A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Atabek ( talk · contribs) has continuously attacked me by making false accusations, personal attacks, and canvassing to tarnish my image on Wikipedia. He has attempted to divide Wikipedia along ethnic lines, made inappropriate comments, frequently distorts and manipulates Wikipedias rules and policies, and engages in POV and OR. His behavior has not changed the slightest bit since the arbcom. I'm tired of being subject to such abuse and harassment on an almost daily basis. I have talked to several admins about this over a period of a couple months and have only got a small reaction. Thus, I have concluded that an RFC is the best course of action to take at this stage.
Atabek was previously involved in an arbcom in which he was close to being blocked for a period of one year, but was not for reasons that I do not know. I will show diff's of Atabek's disruptive behavior since the arbcom, especially towards me, and in accordance with those diff's, the reasonable remedy would be for proposed arbcom decision to be carried out. He has not changed his behavior in the slightest way since the arbcom, and it seems as though the initial plea not to allow him to get away with a revert parole was warrented.
You can find the proposed block here.
User:Atabek has recently initiated a defamation campaign against me. He has made false accusations, personal attacks, and has even canvassed in order to find an administrator sympathetic to him. He frequently misuses and abuses Wikipedia's rules and policies, and often tries to distort them to fit his situation. He is rude on talk pages, doesnt read other users posts, and is not willingness to show an ounce of respect for other users. In just the past few days, he has gone to four different administrators (canvassing), made countless false accusations, and several personal attacks. I am afraid that his canvassing has already given me a bad image in the eyes of several administrators. Note that in the real world, what Atabek did is a serious offense and could have ended up with a lawsuit, so I do not want users reading this taking this lightly.
Furthermore, Atabek has attempted to split Wikipedia up along ethnic lines, telling or implying to me what I should or should not edit based on ethnicity/nationality.
The following sections will outline Atabek's disruptive behavior and attacks regarding me on Wikipedia,. As this incident intensified only in the past few days, I have chosen to only post evidence regarding specifically to the past few days.
First it should be noted that Atabek went on a canvassing spree and made the same false accusations on several administrator talk pages in order to find someone sympathetic to him:
Now I will proceed to comment on and disprove some of his (based on the numbering of the accusations above, for numbers 2 through 9, Atabek did not show one piece of evidence to support his accusations):
1) Atabek claims I vandalized his user page. I made three small edits to his user page, and one was a remedy of a minor mistake I had made. Here is the diff of all three: [5]
Atabek claims that that is vandalism. In what way is that vandalism? Its not. Atabek has had a confirmed sockpuppet, User:Tengri, which has no been blocked indefinetly: [6].
The Category Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers clearly states: "This category shows users which have been found to have created multiple accounts, or sockpuppets, to abuse Wikipedia policies, or are strongly suspected to have done so."
Clearly, I did nothing wrong by adding the category to his user page, and my edits certainly were not vandalism. Upon insisting that my edits on his user page were vandalism and the continued false accusations, Tariqabjotu responded on his talk page saying "No he is not. Did you even look at what you were reverting?" [7]
Later on he attempts to manipulate and distort Wikipedia's policies regarding user pages to fit his stance, but I will address that in another section, along with his other abuses of Wikipedia's rules and policies.
2) Atabek claims I was supporting a banned user on the Safavids article. First of all, whether the IP user was a former banned user or not is questionable, but the only edits of that anon that I supported were the anons grammatical, spelling, and Wikilinking edits, all of which were perfectly legitimate and improved the article. Atabek reverted the anon blindly and did not heed anyones comments on the talk page. This prompted User:Bushytails to make several comments on the Safavids article, criticizing Atabeks behavior: [8] , [9] , and [10]
The Ironic thing is that I was actually trying to help him and his buddies out by telling another usre to discuss his/her edits first before making edits to the controversial article: "I left Ariana a message asking him to discuss his edits from now on for this article: [11]" on Safavid dynasty talk page
As with 2, Atabek has never produced a single shred of evidence to support any of his allegations 3,4,5,6,7,8,9. Again, I repeat, Atabek has never brought any evidence proving any of his allegations against me. He has still not done so. The best he has ever managed to do is show diff's which prove nothing he claims, yet he distorts them anyway in his descriptions to admins and users. I have asked him 18+ times for him to either bring his evidence or stop making false accusations against me.
