidst all this messy and complicated debate. However, as I said, Cambridge History of Iran is not the only authoritative source which talks about Turkic origins of the Safavids, there are other credible Western and even Iranian sources, including medieval chronicles in which, as I stressed, in the Safavids talkpage Sheikh Safi was called a "Turkish/Turkic saint". I also underlined during the discussion that whereas there are serious complications as to the origins of the Safavids, mostly due to the dynasty's deliberate attempts to link their ancestry to that of Imam Ali and Prophet Muhammad, the fact that they were Turkic speaking is an undeniable fact. Therefore, my suggestion to you would be restoration of the initial most correct introductory sentence: "Safavids, a long-lasting Turkic-speaking Iranian dynasty that first established Shiite Islam in Iran as an official religion." I think this description is the most appropriate, correct and truthful. Hope to hear from you on that. --Tabib 05:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tabib - I definitely don't like that one. The later Safavids were not primarily Turkic speaking, but Persian speaking, weren't they? I prefer "of Turkic origins" to "Turkic-speaking". john k 05:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John, in fact we are talking about the same thing. Throughout the whole history of the Safavids their native language was Turkic (Azeri) and they were of Turkic origins. Certainly, there is truth in saying that late Safavid period is characterized with more Persianization of the dynasty and the state. The reasons for this transformation are clearly indicated in the Wikipedia Safavids article. But, I want to drag your attention to the fact that in later stages of the Safavid state, although Persian was used much more than Turkic in state affairs, nevertheless the native language of the Safavids remained Turkic and they continued to use Turkic in the court. Please, consider the following excerpt from Adam Olearius, a German tarveller to the Safavid State in mid XVII c.:

"Most of the Persians*, with their own language, learn also the Turkish especially in those provinces which have been long under the jurisdiction of the Grand Seignor, as Shirvan, Adirbeitzan, Iraq, Baghdad, and Eruan, where children are taught the Turkish language and by this means it is so common at court that a man seldom hears anyone speak the Persian; as in the Grand Seignior’s country, they ordinarily speak the Sclavonian, and in the Mogul’s the Persian. But in the province of Fars (which is the ancient Persia) and at Shiraz, they speak only the Persian language."' [1]

* In medieval times, term "Persian" was (mistakenly) used to refer to the whole population of the Safavid state (or Persia or Iran) not considering their ethnic background.

Here is another quote from another German traveller Engelbert Kaempfer who travelled to the Safavids state in late XVII c.

A Turkish dialect, which is a native language of the Safavid dynasty, is widely spread in the Iranian palace. This language differs from the usual speaking language of the country population. The Turkish language is spread in the palace and in the houses of high officials and respectable persons and as a result, it came out, that everyone, who wishes to gain the shah's respect speaks in this language." (Onullahi S.M., Hassanov A. G. «About two more unknown letters of the Safavid rulers» (Safavi hokmdarlarinin daha iki na'melum mektubu haqqinda) Baku 1974 p. 85 (in Azeri))

I can bring other sources proving that even in the later stages of the Safavids, when the role of the Persian language and Persian ethnic element in the state increased, the dynasty and the ruling elite itself has preserved its Turkic character and language. Hope this bring more clarity to the issue. --Tabib 07:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinved me. "Turkic speaking" makes more sense, if this is right. I'd like to see some modern accounts discussing this question, but consider me largely convinced. john k 14:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John, I’m glad to hear that my arguments seemingly convinced you. Initially, the discussion was focused on the origins, and not in later Safavid period. In addition to Olearius and Kaempfer, I can add French traveler Jean Baptiste Tavernier who also traveled to the Safavid court in mid XVII c. and who said that “the language of the court is Turkish” (“Sources on the history of Azerbaijan” (Azerbaycan tarixi uzre qaynaqlar, Baku 1989, p. 185 in Azeri) (unfortunately didn’t find an online reference to this quote to show you directly). I don’t think anyone would seriously claim that Safavids as a dynasty lost their Turkic identity and language in later periods.

I believe I substantially showed in this brief discussion and throughout the whole discussion in the Safavids talkpage that Safavids were Turkish speaking both before and after Shah Ismail I and any attempts to limit Turkic character of the Safavids to only Shah Ismail and Safavids’ earlier years is nothing more than a product of Persian propaganda. Persians and Azeri Turks share a lot of common history and this history is quite complex. If interested in this issue I can recommend reading Brenda Shaffer’s Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity (for review look here).

