Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Workshop

message: But I don't know where to put that. This is what I want to propose.
Wikipedia is apolitical and an organized attempt to reverse that shall never be tolerated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 
:Clerk note: This would be a "proposed principle" and would go in that section of the workshop along with a brief explanation. Newyorkbrad 03:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I want to propose

message: Basically everyone has "revert warred" is this really needed? for example "user has reverted warred" Artaxiad 21:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, remedies need to be supported by findings of fact.  So if you are going to have as a remedy User A, B and C are banned from editing certain articles then you need to have Findings of Fact that say Users A, B and C have edit warred,  Users A. B and C are uncivil and so on. Thatcher131 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert warred 

message: As of this evening the workshop was literally only a few hundred words shorter than my PhD thesis (including references).  I have removed about half of the discussions, generally when they deteriorated into more personal remarks and less about the case.  I didn't particularly read everything I removed, so there was no intent to remove one person's comments more than another's.  The Arbitrators may of course restore the page if they wish.  Any party may add back any comment he or she feels is important, but take note of the following:
# The goal of Arbitration is to settle disputes.  Carrying on the dispute in the Arbitration pages is not a very wise thing to do.
# Workshop discussions that comment or analyze the evidence and proposed findings can be very useful.  Arguments are not.
# The Arbitrators try to read the entire case.  For this reason brevity is appreciated.  If you can make your point with two sentences and 4 diffs, you do not need 500 words and 30 diffs (or worse, 1000 words and no diffs).
# The Arbitrators will generally not make content rulings.
Finally this comment from Arbitrator UninvitedCompany:
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect disputants to present the essence of the strongest arguments for their case. If necessary a link can be added to a further statement elsewhere for interested arbs. I believe that arbs should generally be expected to read all of the evidence presented, and in light of this I believe a limit makes sense. I note that many of the statements contain retaliatory material by the bucketful, which is hardly ever of any use to us.
Please ask myself or Newyorkbrad if you have any questions. Thatcher131 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the cleaned, I don't think there was anything relevent in what was removed for the Arbcom. Fad (ix) 02:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't you see, Thatcher, why I say that arbitration were better before Workshop was implemented? Just a thought. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 09:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the cleanup, long overdue. I deeply apologize for posting extra comments on this page, I opposed that form the beginning as can be seen from my comments. But with unrestricted personal attacks and harassment by User:Fadix, I had no other way but to respond. Thanks, and I hope everyone will respect and abide by this notice. Atabek 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yawn. Fad (ix) 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Where has Fadix harassed and "unrestricted personal attacked" you during this case? He has merely provided evidence. - Fedayee 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an environment for stalking on people's identity, which is what Fadix and Artaxiad do to justify their position in ArbCom case. Rather than concentrating on editing issues, content and disagreements, these two are only looking for a way out of ArbCom by using harassment, stalking and libel against other users without any use. Wikipedia can not restrict people from editing based on their affiliation in real life, this is something those two still cannot understand. Atabek 21:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A way out? Dude, no one has still provided any evidences that I edit warred or disturbed any single articles, the best you did was to document that I was personally attacking, which I admited in my opening statment, you have not provided anything which I have not admitted myself. Personal identity is not an issue, what is an issue there is to organize outside of Wikipedia to come here an push POV, and the pittiful consequences, which was the locking of countless numbers of articles. The first time I attacked you was soon after you called Iranism with NAZIsm and right on jumped in on Wikipedia, which caused the locking of various articles. Also, you should take a look at the new evidence pages, in which it becomes obvious that you are Batabat. Another anomalyous situation is that you have used two IP address pointing to two different locations not to say checkusers has revealed you have used various other IP address. Does Batabat time zone seems to be from Budapest??? Before you and Dacy69 start accusing others and placing checkusers request, you should come clear and stop gamming with the system. Fad (ix) 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Notice 

message: I have wasted enough time, don't expect me to engage again in the Worshop and turn it again what it was before its cleanings. You can talk talk, without providing any evidences for all I care. While you do that I have just documented that both Dacy and Atabek use proxies and used more than one accounts. Fad (ix) 01:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You guys could continue I won't answer