10) Atabek has claimed that I have made no useful contributions to Wikipedia at all, yet a simple look at my user page contradicts that. So far, I have created 36 articles, two templates, and three categories. On top of that, I have made significant contributions to six articles and countless contributions overall. And if we were to compare Atabek's contributions to mine, it'll be pretty evident who makes the least contribution, so i dont know why he would even make such a comment.
Atabek has attempted to divide Wikipedia along ethnic lines. He has several times told me or implied to me that I should not edit Azerbaijan related articles.
The following are disruptive edits on the Safavids article. They are pertinent to this case because when I objected to his reverts, he proceed to attack me with the usual false accusations and personal attacks.
1)Atabek reverted the edits of User:Kansas Bear, which included the addition of an entire section, just to undo small changes by another user: [13] He then asks Kansasbear to redo his edit: "Kansas Bear, you can make your architecture edits over this version." [14]
2)Atabek reverted the legitimate edits by an anonomous user which actually improved the article, and calls it vadalism: [15]
That prompted User:Bushytails to involve himself and make several comments:
"Atabek: Vandalism has a rather well-defined meaning... and fixing errors in an article isn't it. Looking at the contributions by User:82.83.145.243, most of them, within my admittedly limited knowledge of this topic, are perfectly reasonable edits, improving spelling, fixing links, re-wording things, and generally working to improve the article. Even if you disagree with them, they're certainly not vandalism. Unless I see a shred of evidence that you're reverting them for a good reason, I'll probably revert back to them, as the article looked better before you reverted it." [16]
"Umm. How, exactly, is moving where the language the population spoke down ten words a bad faith edit? How is it even relevant enough to matter where, if anywhere, it is in the introduction? If that's the worst edit you think he did, it's hard to see that you're doing anything other than arguing for the sake of arguing. Don't make this end up in WP:LAME." [17]
"Nope, not aware of anything. I just saw atabek make some suspicious reverts while I was patrolling recent changes, and had never heard of any of these users or this article until then. From what I can tell, most of the changes made by the anon user were perfectly acceptable, and without some proof they're disruptive, should not have been reverted. I notice another user has since improved some of the grammar problems, originally fixed by the anon user, and re-added when atabek reverted it...However, since the article has been edited a fair bit since then, I'm not going to just revert back to the anon's version. User:82.83.145.243: Why don't you create a subpage (either off this article or in your userspace), based on the current version, with your edits? That way, if people like them (and "OMG they moved a minor piece of information to the second sentance!" isn't a reason not to like them), I or another editor can copy it over to the article." [18]
Atabek has made many personal attacks. Here I will list a few of them. These include attacks against me and other users:
Atabek has shown no willingness to respect me or even discuss any of our issues.
Statements by Atabek:
We were initially going to do Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation but that requires us to make our own punishments and to resolve the issues by ourselves. As evident from Atabeks statements above, this would have been impossible, as this user has absolutely no respect for me and he refuses to listen to anything I have to say.
Atabek has not only violated Wikipedia's rules and policies, but he has also attempted several times to spin Wikipedia's rules and policies in order to fit his own situation and to put me in a bad light. I will only talk about WP:AGF and Wikipedia:User page as they have been used a lot by Atabek recently.
"I would like to apologize to Tariq for overwhelming his talk page with this discussion. But this thread just gives a flavor what many editors have to deal with, where this User:Hajji Piruz, aka User:Azerbaijani is involved. If he needs evidence, here are few excerpts from Wikipedia:User page, which he chose to ignore, while vandalizing my user page:
Thanks."
