Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision

message: *Blnguyen (recused)
*Charles Matthews
*Flcelloguy
*FloNight
*Fred Bauder
*Jdforrester
*Jpgordon
*Kirill Lokshin
*Mackensen
*Matthew Brown (Morven)
*Paul August
*SimonP
*UninvitedCompany
With 13 active arbitrators of whom 1 is recused, the majority is 7. Updated by Newyorkbrad 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrators

message: Either a clarification is needed. Each parties have the right of one revert might bring people to use multiple accounts and use the force of numbers. I don't have a solution, but this could do more harm than good. Fad (ix) 15:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they do so, we will catch them, and will enact further remedies as necessary. In the past, users have been restricted to a single account, and have been banned from contributing to any page except thier talk page and the arbitration pages during the course of arbitration. The behavior in question at this time is reverting; we will address other issues as they become issues. Essjay (Talk) 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have been notified, problem though. I already took the dispositions and will be refraining editing any articles involving, Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, etc., I expect to only contribute on science related articles. So this does not apply to me. What applies to me is that since I won't be contributing in the articles which are involved with the case, the rv. restriction or justification in the talkpage is not for the better of things because I don't want to be restricted to revert or justify edits which have nothing to do with the case here, since I won't edit those articles anyway. Also, since I believe being the only editor in this case I believe not having ever been blocked for edit warring, article disruption or 3RR(my blocks are for bad mouthing), I feel I am ordered to do something which I do anyway. Could the Arbcom committee consider a change, such as "Fadix is restricted to contribute in articles involving this case"? This way I won't have the restriction which would be irrelevent in my case. Fad (ix) 01:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: May have disagree

message: Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page.
How is it to be enforced? Two (or more) reverts leads to blocking, of course, but what about failure to explain reverts on the talk page or in an edit summary? Is this blockable, and, if so, does it require warnings before blocking? Picaroon 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the users have been notified of the injunction. Therefore, a warning is moot. I would (and will) block on first infringement, given their notification of the temp. inj. is enough warning for me. Daniel Bryant 04:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dmcdevit, the administrator who filed the case, has taken the lead in enforcing the injunction, although any admin can do so. Unfortunately, Dmc's already had to give out two blocks; he did give some warnings before blocking; see the "log of blocks and bans" on the casepage, and the talkpages of the users named there. Newyorkbrad 04:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I still subject to this (see my comments above)? I'm just wondering, I'm not asking so that I can prepare an edit war or something, I'm asking so that just in case I have to make 2 reverts I would know not to so I dont get blocked.Azerbaijani 04:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone named in the case is subject to the injunction. I have asked the arbitrators above whether the remedy applies to articles concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan only or to all articles, and am waiting for a response. Newyorkbrad 05:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I keep saying that my addition was incorrect and unjustified. I should not have been added in the first place. Why am I being punished when I did nothing at all to be in this Arbcom in the first place.Azerbaijani 06:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Temporary injunctions are rough justice.  There hasn't been time to analyze the evidence and see against whom enforcement might be needed, but a solution to the immediate problem of edit warring was needed.  Since no one should be reverting without explanation on any article anywhere (except for obvious vandalism), the potential harm to yourself should be low.  The potential harm to the project of waiting to perform a full analysis before enacting anything was considered higher.  That's how things are some times. Thatcher131 07:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enforcement of temporary injunction 

message: A Clarification for you Grandmaster, It would be interesting for you to provide either the guideline or policy which I haven't respected. You edited warred not I. And it is also about time you read that guideline and understand it. In that case no guideline was even necessary as the name of some Azeri town has nothing to do with the Armenian province. Also, maybe here is not the place, I will further ask you to concentrate on my personal attacks and incivility directed against some users which I do not deny and ready to pay to consequences and you should not try to find things about me which do not exist. I slandered, but did not edit war, did not disturb article content. Use Tool1 and check my contribution history. Example, on Nagorno Karabakh article, in its talk page I have 330 edit and in its mainspace only 9. Check how much talk per edit it does make. I have to talk, talk and talk... and with no result, as you will revert over one single edit and remove the entire stuff. Don't bring insignificant stuff, concentrate on evidences which are valid, because we both know that for each insignificance you present to insinuate I have edit warred, I can provide about 50 about you. I am the user here who has per month the lowest edit in the namespace of articles and one of the users on Wikipedia with the highest ratio of talk per edit in its namespace. There is no point in retaliating with false charges, leave this to Adil, don't hurt your credibility. Fad (ix) 17:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If my charges are false, you don’t have to worry. I would like the arbitrators to review what happened on Paytakaran. You reverted all my edits under the baseless pretext. Even if we assume that you are right and the guideline your refer to is applicable to the article in question, the guideline gives you no right to undo all edits of other users without reading them. You were objecting to the words Azerbaijani: Beyləqan, but instead of those 2 words you removed a whole page of referenced text. In addition to that, you sabotaged the mediation attempt, which was initiated by a wiki admin. So you will have to explain your actions to arbcom. Grandmaster 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I do have that right, there is no guideline nor any policy which states that I can not do a full revert when there is guideline infringement. I am not worried about myself, I already know the enforcement on myself. I know what I did wrong, which was incivility and personal attack. I do not push my wrong doings under the carpet. What I am worried about is you. You should take the time to read the other past rulings Grandmaster. I don't want this to turn into so Azeri chasing stuff and not seem as Azeri users will be silenced. This is why I have asked you from the beginning to distance yourself from Adil Baguirov and stop defending themselves. Do you even see in my evidence ONCE defending other members? Do you see me defending my personal attacks? Why do you take that time and space defending Atabek, Dacy69 and AdilBaguirov? Those guy will clost you a lot of trouble and we do need an Azeri member active in those articles to discuss after. Because let me say you something, the probability that AdilBaguirov will indefinitely be banned from English Wikipedia is very high. Please take the time to carefully read my evidence (and compare them with previous cases and the subsequent rulings) and it is still time for you to distance yourself from him. This guy has had a very bad influence on you and as long as you refuse to distance yourself this will only harm you. Fad (ix) 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fadix, you know rules very well and you are as much guilty of edit warring as others. Paytakaran is a good example of your attitude towards edits by other people. If you don’t know, you violated this rule: Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Avoidance Not that others did not violate it, but so did you, and you did it in this particular page more blatantly than others. You removed a full page of referenced edits under a baseless pretext. And moreover, you disrupted mediation, which was agreed to both by Azerbaijani and Armenian users. Same Dacy69, whom you accuse of various crimes, agreed to it, yet you did not and the mediation attempt failed. I asked you to provide just one example of when you tried to use dispute resolution procedure to resolve the conflicts with the users you accuse now, and you have not done so, and for a reason, which is that you never actually tried any dispute resolution. I want the arbcom to review the edit warring on Paytakaran page in particular, and I’m willing to provide any evidence required for that. Grandmaster 18:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think arbitrators should check the article’s history and pass their judgment. I don't think there's a rule that allows anyone undo all referenced edits of another person to "enforce" a guideline, which could be applied to one or two words out of hundreds, if at all. If there’s such a rule, you may as well quote it. Grandmaster 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Btw, your diff is a good example of your edit warring. You removed sourced info. Grandmaster 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The page was moved by the mediator without a consensus with involved parties, it was his proposal for resolution of the dispute. I moved it back until consensus is reached and this arbcom is over. Grandmaster 05:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paytakaran

message: Before I continue further with the evidences. Here is what I propose as rulling on myself. Since I do not deny having personally attacked, I propose a no personal attack parole. In the event I personally attack someone 1 week blocking. Is that enough Grandmaster? What do you propose else on the ruling about me? I can possibly not propose to get away from such articles, since I hardly contribute in their namespace. It was mission impossible as one single edit I could make resulted with revert warring, which I did not engage in, anyway for that part the Arbcom shall decide.
Now, Grandmaster, did you do anything wrong? Something which would worth any enforcement? Did AdilBaguirov, Atabek or Dacy69 did anything wrong which would worth any enforcement? I don't want an answer such as "not more than you did, not more than x, y and z did". What others did does not justify it. So, do you Grandmaster believe you, AdilBaguirov, Atabek, Dacy69 did anything wrong? Je yes or no. Fad (ix) 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My answer is that the arbcom should actually ban the whole lot, all Armenian and Azerbaijani editors, if they want to enforce law and order. Then there will be no problems at all. Yes, I’m a human being and quite possible I did something wrong, quite possible that other Azerbaijani users should have shown more patience when their edits were removed, but can you show me any person listed for this arbcom who did no wrong? Just one? So it is not so much about separate individuals, as much as it is about situation in general. I don’t believe that anything will change after one or two users will be punished. Others will take their place, and everything will repeat. What we need is a better dispute resolution mechanism, possibly a board of respected editors, who could oversight Armenia – Azerbaijan related articles and help finding compromise solutions. If we had more people like Francis, it would not be like it is now. Grandmaster 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possible? So, you don't know if you did anything wrong? Fine, I got the answer I wanted. You can't say a plain yes. Fad (ix) 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to proposed decision

message: All this will do is create a new wave of socks will this really help? Artaxiad 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, but right now, this is not what concerns me most. Holdwater the author of tallarmeniantale has now carte verte to invade the Armenian Genocide article. Fad (ix) 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is basically banning the whole Armenian community here, whose block logs were clean until some users came along, recently I'm afraid alot more articles would be invaded and no one is there to clean it up. Artaxiad 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have never engaged on Armenian-Azerbaijani articles. My mistake. At least, revert warring will stop for a moment. Fad (ix) 21:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bans 

message: In the proposed decision on sockpuppetry charge with regards to myself, I would like to attract the attention to the decision of User:Khoikhoi . It clearly states that I was a newbie. Indeed, the account Tengri, who was more likely to be my meatpuppet rather than sockpuppet, was established 7 days after I first came to Wikipedia. Obviously, I wasn't well aware of the rules back then, neither was the banned. And the record after that shows that I haven't attempted to create any socks or evade blocks since that case. And in general, I don't think that having violated far less rules than some other users (only two cases of revert warring and sock ban due to inexperience), I deserve to be given the same ban as those who have a lengthy record of experience and more serious violations. Thanks. Atabek 11:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is generally not possible to craft arbitration decisions with surgical precision to take into account finely shaded differences in wrongdoing.  Arbitration is not a scalpel  but a sword, and there is good reason why Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. Thatcher131 16:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding proposed decision 

message: I will not question I have acted the wrong way, but I know I can contribute on other articles which have nothing to do with those topics, and want really to contribute on those articles and improve them. I will accept any decisions the Arbcom takes. A last question, being banned, can I still edit my talkpage and work on articles from there? Fad (ix) 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Blocked users may edit their talk page but banned users are banned, period. Thatcher131 16:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you people give us no reverts? fair enough, I would leave these articles alone if they do, I want to contribute in other areas, like military history project etc on Wikipedia, but people keep on drawing attention there. Artaxiad 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Sure, you could even not resist reverting and editing the mainspace after I have requested you on countless occasions to stop it. You worth the ban, Fedayee and Eupator don't. Fad (ix) 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed decision

message: It's sad that alot of Armenian veterans who have contributed so much to Wikipedia and have been dedicated to it, have been provoked into this and now are being banned for one year when two of the primary reverters against them here are "set free", let's say. What will this ban achieve? The creation of more and more sockpuppets, the falsification of history and the major slowing of positive advancement to Armenian articles. - Fedayee 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bans 

message: The same insults, refusal and attitude of battleground. That does not require additional comments  First, my knowledge of history was positively assessed by third parties. Secondly, here it is clear distinction to put watershed between editors, to launch another cyber-war. Thirdly, no one from Azeri editors complain about the right of Armenian or other users to edit Azerbaijan-related pages, but you, guys, obviously treat this way Armenia-related pages. And what should deserve special attention is a threat to use sockpuppets and in other ways to violate Wikipedia rules. That is difference between Azeri and Armenian editors in attitudes towards Wiki. It is also a reason why you are guarding your pages as you own them and protect nationalistic views.--Dacy69 23:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is hardly any policies which you did not brake, just above again your rhetorics about "Azeri editors" and "Armenian editors", while I have admitted my mistakes and been clear with it, you still continue pretending you did nothing wrong and yet have gotten veteran established users being proposed for a ban. I have registered there was over two years ago, have earned 4 barnstars and probably more, including by an Admin. Have been the only Armenian editor who personally invited Turkish editors in contributing on the Armenian Genocide pages. Yet, I am proposed to be banned for a year, while I have not disturbed for the over two years the mainspace of articles. While you come here jump in with Adil, right on the same day jumping in engaging on edit warring closing most articles you edit, attacking slandering, vilifying members and using of socks. And yet, you aren't even proposed for a block. If I were you, I would personally not add anything at all. You know that Atabek will be back by using a sock, while honest members like me, if blocked will respect the decision. Fad (ix) 01:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They are not only hypothetical, I leave you merge Dacy contributions on Russian Wikipedia and edit my page on the merging of their contribution and see how many contribution crossing you find while they were all from the same timezone. Read their contributions, all the same words, expressions and accusations, slanders(Elnurso and Dacy, as well as the other IP which does even not trace to Canada). I am not accusing the Arbcom, as for responsability, the Arbcom has the responsability in its taking of decision. The whole history of users contribution is more important than occasional incivility and personal attacks. They did not deal with the things I have delt with. The first days I came to Wikipedia, I had faced the author of tallarmeniantale.com scrapping entire articles and shouting his racist rhetorics, then it was Tabib, then Sedat Laciner, who did even not bother changing his name while contributing, then it was Adil and then, someone I prefer to not give his name. You come here on Wikipedia on good faith deciding to contribute, what you find out is that everywhere you go you find someone who is involved personally on the conflict in real life and are edit warring pushing and pushing. Cataloguing my over 2 years of contributions with evidences picked from here and there to propose a ban. It does even not matter if it will be opposed or not, but just to propose a year is stressful enough. Dacy who had a major share of the blame, who has done nothing, nothing other than edit warring, meatpuppeting(and please don't even ask for more evidences on that, I have provided sufficient, which it seems the Arbcom did even not consider) and sock puppeting etc. In his very short presence on Wikipedia he has caused the locking of more articles than my presence multiplied by 5 and even more in my whole over 2 years of contributions. You ask me to stop, it is easy for you to say that. Fad (ix) 15:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't care of his contributions on Russian Wikipedia, I told you to merge them (contribution history) with my merged contribution. It will confirm that he has used socks. That is my entire point. Anyway, thanks a lot for everything, your help as a veteran supporting an abuser against another veteran member was highly welcomed. Fad (ix) 18:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding above-mentioned thoughts 