In sum, I request you John to clearly indicate in the introductory sentence that Safavids were “Turkic-speaking”. You’ve heard all the arguments and counterarguments. It is your decision now. --Tabib 17:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've added it back. However, it is certainly not my decision. I have no authority here. The question of what the page should say is to be determined by consensus, and (for better or worse) everyone gets to at least have a say of some sort. Hopefully there won't be any more problems, though. john k 19:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John, I understand and appreciate your prudence and caution in your approach and your judgment. As you saw from the earlier discussions, there was no way for us achieving a consensus with Pantherarosa aggressively advancing his propaganda and refusing to accept the authoritative sources at hand. As to your role, I wouldn’t be so modest. Your intervention was very timely, it stopped edit and revert war and most importantly, both Pantherarosa and myself accepted you as a neutral third party. Therefore, even if not formal arbiter, I consider your judgment to be more than a simple opinion of a neutral third party. In any case, if Pantherarosa and the like will attempt in the future to alter the major parts of the article pointing to the Safavids Turkic speaking character, I will resort to formal arbitration once again. Thanks. --Tabib 08:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Before requesting arbitration, you might want to request formal mediation from the mediation committee. This would be non-binding, and both sides would have to accept. If Pantherarosa, et al, refused to accept mediation, then you'd have a much better case for going to the arbitration committee. john k 17:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lack of intellectual capacity not concealed by immature perspective and spiteful patriotism

Do some fervently patriotic, youthful spirits really believe they can rewrite history amongst themselves? Who are John and Tabib? It is poor judgment to presume the question posed can be settled among two kids and some Pantherarosa or Deli-Eshek (Nomen est Omen?) characters, by bickering and cackling over them. This is Nursery school style! So far no proof has been established to the contrary of the perception that the Safavid ancestors, prior to Sultan Jonayd, were Persian.Bold text

My reply.--Tabib 13:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Population Census in Nagorno-Karabakh

Dear Tabib:

I am trying to restore facts in the article about Karabahk. If you disagree with my arguments, you have to explain why...

According to the Soviet population census (as of 1979), the population of Karabahk was 162 000, from which there were 123 100 Armenians (75,9%) and 37 300 were Azeri people (22,9%). That's why it is correct to say that this autonomous region was predominantly Armenian populated even before the conflict. However, you have deleted this statement from the article without negotiating this subject and without discussion. There are also some other well known facts, which you keep removing from the article without any explanation or discussion...

I strongly believe, this is a violation of the very basic principles of Wekipedia.

I hope, we can resolve the conflict in our opinion, not asking for help from the Arbitration Committee . I believe, we can come to a mutual agreement. Let's discuss the subject!

Rovoam 17:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My reply--Tabib 10:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very base views behind repeated violation of the very basic principles of Wekipedia ?

This user has proved UNWORTHY of contribution to Wikipedia. He apperantly suffers from pathogenic INFERIORITY COMPLEXES, obviously on account of his Turkic background (why is that so difficult for him??), that he invariably goes about spamming pertinent editorials with relevant comments or deletions. This must Stop!!!!!!!! --LIGerasimova 19:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Vandalism

If you see vandalism in progress, you may list the vandal at WP:VIP. This helps administrators who are on alert to fight the vandalism. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

safavids

Hi tabib; you didnt accept my revision by safavids??????????? this dynasty was iranian, they were only of turkic origin. After "shah abbas" (he moved the Capital into Isfahan) the turkic language at the safavid-court was forgotten also they were not always turkic-speaking. again: the turkic-azeri was never the official language of Persia (or its royal court) this language could be used only to speaking. Persia or rather iran had already a official language with a rich literature. when my argument doesnt convince you, please write me whats, otherwise I would vary the article again. :-] P.S. you know that the azeri's are to iranian. and they are rather Persian than the Turks.

Hi, thanks for message, but frankly I dont know what you are talking about. Who are you? Why you say that I "didnt accept your version"? (?!) The last version was primarily edited by user Slava, who added lots of new info.

Now, Safavids discussion is over, for details you may want to refer to Safavids discussion page. The discussion proved that Safavids were of Turkic origin and were Turkic speaking Iranian dynasty. Some users and anons pushed for their Persian nationalistic POV and did not even stop from vandalizing the page (btw, one of them still vexes me vandalizing my personal page). I believe the page as it is now, has greatly improved and is rather accurate and objective. It doesn't underplay neither Turkic identity of Safavids nor the Persian cultural factor within the Safavids state. As to your claim that Turkic was not used by Safavids in later periods, please, refer to the message above which includes testimonies of XVII c. European travellers confirming that Turkic (Azeri) was used by Safavids in later periods as well. Best regards. --Tabib 14:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Safavids were indeed not Turkic dancers, as user Tabib, our Turkey protagonist, tries to "prove". In fact they were no dancers at all! God only knows where he gets that nonsense from.

Hi tabib thank you for your Information, Particularly I find the report of the british cosul [or rather agent- this is only my idea ;-)] very useful. but i believe still that the safavids didnt use azeri as literary language.

there is now another Problem I want to enter the list of Persian dynasties (see the right side) in this article, what is now protected. this list is a overlook about the total Histoy of Iran, and all the persian dynasties-articles contain it. can you insert it instead of by me????

Turn a Page and start new Strategy!

Merhaba, Dadash. Na'sasen? Don't loose faith. Believe in yourself! And start really respecting yourself. You and I are following the same Ideology! We are very similar. Both of us are of one and the same vocation! We both are:--Baku Ibne 23:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You exposed yourself! You are the same person as banned User:84.154.104.16 aka User:Osmanoglou. I added this info in report on your vandalisms (see, here). I don’t know what "ibne" means(probably some dirty word in Persian) but I saw the anon 84.154.xx.xx and “Osmanoglou” using the same word over and over again. Other editors: please, see Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh to understand the farce organized against me by this user and several other "users" whose sole purpose is to undermine my position in Wikipedia and then to advaance their chauvinistic propaganda. --Tabib 07:32, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Have I upset you, dadash??

Why are you so cross with me? You are mistaken about the term IBNE, it is NOT Persian at all, it is TURKISH!!! I thought you'd understand. I tried to explain to you that we are birds of the same feather, namely "IBNE". When reading all those comprehensive postings of yours, it became clear to me: YOU ARE 100 percent "IBNE", dadash! Please don't exert yourself and calm down.

Stop personal attacks and insults! You will be banned in Wikipedia! For other editors: if interested details on this "user" "Baku ibne" can be found here.--Tabib 10:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Do not mess around with my user page!

And stop implicating me with HOMOSEXUAL connotation to you! I consider this an act of clear and REPEATED VANDALISM!

--Baku Ibne 12:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You cannot hide your true identity banned User:Osmanoglou aka banned 84.154.xx.xx. And stop deleting User:SWAdair's message in your talkpage (this "user" posted a false report of vandalism directed against me, and as a result was warned by User:SWAdair). This warning message and your attempts to delete this post is another solid evidence proving who you are in reality and what your intentions are. --Tabib 12:49, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vandal Tabib, Stop vandalising my user page TALK and crying on everybody's lap!

I shall not turn a blind eye on the fact that you seem to try to implicate me in your problems and HOMOSEXUALITY vandal Tabib!

--Baku Ibne 12:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are exposed and trapped. No tricks will help you now. Other editors have also seen your real identity already. Your actions will be punished sooner or later (sooner, if I get enough time to pursue my complaint against you).

Other editors: please, visit this "user's" talkpage and his malicious posts in Nagorno-Karabakh talkpage (with my comments on his initial actions above). These are all important evidences for an extremely immoral and malicious behavior, the only punishment for which is BANNING this "user" from Wikipedia forever.--Tabib 13:21, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vandal Tabib, I URGE you once again, not to go around vandalising my user page TALK

Please do not mention me in connection with your apparent unsavory preoccupation with homosexuality! You ought to get BANNED once an for all for all the POLEMICS and insults you spread invariably at everybody around. What is your ulterior motive? Nobody benefits from these "activities" on WIKIPEDIA.

--Baku Ibne 13:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You wanna dance F O X T R O T T ??

Or would you prefer LAMBADA ;o) ?? --Twinkletoes 10:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Saw your list of complaints, quite impressive!

Merhaba, Tabib Bey. Strazd vu'it ye tavarish!

Good to see the rear ends of a number of malicious culprits finally kicked!!! Gospodina L. I. Gerasimova was getting out of hand, as were your apparent compatriots Osmanoglou and Baku Ibne and. Twinkletoes and Stuffed Turkey look suspiscious too, be careful. I wish you luck, anyhow--Kiramo Bemik 12:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another "mock user"/sock puppet "born" today (March 3) (after "mock users" User:Baku Ibne ("born" march 1); User:Kiramtu Kunettabib (born march 2), User:Twinkletoes ("born" march 2). Here's this "user's", his contribution log. Btw, name similarities makes me suspect that this is the same person as previously exposed "mock user" User:Kiramtu Kunettabib (contrib. and/or posible even User:Baku Ibne whose case is now being decided by the arbcom ([2]). --Tabib 12:57, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

...............impressive, nevertheless, Tabib--Kiramo Bemik 13:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your conduct is clearly SICK!

All you seem to be interested in, is spreading personal insults and slandering fellow editors. The pattern of your actions is repetitive:

1. You start editing articles with the sole purpose of obtruding your very personal "Turkish" perspective on every subject.

2. As soon as you meet intellectual resistance, you start to polemize and seek "mediation" "arbitration" and other means of pressure on the other editor.

3. You start whole epics on the objectors' supposed evil, for which you avail yourself to a lot(!) of space. This, in addition, on the respective articles' Talk pages, turning them into a mess. Instead of keeping this to yourself and the respective fellow editor, you seem to try and drag everybody chancing on those pages into the dirty (filthy?) laundry you are publicly washing.

4. Your abnormal conduct evokes revulsion with the innocent readers consulting Wikipedia. For weeks at end the articles you have started to meddle with carry a "DISPUTE" template, not exactly helpful, e.g. for students trying to derive data for their reports (as happened before on "SAFAVIDS" Talk page).

5. The lack of public respect for your despicable conduct will leave a mark on Wikipedia in general: It draws the carpet from underneath serious editors and their work (suffering as a whole from your smear campaigns) as well as the readers, seeking reliable information and doubting Wikipedia's dependability, due to the prevailing confusion.

It is high time for any responsible ARBCOM to rid us all from a psychopath running amok on this wonderful site!!!!! Be a man and call it quits, instead of forcing us to watch this undignified romping and stomping of yours.

Arbitration and the attacks on you

Hi, just a note to say that I sympathise with you and recognise that it's no fun to suffer this kind of extreme attack. Don't worry about the attacks; the arbitrators are nobody's fools and they'll see through them. The best thing to do is just "sit pretty" and wait for the case to be accepted. Four arbitrators have voted to accept so it will be changed to accepted as soon as one of the arbitrators gets around to updating the page.

The case will start with an evidence phase. An evidence page will be provided in which you should record all personal attacks you have experienced that appear to come from this sock puppet, in as brief and readable a form as possible. The accusedm, and indeed any other editor, is also permitted to submit evidence. If you need help or advice with this phase do not hesitate to ask.

Another part of the case will be checking the suspected sock puppets. This takes time because the arbitrators themselves cannot do that, they have to ask the developers for help. So if nothing seems to be happening for days, and the attacks get worse, please be patient, we'll get there in the end. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony for your understanding of my current situation and your good advise. I am afraid this issue will be a long-lasting one, because it involves several persons, possibly each one operating under several usernames, as well as acting on several pages and over several issues. Nonetheless, I am determined to pursue all these cases till the end. So, I definitely need support of neutral and honest Wikipedia editors to watch over the recent developments. --Tabib 14:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

To Tabib

(NOTE: This whole discussion was copied by a currently banned vandal and sockpuppeteer LIGerasimova (aka banned Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou etc.) from Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. The original posts by user Fadix, followed by my reply and then Fadix again and then LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne etc. can be found here)

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!

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)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Your arbitration case against Baku Ibne et. al. has been accepted by the Arbitration Committee. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Baku Ibne et. al./Evidence. Thank you. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 21:43, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

WP:AN archives

Please do not mess with the WP:AN archives. Thank you. Noel (talk) 14:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Remember

Dear tabib I asked you to insert the list of persian dynasties in safavids-article [3]. but you didnt wrote me whats!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you able to vary it in spite of protecting??

User Tabib, why don't you leave history to the ones who know something about it? (And the rest of us allone?)