Atabek has also harassed me by posting in places that have nothing to do with him simply to attack me:
Also, user Tariqabjotu has commented on some of Atabek's accusations on Atabek's talk page, telling Atabek that the anon on the Safavids article is not me and tell him that I am not attacking, blackmailing, or harassing: [31] (Tariqabjotu's last comment is in regards to Atabeks comment which is in the middle)
Atabek has asked his friends to comment on this RFC, as I predicted he would here in an attempt to make it too sabotage the RFC: [32]
He has gone asked both Grandmaster and Dacy69 to come here: [33] and [34]. Interestingly, Elsanaturk, after not being active since Jun 5th, made his third edit on June 8th here: [35]
In all fairness, and because the admin I talked to apparently didnt think this was a big deal, I will also notify some users.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
Well, I am sorry that User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani) is trying to waste community's time yet again with this RfC with a single purpose to get me banned for a year. He clearly expressed his personal objective here [36], even goes as far as alleging corruption on behalf of administrators or other users.
My points:
I haven't seen any such effort on behalf of User:Hajji Piruz/ User:Azerbaijani
So in conclusion, I think this is an all out attack upon myself. Unable to deal with content disputes at Safavid dynasty and History of Azerbaijan, all User:Hajji Piruz/ User:Azerbaijani is looking for is to get more contributors blocked so that he can continue pushing his POV with 1RR ArbCom restriction. I hope that at the end of this RfC, User:Hajji Piruz/ User:Azerbaijani will be explained that he needs to stop revert warring and hateful attacks against users based on nationality, he needs to learn to respect people's userspaces and post comments on talk pages with suggestions not edit someone's userspace with intimidation.
Comment by Ali Doostzadeh" I am not sure how this started. I have been asked to comment on this issue by both users and the page is long. I have made mistakes myself on Wikipedia (and I am not saying any others users have or not have not) and it is a learning process. Basically, I have 1000% respect for any user that does not judge other users based on their country or background or ethnicity and just tries to make this encyclopedia work and academic. That is the main point I believe. It is goal we should all strive for even if we fall short (I am not suggesting that this what different users have or have not done, but I am saying that no one is perfect). Both users are intelligent and they have contributed to Wikipedia. So if there is a negative short-coming, I believe they can comment nicely (better via e-mail) and resolve their differences with each other. I am going to e-mail both users with some helpful comments I have (and they can criticize me if they want, we are all humans after-all). Due to both time constraints and also the fact that I do not like these sorts of discussions (judging different users actions), I have no interest in being more involved in this discussion. -- alidoostzadeh 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I spotted a fishy revert by Atabek to Safavid dynasty while doing r/c patrol, and tried to resolve it on the article's talk page. Atabek had reverted seemingly beneficial edits, such as spelling, grammar, etc, while claiming they were nationalist "vandalism," such as moving the language they spoke a full 8 words later in the article, to the second sentance of the introduction. Attempts at getting them to resolve it peacefully failed, as neither side was willing to listen, the anon users (who may well be both of the users mentioned here, but I'll leave that to checkuser) would not create a subpage with the edits so they could be discussed by both parties, and both sides left me messages or sent me emails that were not much more than whining and personally attacking the other person, at which point I gave up trying to resolve their dispute. Neither side seems actually interested in resolving disputes, and both would rather game the system such that the other person is forcefully prevented from editing.
I would suggest that both users, atabek and (insert list of ips and socks) are prevented from any non-trivial editing of disputed articles without first discussing them on the talk page. Atabek should be warned against reverting content changes as "vandalism," and perhaps be warned not to revert anything, at all, even if it wasn't discussed on the talk page first and he thinks it should have been, but rather leave all enforcement actions to a non-involved party. Both parties should be reminded that personal attacks are not called for. Both parties should also be reminded that whining will not make third parties support their viewpoint, nor will other forms of canvassing. Lastly, any attempts by either user to game the system to get the other user blocked without valid cause should be treated appropriately. Bushytails 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
This dispute has escalated to arbitration. Sala Skan 18:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Atabek ( talk · contribs) has continuously attacked me by making false accusations, personal attacks, and canvassing to tarnish my image on Wikipedia. He has attempted to divide Wikipedia along ethnic lines, made inappropriate comments, frequently distorts and manipulates Wikipedias rules and policies, and engages in POV and OR. His behavior has not changed the slightest bit since the arbcom. I'm tired of being subject to such abuse and harassment on an almost daily basis. I have talked to several admins about this over a period of a couple months and have only got a small reaction. Thus, I have concluded that an RFC is the best course of action to take at this stage.