message: I just want the arbitrators to consider this, I have a proposition to make. I will retire on anything related with politic and will stop personally attack. I have picked an article on which I want to work, which is on protobiontes, it is an orphaned. I propose to be on probation until I work on that article, expend it and achieve a FA statue on it. It will take months for that to happen and as one could see from the articles condition it is like if I would have created it. Until that article becomes FA I will not contribute on any articles related to politics, will not even engage in the talkpages. If I harrass or personally attack someone only once in a period of one year the Arbcom could ban me undefinitly. For some Wikipedia is only a place to contribute on their national matters, for me it is more than that(was meant to be as I had not the occasion), while I could live with being prevented contributing in those articles for a certain time, something I have been already planning to do already, a total ban is just too harsh when the experience of editing and writing an encyclopedia was more interesting than the subject I contributed in; when you have contributed for over 2 years a ban of 1 year is like eternity. While Artaxiad has probably done everything to worth a ban, Fedayee was clean before Dacy69 and Atabek along with Adil after his wikibrake came here and screwed it. I don't see how Eupator could gets a ban, when most of his contributions just like Fedayee were even not related to the Armenian Azerbaijan conflict. I won't defend any other members as I don't know them very well. It really amazes me, no worst, it is offending, to see that Dacy who has caused most articles he has touched to close from DAY 1 and has done nothing other than vilifying is even given the right under this proposition to continue contributing as if the problem he has caused was only on edit warring. I will this time, not add any more "ranting" and will drop all this, won't edit and accept the decision the Arbcom takes. I rest my case. Fad (ix) 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed decision, final comment

message: Problems with findings of fact regarding me. The diffs provided for disruptive editing that includes edit-warring seems very weird. The first two diffs are from Koryun and Tigranes the Great in each case AdilBagurirov introduced pov and unscholarly text that was discussed extensively on the talk page, I was the main enforcer in terms of reverting Adil but many others did as well. So it's disruption on his behalf but how is it on mine? The third one is from Paytakaran, again, something not initiated by me on an article that I wrote, this time by Grandmaster. What's disruptive? I wrote so obviously I'm the main participant, nor was I the only one reverting Gm. For the record, in Paytakaran's case I don't find Gm's edit's disruptive either unlike Adil's edits on the other articles.
Now, "attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battlefield along national lines", the diff provided for this has me responding to Grandmaster's Muslim vs Christian analogy with a suitable analogy from WWII, how is that attempting to turn Wiki into battlefield? I'm not talking to a new user there, i've been in contact with Gm for a long time so it's not very formal naturally. The last one just boggles the mind, Gm's calling my earlier analogy in the discussion "racism and chauvinism" yet that's not a personal attack but my response is? An uncivil response to a personal attack yes but not one in itself. The given examples of "findings" are pretty weak. The case against Fedayee is also extremely weak. Atabek and Dacy are much more reserved and do not disrupt articles or and use socks regularly unlike Adil Baguirov, so a revert restriction is appropriate as with the rest. A revert restriction seems resonable for most, but a ban? The only two people that deserve a ban are Artaxiad with a temporary ban and Adil who should be banned indefinetly, he hasn't even stopped baiting in the last few days alone.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My two cents 

message: I wonder why User:Vartanm is not proposed to be placed on a revert parole, while he was identified as an edit warring party by one of the arbitrators.  Grandmaster 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parole 

message: I hope that the arbitrators will read my comments and take them into consideration.  While I agree with the ArbCom on most of their decisions, I feel that there are some parts of their decision should be revisited.
First of all, I believe that a one year block for User:AdilBaguirov won't solve anything because he'll just return after the block has expired and cause more trouble.  I think that the best solution for this issue would be to indefinitely block Adil from Wikipedia.  Secondly, I feel that User:Eupator and User:Fedayee should be granted reduced sentences from one year blocks to revert paroles.  In all fairness, Fedayee had very little involvement in Armenian-Azeri issues until this whole dispute sprung up and Eupator made some very positive contributions to Wikipedia (especially on WikiProject Armenia and Portal:Armenia) that should not be overlooked.  Both of these users have done more good to Wikipedia than bad.  I actually think that User:TigranTheGreat (who has made offensive comments towards users on a few occasions) deserves a one year block more than either of these users.  I'm not sure where I stand on the verdict of User:Fadix, as I haven't paid too much attention to his edits.
I agree on the rest of the decisions.  My own revert parole will keep me disciplined while editing Wikipedia.  All the best, Aivazovsky 12:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My thoughts on the decision (Aivazovsky) 

message: I ask ArbCom to add a remedy involving HyeProfile; in his few days back from sabbatical, he has done nothing but edit war (violating the 1RR restriction at least once; in fact, he's in violation of it at this very moment). Just because he was not active when the case started does not, to me, mean he shouldn't also be included in the remedies, in my opinion the same revert parole as the others. If this isn't done, it will just mean an inevitable case involving him specifically will be coming, sooner rather than later, if his editing pattern continues. If it's not too late, I will add an evidence section, but since we're already in the voting stage, I wanted to mention it here as well. --Golbez 23:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HyeProfile 

message: You won't be decieved with that proposal. Fad (ix) 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you, it is all I was asking

message: Eupator doesn't deserve a ban, the evidence against him is too thin, Eupator does not equal Adil Baguirov to get a 1 year ban. Just browsing through Eupator's user page, you see tonsss of positive contrubutions to wikipedia. He is a dedicated user and the edit war evidence used against him has been used against everyone, it is not fair to ban him for a year while similarly charged people get lesser sentences. I think a revert parole will suffice Eupator and he hasn't been editing much lately, so a revert parole I think will "do the trick" than an out right ban. - Fedayee 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Eupator has made more positive contributions to Wikipedia than negative.  Look at what he's done for WikiProject Armenia and Portal:Armenia. -- Aivazovsky 15:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition to edit warring, Eupator was involved in personal attacks on other users, for which he was even blocked. Plus, he made offensive comments about people of other ethnicities, which is an attempt to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines. Grandmaster 12:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eupator 

message: Arbitrators might be interested in this discussion on WP:ANI board:  Grandmaster 06:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artaxiad 

message: I am saying this here, and will have this linked from my user page. attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines This is not accurate, I have never attempted this, this was a threat but not such attempt, never did I had the slightest intention to do that, didn't even crossed my mind a second. It does not make any differences on the results of the decision, but it is a question of accuracy and don't want others to think something which I did not attempt. Beside that talkpage, I never made such comments before. Everyone including Grandmaster know this. I have a history of personal attack and harassement, the last time it was when I falsely accused Cool Cat of using socks and harassed him, but apologized to him, but the attempt to turn Wikipedia into a battleground, it simply is not true. Fad (ix) 22:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I guess it will be over tomorrow

message: I just noticed the decision of the arbitration to ban Fad (ix), which in my opinion is not justiceable and does not serve any purpose since other users like User:Atabek have done much more damage to Wikipedia than Fad (ix). He might have used some bad language against others, but banning him for that is not right. Also accusing him of turning Wikipedia to a battle ground is false. Fad (ix) has contributed a lot to Armenian related articles and banning him would not serve its purpose. Putting him on civility parol is much better decision than to ban him. User:AdilBaguirov's goal was that to come and disrupt Wikipedia and take as much Armenian users as he could with him in getting banned and by banning Fad (ix) who has contributed a lot to Wikipedia would not be correct. ROOB323 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not asking the Arbcom to reconsider its decision(for them threats or attempt to turn Wikipedia to a battleground is just as worst), my comment was meant for me to place it on my userpage a link to it. It has 4 motion to close, I already accepted my fate. I just corrected something while I could still edit. Fad (ix) 00:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fad (ix)