On Nagorno Karabakh, as on SAFAVIDS page, user Tabib tries to impress with a vast array of hearsay and unreflected patchwork of data, as has previously been repeatedly discerned by a number of editors. Again, he is proven (by user FADIX) to have copied internet sources, without actually comprehending the respective contexts!! Nevertheless User Tabib seems to be driven by spite to simultaneously insist on posting information, conspicuous with inaccuracies and "half truths", and at the same time foul mouthing me and a host of other editors. Funnily enough, his entire concern seems to be to cover up for his obviously inaccurate "editing", by downright silly personal attacks on other users, constantly whining into admins ears and filing complaints, seeking arbitration. WHAT, pray tell me, is in it for the READERS here??? Someone consulting an encyclopedia does not want to have to deal with mental problems of berserk "editors", posting anything but factual information!!?? I firmly believe, ethnic POV and silly agenda pushing have no place on Wikipedia.--LIGerasimova 09:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For details on this person, please see Evidences for Arbitration.--Tabib 16:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Format for arbitration evidence

On Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Baku Ibne, et al./Evidence please follow the prescribed format for presenting evidence Fred Bauder 21:05, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Tabib. I hope you're feeling fine. I took the things you said as a start for investigating your case and producing evidence in the form that arbcom prefers. Please let me know if there's anything important I might have missed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidences for Rovoam's conduct

In response to your post in my talkpage:

Hi Tony,

Thank you for your care and attention. I was away for several days and couldn't get to Wikipedia. I'm fine, although a bit tired of all of this, but firm as never in my intention to pursue the case I started till its logical end.

Tony, I am grateful to you for your wikiformatting of my evidences. You formatted my evidences and even provided new ones for LIGerasimova Osmanoglou Baku Ibne. Btw, I never seriously thought that LIGerasimova (who passed himself off as a Russian female) could be Osmanoglou (who is a male, definitely of Persian background), although I had some suspicions that LIgerasimova may not be the one who "she" pretended to be. So, this finding was quite surprising to me.

But I also noticed that most of the evidences against User:Rovoam are missing. Right now he is my biggest headache, because he continues his disruptive actions and vandalism, which go far beyond the limits of Nagorno-Karabakh page. Please, see Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and also history logs for Caucasus Albania page and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic redirect page. Tomorrow or on monday I will try to present more evidences on Rovoam and if needed on others too in the format you provided. Thanks once again and please, keep an eye on Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and also on Caucasus Albania and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic redirect page. --Tabib 19:53, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:Curps and I both went to protect Nagorno-Karabakh Republic at about the same time. Firstly, you asked for it in your edit summary and I happened to be looking at the article just now. If you need this done in future there is a place you can ask for it to be done: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Yes, if you get time please add more evidence on your problems with User:Rovoam. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm frankly impressed by your speed and efficiency in producing that history of your dispute with Rovoam. I'm sure arbcom will find it useful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:-Tabib impersonation of User:Tabib

Tony, Curps and ALL: Please, see this post in Tony's talkpage to see yet another outrageous example of fraudulent actions and malicious campaign waged against me by certain people.--Tabib 20:34, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:-Tabib has been blocked, but he'll undoubtedly be up to his tricks again soon. Just put a note about any that you spot on my talk page or WP:AN/I, and they will be dealt with by me or some other administrator. This will all go into the evidence for the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==VandalTabib Quit MESSING up my Talk page with your silly and childish pranks again!!!== --LIGerasimova 22:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence on one person acting behind various anon IPs and sock puppets LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou/Dubistdas LetzteArschloch etc. etc. is available at ArbCom Evidences--Tabib 07:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Your userpage

I've protected your userpage from vandalism; feel free to ask me when you want it unprotected again. — Dan | Talk 01:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

I suggest myself as a candidate to mediate the article. I already made my initial assesments. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By starting from scratch I mean that you and old parties to forget older hostilities and dont refer back to those. vandalist people ofcourse is a different matter. Is there anything in the archives that needs to be added to the article? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tabib, I hope you will agree to this. Coolcat is great at generating new ideas to solve problems, and he's pretty fair-minded.

Coolcat, I really approve of that approach. Best make it clear on the talk page that this is what you mean. I think not only Tabib but perhaps a few others would object to starting the whole article from scratch. The article at present isn't *that* bad, surely. With the right atmosphere of honesty and mutual respect I think that article has some great editing in its future. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

lets go? I need to know what you do not like in the article. :) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 07:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add topic