Atabek was previously involved in an arbcom in which he was close to being blocked for a period of one year, but was not for reasons that I do not know. I will show diff's of Atabek's disruptive behavior since the arbcom, especially towards me, and in accordance with those diff's, the reasonable remedy would be for proposed arbcom decision to be carried out. He has not changed his behavior in the slightest way since the arbcom, and it seems as though the initial plea not to allow him to get away with a revert parole was warrented.
You can find the proposed block here.
User:Atabek has recently initiated a defamation campaign against me. He has made false accusations, personal attacks, and has even canvassed in order to find an administrator sympathetic to him. He frequently misuses and abuses Wikipedia's rules and policies, and often tries to distort them to fit his situation. He is rude on talk pages, doesnt read other users posts, and is not willingness to show an ounce of respect for other users. In just the past few days, he has gone to four different administrators (canvassing), made countless false accusations, and several personal attacks. I am afraid that his canvassing has already given me a bad image in the eyes of several administrators. Note that in the real world, what Atabek did is a serious offense and could have ended up with a lawsuit, so I do not want users reading this taking this lightly.
Furthermore, Atabek has attempted to split Wikipedia up along ethnic lines, telling or implying to me what I should or should not edit based on ethnicity/nationality.
The following sections will outline Atabek's disruptive behavior and attacks regarding me on Wikipedia,. As this incident intensified only in the past few days, I have chosen to only post evidence regarding specifically to the past few days.
First it should be noted that Atabek went on a canvassing spree and made the same false accusations on several administrator talk pages in order to find someone sympathetic to him:
Now I will proceed to comment on and disprove some of his (based on the numbering of the accusations above, for numbers 2 through 9, Atabek did not show one piece of evidence to support his accusations):
1) Atabek claims I vandalized his user page. I made three small edits to his user page, and one was a remedy of a minor mistake I had made. Here is the diff of all three: [5]
Atabek claims that that is vandalism. In what way is that vandalism? Its not. Atabek has had a confirmed sockpuppet, User:Tengri, which has no been blocked indefinetly: [6].
The Category Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers clearly states: "This category shows users which have been found to have created multiple accounts, or sockpuppets, to abuse Wikipedia policies, or are strongly suspected to have done so."
Clearly, I did nothing wrong by adding the category to his user page, and my edits certainly were not vandalism. Upon insisting that my edits on his user page were vandalism and the continued false accusations, Tariqabjotu responded on his talk page saying "No he is not. Did you even look at what you were reverting?" [7]
Later on he attempts to manipulate and distort Wikipedia's policies regarding user pages to fit his stance, but I will address that in another section, along with his other abuses of Wikipedia's rules and policies.
2) Atabek claims I was supporting a banned user on the Safavids article. First of all, whether the IP user was a former banned user or not is questionable, but the only edits of that anon that I supported were the anons grammatical, spelling, and Wikilinking edits, all of which were perfectly legitimate and improved the article. Atabek reverted the anon blindly and did not heed anyones comments on the talk page. This prompted User:Bushytails to make several comments on the Safavids article, criticizing Atabeks behavior: [8] , [9] , and [10]
The Ironic thing is that I was actually trying to help him and his buddies out by telling another usre to discuss his/her edits first before making edits to the controversial article: "I left Ariana a message asking him to discuss his edits from now on for this article: [11]" on Safavid dynasty talk page
As with 2, Atabek has never produced a single shred of evidence to support any of his allegations 3,4,5,6,7,8,9. Again, I repeat, Atabek has never brought any evidence proving any of his allegations against me. He has still not done so. The best he has ever managed to do is show diff's which prove nothing he claims, yet he distorts them anyway in his descriptions to admins and users. I have asked him 18+ times for him to either bring his evidence or stop making false accusations against me.
10) Atabek has claimed that I have made no useful contributions to Wikipedia at all, yet a simple look at my user page contradicts that. So far, I have created 36 articles, two templates, and three categories. On top of that, I have made significant contributions to six articles and countless contributions overall. And if we were to compare Atabek's contributions to mine, it'll be pretty evident who makes the least contribution, so i dont know why he would even make such a comment.
Atabek has attempted to divide Wikipedia along ethnic lines. He has several times told me or implied to me that I should not edit Azerbaijan related articles.
The following are disruptive edits on the Safavids article. They are pertinent to this case because when I objected to his reverts, he proceed to attack me with the usual false accusations and personal attacks.
1)Atabek reverted the edits of User:Kansas Bear, which included the addition of an entire section, just to undo small changes by another user: [13] He then asks Kansasbear to redo his edit: "Kansas Bear, you can make your architecture edits over this version." [14]
2)Atabek reverted the legitimate edits by an anonomous user which actually improved the article, and calls it vadalism: [15]
That prompted User:Bushytails to involve himself and make several comments:
"Atabek: Vandalism has a rather well-defined meaning... and fixing errors in an article isn't it. Looking at the contributions by User:82.83.145.243, most of them, within my admittedly limited knowledge of this topic, are perfectly reasonable edits, improving spelling, fixing links, re-wording things, and generally working to improve the article. Even if you disagree with them, they're certainly not vandalism. Unless I see a shred of evidence that you're reverting them for a good reason, I'll probably revert back to them, as the article looked better before you reverted it." [16]
"Umm. How, exactly, is moving where the language the population spoke down ten words a bad faith edit? How is it even relevant enough to matter where, if anywhere, it is in the introduction? If that's the worst edit you think he did, it's hard to see that you're doing anything other than arguing for the sake of arguing. Don't make this end up in WP:LAME." [17]
"Nope, not aware of anything. I just saw atabek make some suspicious reverts while I was patrolling recent changes, and had never heard of any of these users or this article until then. From what I can tell, most of the changes made by the anon user were perfectly acceptable, and without some proof they're disruptive, should not have been reverted. I notice another user has since improved some of the grammar problems, originally fixed by the anon user, and re-added when atabek reverted it...However, since the article has been edited a fair bit since then, I'm not going to just revert back to the anon's version. User:82.83.145.243: Why don't you create a subpage (either off this article or in your userspace), based on the current version, with your edits? That way, if people like them (and "OMG they moved a minor piece of information to the second sentance!" isn't a reason not to like them), I or another editor can copy it over to the article." [18]
Atabek has made many personal attacks. Here I will list a few of them. These include attacks against me and other users:
Atabek has shown no willingness to respect me or even discuss any of our issues.
Statements by Atabek:
We were initially going to do Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation but that requires us to make our own punishments and to resolve the issues by ourselves. As evident from Atabeks statements above, this would have been impossible, as this user has absolutely no respect for me and he refuses to listen to anything I have to say.
Atabek has not only violated Wikipedia's rules and policies, but he has also attempted several times to spin Wikipedia's rules and policies in order to fit his own situation and to put me in a bad light. I will only talk about WP:AGF and Wikipedia:User page as they have been used a lot by Atabek recently.
"I would like to apologize to Tariq for overwhelming his talk page with this discussion. But this thread just gives a flavor what many editors have to deal with, where this User:Hajji Piruz, aka User:Azerbaijani is involved. If he needs evidence, here are few excerpts from Wikipedia:User page, which he chose to ignore, while vandalizing my user page:
Thanks."
Atabek has also harassed me by posting in places that have nothing to do with him simply to attack me:
Also, user Tariqabjotu has commented on some of Atabek's accusations on Atabek's talk page, telling Atabek that the anon on the Safavids article is not me and tell him that I am not attacking, blackmailing, or harassing: [31] (Tariqabjotu's last comment is in regards to Atabeks comment which is in the middle)
Atabek has asked his friends to comment on this RFC, as I predicted he would here in an attempt to make it too sabotage the RFC: [32]
He has gone asked both Grandmaster and Dacy69 to come here: [33] and [34]. Interestingly, Elsanaturk, after not being active since Jun 5th, made his third edit on June 8th here: [35]
In all fairness, and because the admin I talked to apparently didnt think this was a big deal, I will also notify some users.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
Well, I am sorry that User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani) is trying to waste community's time yet again with this RfC with a single purpose to get me banned for a year. He clearly expressed his personal objective here [36], even goes as far as alleging corruption on behalf of administrators or other users.
My points:
I haven't seen any such effort on behalf of User:Hajji Piruz/ User:Azerbaijani
So in conclusion, I think this is an all out attack upon myself. Unable to deal with content disputes at Safavid dynasty and History of Azerbaijan, all User:Hajji Piruz/ User:Azerbaijani is looking for is to get more contributors blocked so that he can continue pushing his POV with 1RR ArbCom restriction. I hope that at the end of this RfC, User:Hajji Piruz/ User:Azerbaijani will be explained that he needs to stop revert warring and hateful attacks against users based on nationality, he needs to learn to respect people's userspaces and post comments on talk pages with suggestions not edit someone's userspace with intimidation.
Comment by Ali Doostzadeh" I am not sure how this started. I have been asked to comment on this issue by both users and the page is long. I have made mistakes myself on Wikipedia (and I am not saying any others users have or not have not) and it is a learning process. Basically, I have 1000% respect for any user that does not judge other users based on their country or background or ethnicity and just tries to make this encyclopedia work and academic. That is the main point I believe. It is goal we should all strive for even if we fall short (I am not suggesting that this what different users have or have not done, but I am saying that no one is perfect). Both users are intelligent and they have contributed to Wikipedia. So if there is a negative short-coming, I believe they can comment nicely (better via e-mail) and resolve their differences with each other. I am going to e-mail both users with some helpful comments I have (and they can criticize me if they want, we are all humans after-all). Due to both time constraints and also the fact that I do not like these sorts of discussions (judging different users actions), I have no interest in being more involved in this discussion. -- alidoostzadeh 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I spotted a fishy revert by Atabek to Safavid dynasty while doing r/c patrol, and tried to resolve it on the article's talk page. Atabek had reverted seemingly beneficial edits, such as spelling, grammar, etc, while claiming they were nationalist "vandalism," such as moving the language they spoke a full 8 words later in the article, to the second sentance of the introduction. Attempts at getting them to resolve it peacefully failed, as neither side was willing to listen, the anon users (who may well be both of the users mentioned here, but I'll leave that to checkuser) would not create a subpage with the edits so they could be discussed by both parties, and both sides left me messages or sent me emails that were not much more than whining and personally attacking the other person, at which point I gave up trying to resolve their dispute. Neither side seems actually interested in resolving disputes, and both would rather game the system such that the other person is forcefully prevented from editing.
I would suggest that both users, atabek and (insert list of ips and socks) are prevented from any non-trivial editing of disputed articles without first discussing them on the talk page. Atabek should be warned against reverting content changes as "vandalism," and perhaps be warned not to revert anything, at all, even if it wasn't discussed on the talk page first and he thinks it should have been, but rather leave all enforcement actions to a non-involved party. Both parties should be reminded that personal attacks are not called for. Both parties should also be reminded that whining will not make third parties support their viewpoint, nor will other forms of canvassing. Lastly, any attempts by either user to game the system to get the other user blocked without valid cause should be treated appropriately. Bushytails 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
This dispute has escalated to arbitration. Sala Skan 18:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply