Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fadix

Grandmaster
I was not really aware of this RfC and found out about it accidentally. I was not going to make any input to it, but when I saw Fadix’s comment “When someone mislead others about the content of my edits, I call this to be a lie” I decided to add my view of the situation. Fadix has virtually been stalking me for a few days, following me to every page that I contributed to and accusing me of POV pushing no matter what I said and done. Moreover, in the Talk:History of Azerbaijan he started a personal attack on me, even though I wasn’t a major contributor to the article and my input was only fighting vandalism on that page. I don’t really understand what was the point of mentioning my name there. On Iranian Azerbaijan talk page he’s gone as far as saying “''I haven't read every crap (as we are now, I guess with all the POV pushing you've been doing, I can from this day on consider those crap) you've been introducing. I just got interested in the article History of Azerbaijan, and the first paragraphs were already tainted by the sort of crap you've been spewing''”. As I said before, I wasn’t even a contributor to the aforementioned article History of Azerbaijan. See, he’s behavior was very uncivil and he made numerous personal attacks on me. This behavior continued on Talk:Nakhichevan page, where I started an RfC by the proposal of the admin Golbez in order to decide with the help of the community on the principles of inclusion of foreign names to the article. Fadix immediately accused me of POV pushing, even though the idea of RfC was not mine. He was even pointed out by one of outside viewers, Aucaman that nothing justified such a harsh response and there was no need to personalize the issue. Overall, my every discussion with Fadix starts with him accusing me of POV pushing, no matter what I say or what sources I cite. As I understand, in his view I must always concur with him, otherwise I’m a “dishonest POV pusher”. Grandmaster 17:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Grandmaster
Grandmaster interpretation of the situation is highly innacurate. First, the only reference to him on the History of Azerbaijan article was in relation of the uses of genetic to advance ones position, when he himself rejected the validity of a genetic research. I was harsh true, but sometimes in Wikipedia when everything fails being harsh is left to make any differences. Grandmaster has a very poor understanding of the neutrality policy here in wikipedia, as well as a very narrowed understanding of what might be qualified as notable. This started with the entry on Karabakh, in which he decided to remove things because he qualified them as untrue even though it is clear, and I have tried to explain him this in various occasions, that Wikipedia only present positions and does not establish what the truth is. That a term is notable, very notable and that it is not the truth according to a user, doesn't justify its supression. I have later decided to stop fighting over a word, even though its deletion was simply POV pushing. In Khojali massacre article, the thing repeated itself, Grandmaster chooses what is notable or not based on what he considers as truth. While he restrict the inclusion of a position which is included in various published and notable materials, he will go on as to use one single book as sole source to advance his position and present it as sole 'fact' (when the word fact is in contradiction with Wikipedia principle). I gave up there too. But, the few days have made a lot of a differences, and I admit having been harsh with him.

Here is what happened. Grandmaster pushed the uses of the term South Azerbaijan in the lead of the entry about Iranian Azerbaijan, not as a term called sometimes and mostly by Azeris, but also as an also known. While he has deleted a term from the lead of the article on Karabakh, when this term was the most used, present in various notable publications and most newspaper reviews, he requested the term South Azerbaijan as an also known when the term isen't notable beyond Azeri cricles and when the term was in conflict with another thing, which is also against a guideline on name conventions I have pointed to him and quoted. I first tried to explain to him, that South Azerbaijan for a territory in Iran is as much of an also known as a South Canada, a South Lebanon or a South Syria was to be interpreted as part of a foreign land with recognized bounderies. In fact, I have never opposed to the uses of South Azerbaijan, but opposed to its inclusion as an also known, which clearly is not. Similar conflicts waged over entries like 'North Kurdistan' not only those articles have been redirected, but any mention to a North of a Kurdistan was removed while there is no recognized Kurdistan that people might mistake or get mislead from.

Again, it was my harsh reaction that gave results because it was after that that people started debating over it and made the needed modifications, while Grandmaster still think that the term is notable because it yields results on google. He still advance the position that yielding results on google is enought to establish the notability of a term, or worst, present it as an also known, in this cases it even conflicts with the guidlines, since South Azerbaijan for most people is simply South Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijan which is recognized as a republic.

Lastly, Grandmaster is trying to advance his cases (which again, I am sorry, I have to consider as a POV pushing), by requesting that since in some regions now part of Azerbaijan and Turkey, in the foreign names the term in Armenian is written. He claims that since this is the cases, Turkish or Azeris words in the lead of regions now part of the republic of Armenia should be included.

And here again, I have tried to resonate him without success. I have explained him that adding foreign words for the pleasure of adding them is not encyclopedic. I could add the Chinese word for Canada in the Canadian lead and use his arguments. The adding of a word should have etymologic or historic value. I explained him that when those lands were ruled by a Turkic regime, there was no modern Azeri or modern Turkish alphabet, but rather the Ottoman Turks, the Persians and the Arabs were using about the same alphabet. Sure, the Muslim terms do have a historic value and I said that they should be written, but wuith the way they were written on that period and not in modern Azeris language and alphabet. On the other hand, various places now part of Turkey and Azerbaijan had Arnenian names to discribe them with a particular pounciation and written with a particular alphabet, the Armenian alphabet, and it is thosefor relevent historically to include those Armenian names for territories ones ruled by Armenians. That modern Azeris term written in modern Azeris alphabet is to be excluded when names have historic value can not be interpreted as double standard contrary to what Grandmaster implied. Arabs, Persians and Turks called it and those places were written the same way by the three of them, they were not spelled in modern Azeri, neither were their written in modern Azeri, while places were written in Armenian, the alphabet is the same, the way they are written is the same.

I tried reasonating him there too to not avail, any attempt to try reasonating him gave absolutly no result. Also, what angered me most, is his refusal to consider every members of the community as equals. Those who oppose him will become his 'oponments,' or my friends, or my 'co' I have from the beggining requested him to stop dividing members and creating such ghettos based on ethnicity and that we are here before anything else Wikipedians and not Turks, Armenians, Azeris etc., and that if he could not take this he could simply leave.

My recent harsh reaction against Grandmaster could be interpreted as unwarranted and for now it is much too early for me to think about whatever or not I have overreacted, but that user Cool Cat jump in to pursue his personal vendetta against me is a more relevent issue to deal with for now. He first had no clue of the debates between I and Grandmaster, and that he endore Grandmaster is even more amusing, since what someone sparked this recent conflict is related to an issue that he himself had gotten involved(North Kurdistan as opposed to South Azerbaijan), and that if Coolcat want to maintain his own standards he will leave the entries about Kurdistan alone and not make threats that he will get rid of them as if he own Wikipedia or either he'll try to get rid of Iranian Kurdistan. Fad (ix) 20:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you done raining acusations? This RfC is filled as a complaint of your (User:Fadix) general attitude. This is NOT a discussion of what NPOV is etc.
 * What you call harsh reactions is what I call personal attacks and incivility.
 * -- Cool CatTalk 00:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Coolcat, you stepped on the middle of a dispute between me and Grandmaster and had gone to use that to request this RfC, and this is the only new fresh material you have in your RfC. As a result Grandmaster has gone to use this RfC to bring this discussion here initiated by you. Also, I could care less of your interpretations of what my 'harsh reactions' are. But do amuse me. Fad (ix) 03:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest everybody who is interested in the disputes between me and Fadix just to check the talk pages he was referring to. His interpretation of my position as POV pushing, while his own as an example of neutrality is highly inaccurate. In fact, I have enough grounds to interpret his position as POV push, but I prefer not to. As I said, Fadix has been virtually stalking me, following me to every page and bringing up my name on any given occasion. The dispute on South Azerbaijan is just one example. Contrary to Fadix’s claim, it was not me who introduced the term, it was in the article for ages. I just objected to its removal from the article, and Fadix immediately appeared there to accuse me of pushing my POV. Eventually, the dispute was resolved between me and other contributors, and Fadix was not any helpful in a dispute resolution, he just took the opportunity to launch a personal attack on me and was very uncivil. In Khojaly talk he tried to advance his theory of participation of CIS regiment in the attack on the town, which I did not support because it contradicted other known facts. Of course, my position was again interpreted by him as a POV push. I’m not going to get into the details of actual disputes, everyone can find them on the relevant talk pages, this one is for discussion of user’s behavior. Fadix has his own vision of the principles for inclusion of foreign names, which does not comply to naming convention, and he advocates inclusion of Armenian name to the article about Nakhichevan and objects inclusion of Turkish and Azeri names to the article about Yerevan. Fine, everybody is entitled to his opinion, but that’s not a reason to appear on the talk page and claim in bald letters: I am warning users that Grandmaster is attempting to POV push ones again. Overall, Fadix’s behavior within a few last days was highly questionable to say the least. Grandmaster 05:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do provide examples of POV pushing Grandmaster, go ahead. While I have provided in more than one occasion examples of your POV pushing, you have yet to provide a single example. And no, I have not followed you, this is paranoia at best. As for the article having that term for ages, it was added by Tabib there and you know it, it was tried to be removed first not by me but other contributors as a result you have reintroduced it, and haven't listened to me even after I have copypasted the guideline on name conventions. And no, you are wrong when you say that you have objected to its removal, since I never requested its total removal from the article but rather said that it is simply not an also known as claimed. As for Khojaly, yet you are twisting and attributing me intentions. This is pure form of dishonnesty. I have NEVER tried to advance my theory, in fact my theory or what you call 'facts' have no place in an encyclopedic articles. What I did was to bring newspaper coverages because I found them relevent. You claimed something and I simply requested you to back it up, which of course you did by again sourcing with the same book you have used to establish the notability of a position when I requested more than a single book, because you yourself after I have provided at least two book to support the inclusion of a position you justified your decision by claiming that it is not the truth (and this after I have repeated you in various occasions that we are not here to establish what the truth is but simply present notable positions.) As for the Turkish and Azeri term, again, you are being dishonest, I have never opposed to use any Turkish or Azeri term that have historic value, what I have opposed is to have a modernized term because its presence can't neither be justified etymologically neither historically. The original Turkish name should be preserved, the way it was written while you attempted to get a modernized Azeri alphabet with a modern transliteration. This is to what I have opposed and qualified as POV pushing which obviously is. Fad (ix) 05:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don’t want to turn this into the continuation of our previous discussions. We can do it on the respective talk pages. This page is about discussion of conduct. I think no matter what disputes we have accusing someone of POV push just because of difference of opinions and making personal attacks cannot be justified by anything. And if you want to see example of your POV pushing, your position on Nakhichevan is just that. You insist on inclusion of Armenian names to the articles about Azerbaijani cities and resist to inclusion of Azeri and Turkish names to the articles about Armenian cities under absurd excuses, which are not stipulated anywhere in naming conventions. Grandmaster 07:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * While you claim not wanting to turn this as a continuation of our previous discussions you still continue it. For the thousand and one time, I have never refused the use of a Turkic name, what I have requested is to keep its original form, which you still oppose. Don't blame me that the Ottoman and Persians used the same alphabet, and don't blame me that the Armenians had their owns. I have ackowledged and accepted the uses of the Turkish form the way it was written for the specific period it covers while you want to use the modern Azeris transliteration with its modern alphabet. You will not find any encyclopedy in the world that does what you request. You are projecting in the past by surgically adding to it something, you can't do this. Why is this so hard for you to understand? As for the personal attacks, Grandmaster, you have been much further with your attacks than I will ever be by insinuations and guilt by association and stigmatization of users by dumping them in ethnic ghettos and you know that the opposition against your conduct started there and I have requested you stop doing this but you still repeat. So, what you are accusing me of doing is insignificant compared to it. Fad (ix) 08:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please show me where exactly in the naming conventions it is said that the names of geographic locations in foreign languages should be added using old alphabets only? You invent the rules and claim that people should adhere to them, which is not correct. And when someone disagrees with you, you accuse him of POV pushing. Grandmaster 09:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You really don't want to understand, do you? I have requested you to stop twisting my words and you still continue doing it. No, words should not be written in old alphabet in foreign languages. What you want is to have the Azeri term for territories which are part of the current republic of Armenia under the pretext that it was ruled once by a Turkic regime. What I said, was that I have no problem with that, let keep the original transliteration and what it was called. You still refuse and request it to be written with modern Azeri language and transliteration. What value historic or otherwise does the inclusion of such a modern word has anything to do here? I have attempted in various occasions to explain you that what it was called in Armenian back then is the same as it is called now, written the same way and the same alphabet. You are accusing me like if I should be blaimed that the Armenian alphabet existed back then. Even the entries on Khan or relevent to Khan dynasty doesn't have any modern alphabet, they keep the old transliteration because of its historic value. Fad (ix) 18:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, is this written in any naming convention for geographic locations or it is your personal vision of the issue? For example, if you decided to add a Russian name for Kars, which was part of the Russian empire before the revolution, would you write it as Карс or Карсъ using the old alphabet that existed at the time? Grandmaster 19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop pulling me leggs, even Khan or similar articles don't have such transliterations. As for old Russian, you have yet to show me that Wikipedia software support old Russian alphabet. Can you do so? If it does, it should be written in its original form. I don't make the rules. Beside, even your proposition doesn't make any sense. You proposed Irevan, the 'v' in this spelling is clearly Armenian influence,(the Persian 'w' spelling in its Armenian equivakent form was mostly transripted as 'v' this also followed in the Ottoman Empire, but this Ottoman Turkish spelling was Armenian influenced, and partially also the result of the Armenian alphabet trial to writen Ottoman Turkish), so it can't be the oral tradition which you claim and which you haven't substanciated and which contradict any spelling of an 'I' at the beggining which is a drift from the Persian aleph. Fad (ix) 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You still did not answer whether this rule was your own invention or it is based on naming conventions. Khan is not a geographical term. Grandmaster 04:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, stop pulling my legs. Check any encyclopedias. Things are called what they are called, not what they will be called. Places, towns all are called by their names. Britannica 1911 also places Erwan. You are just making your own rules by placing a name that has NO HISTORICV NEITHER PRESENT VALUE. You are POV pushing yet you are claiming that I am making the rules. Go ask any veterans who contribute in article. What you say we ask Adam who has written various articles involving history? What the hell is the relevency of a modern Azeri term for a town, a village a city which is in ARMENIA? Yo9u want to include its historic other names? YES!!! I HAVE NEVER OPPOSED TO THIS!!! But this is NOT what you are requesting, you want a modern Azeris term with a modern alphabet. It has as much relevency as to include some Uzbek or Turkmen term. Also, how do you 3expect me to consider you when you sign Cool_cat RfC on me when you know that one of the point he raises he just made it up, you yourself have clarified to him the dispute in question after he misinterpreted it, and now he recycle it here. Also, when the half of his arguments are presented in things which you are even not aware of and which involkve an Arbcom cases with a ruling disfavouring him. Fad (ix) 16:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fadix, why do I need to remind you 1001th time that the articles in question are about geography and not history? Your analogies with articles on history are irrelevant. Instead look at the articles like Medzhybizh, like you’ve been told to, which includes the names in all applicable languages. And one more time, where exactly in naming convention it is said that the names for geographic locations should be added using old alphabets only? Your position is nothing but POV push, I stand by that. As for my support of Cool Cats RfC, I was not initially going to do that until I read your comment accusing me of lie. After that I was simply obliged to add my view of the situation. Yes, he did not understand what exactly the dispute on Nakhichevan page was about, but he was absolutely right that your behavior was unacceptable. I suggest he removes his description of the conflict on Nakhichevan page, as I added mine, which is more accurate. Grandmaster 10:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Before playing this ball game, I suggest you to read the Medzhybizh article and read about the place and this before you attempt to compare them. The name has Polish etymology derived, it was susequently written those ways. You just recycle this comparaison and drag other articles by saying 'look at articles like' as if this was something wide spread in Wikipedia, which is not true, but even then your comparaison with Medzhybizh doesn't make sense at all. Also, I told you to stop redirecting the accusations directed at you. I told you ask any veterans engaged in writting historic articles and you will see that adding a modern pronounciation and modern alphabet, in which the land was never written with or pronounced with during the period with which it has to have some relevency. You really don't want to listen. Why don't you ask Francis or any other veterans?????? As for this RfC, no, you can't sign asomething which you know isen't even true in the first place, this is dishonnesty you did that just to get this RfC approuved even when you knew it wasn't even true in the first place and knew also knew that I was to apply an RfC on your conduct this week and by appriving this one you sabotated it. Also, the other supposed other evidences really worth any RfC are mostly cases brought to the Arbcom with a ruling, and presenting them here has absolutly no relevency at all. You drag yourself in something which you knew wasn't even true just to get it approved. Fad (ix) 17:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As regards the naming dispute, I’m going to take the next step of dispute resolution. As for this RfC, I provided my own summary of that dispute and signed it up. It’s quite fair. And don’t forget that I had to join because you accused me of lying, I just had to present my side of the story. If it had not been for your manners, I would have stayed out of this. Grandmaster 19:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You could have started your own RfC on me, when you sign your name on the current RfC you sign the dispute. By doing such, you gave support to Cool_cat's personal vandetta. Also, I have added nothing new when reffering to you than what I said in the other dispute, I don't see what I have already said and presented it here could have forced you to drag yourself here. Fad (ix) 20:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You slammed me here, on this page, where everybody could read it, so I just had to provide my view of the situation. If your comment with regard to me had been neutral and not insulting, I would have stayed out of this, you know I’ve never been involved in anything like this before. But for some reason you preferred calling names, so let other people judge who’s right and who’s wrong. Grandmaster 04:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

''Those words were harsh, but I stend by them, anyone can read and understand the matter. When someone mislead others about the content of my edits, I call this to be a lie. Find another word less offensive and I will use it.''

You are not being honest there. I clarified that anyone could read it and understand the matter. Nothing in this answer could be considered as a slamming. This answer was to the quote Coolcat refered to which related to an answer of you suggesting that what I brought was unrelated to the subject which was simply not true. You came here after Coolcat brought this RfC in your user page. First, I did not call you directly a liar there, but said that when someone mislead others about the content of my posts I consider this to be a lie, which in no way could be a justification to sign Cool_cat RfC, which you have yourself admited contains unaccurate informations. Things became harsher only after you got involved not before. Fad (ix) 05:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat
User fadix has been warned numerous times by a number of users about his general attitude. -- Cool CatTalk 00:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * By who I may ask? Fad (ix) 03:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Me, Shannel, Grandmaster, Tony Sidaway, Phroziac,.... list goes on.. -- Cool CatTalk 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Phroziac? Shannel? '...' ? Tony? Phroziac doesn't count at all, she jumped in an Arbcom cases and opposed a ruling which she had no clue about because you were using IRC to slander me and other members on their back. Coolcat, there was an Arbcom ruling against you, and now another member want to open another one because of your constent harrasment against him on the IRC. You are really runing after trouble. Behave, stop your personal vandetta. Fad (ix) 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course she counts, phroziac is among the fairest wikipedians. She was among the elite few to pass the 50% community support barrier as an arbitrator candidate, something Tony Sideaway failed to achieve. Of course the vote for arbitration candidacy does not exist to compare users. But I am inclined to think anyone with 50%+ comunity support to be more than fair. Views regarding your conduct by every individual counts. You are not entitled in dismissing people.
 * How is me 'harrasing' a user on IRC relevant to your conduct? Also what am I doing on IRC that constitutes as 'harrassment'. Do you even know how IRC is processed by Arbcom?
 * You are overestimating your place in my wiki-experience, I do not have a personal vandetta against you. I have better things to do such as keeping List of Oh My Goddess episodes upto date. Your general conduct is hostile to say the least.
 * -- Cool CatTalk 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Phroziac introduced herself on the middle of an Abrcom cases because she was brought there by you through the IRC. According to the Arbcom decision she was wrong because the Arbcom decided else. I could care less of how many community supports she recieved during the last election. So no, she doesn't count, she was closely involved by her naivity in your IRC ranting to gain support for your Arbcom by lying against members on their back. And it isen't rare that I recieve emails warning me that you were still involving me through the IRC channels, their existance allegly justified by anti-vandal-bots.


 * And no, I am not overestimating myself in your wiki-experience, you are ovserestimating it yourself, stop talking about me on the IRC or in every given occasion, you already placed me on the administrators notice board not in a distant past, yet you still continue with this immature behavior of yours. ... yes do that, continue your episodic unencyclopedic article articles since like you said, you have better things to do. Fad (ix) 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you were to rain personal attacks, push pov, vandalise, etc... you are to be exempt from wikipedia policies? I am not even giving you a quarter of the attention I give to MARMOT and I don't give much attention to him eiher. So you are suggesting no one can discuss your conduct? On whoes authority? Even Jimbo's desicions and actions are subject to IRC discussions. You seem to enjoy keeping everyone else in a discussion at a constant state of defense by raining random acusations... I wont be intimidated by that.
 * BTW if you think episodic articles are nonencycpoledic, go ahead and propose mass deletions. Your constant dismissial of other peoples work is a fine example of your incivility.
 * -- Cool CatTalk 06:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * amuse me, seems that you kept one of my critics about your randomness to use it back against me. Of course, you can discuss my conduct, but if you weren't the coward you are you would not find every spot you could slander someone without him even being involved in such a medium. Episodic articles are unencyclopedic, pockymon or such articles which you take much interest writting you won't find them on Britannica. If this dismissal is incivil, or incivil is to tell on the open that you will get rid of a user or an article like you have been doing and show no inclination to stop. But like I said, do amuse me. And if there in fact is an Arbcom cases against you for your harassement over the IRC, be adviced that I will provide evidences. Fad (ix) 17:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am here to write an encyclopedia, not to provide entertainment so I'll pass. The point of a user conduct rfc is to discuss the users conduct. Calling someone cowardly is a personal attack to say the least.
 * There is a diference between britanica and wikipedia. While britanica is stuck at more conservative topics wikipedia tries to reach all human knowlege ranging from norse mythology to pop culture. From Armenian genocide to New Horizons.
 * There hasnt been a single arbcom case filled against me regarding harrasment. I will not be defending myself. I will not be dragged into that kind of a debate. We are discussing your incivility and this RfC is evidence enough.
 * -- Cat out 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets see then.


 * WP Talk:RfAr/Coolcat Davenbelle Stereotek/Proposed decision: 14:50, 4 September 2005 - User:Fadix - Coolcats disruption of the Armenian Genocide entry)
 * Threatens Arbcom: Either something is done about this, or I’ll kick Coolcat out of the Armenian Genocide entry myself and will assume the consequences.


 * The results were that your edits were distruptive there. This was a result of peer-review, medeiation request and my statment was finally during an Arbcom cases. You had restrictions over the Armenian genocide and my request was warranted due to the circumstances, had there been an Arbcom ruling concluding that you did nothing wrong in those articles, then perhaps you could bring this back. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Rest of the page is full of other personal attacks. I do not believe however anyone will read over a meg of text.


 * No, there are rules regarding personal attack and people can be blocked because of it. That page was read by arbitrators who are also administrators and was followed by many administrators. I was once blocked but the administrator reverted the decision. But given that you consider things like 'childishtic' as personal attacks, then it isen't surprising that you search bugs where there isen't. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Reverts w/o looking... The actual change is merely spelling and smimilar corrections.
 * You recycled this endlessly, you did it in the Arbcom and in every given occasions. You brought it at the Arbcom, and I answered by counter-evidences. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Quit it Thoth, I have enought of it, your undertanding of NPOV policy is as weak as Coolcats
 * I am not the only that question your comprehention of the NPOV policy. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * User talk:Cool Cat: 17:10, 8 March 2006
 * Acusses me of sockpuppetary while threatening to arbcom me to achieve 'harder sanctions'.
 * You have accused at least 5 other users to be my sock. I appologised for my mistake you did not. That a sock was used was finally true, a user indeed used them, but all your accusations about my alleged sucks ended up to be groundless because not only was they not my sock, but there was no sock of anyone behind them. I appologised but I never recieved any appologies from your part. Besides, like I said, even Tony suspected you when I brought the case to him. For the harder Arbcom sanction, this is obvious, if it was you behind it, you should have recieved more harsh sanctions. What's the deal about it? Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Fadix: 13:25, 20 March 2006 - User:Fadix
 * I PLACED THE REST OF MY TEXT ON THE RIGHT SIDE LEAVING THE REST BLANK AS A PROTEST TO USERPAGES IDIOTIC AND NATIONALISTIC TEMPLATES THAT HAVE NO PLACE IN WIKIPEDIA. etc.
 * As someone that has run a hit list page including members including me, and refused at first to delete it and threatned that you will not accept the decision of the community if they vote to delete it, you are very badly placed to accuse me of anything here. I am not the only one that is disgusted of such banners, there has already been discussions on the mailing list about such stupid tags. They are worthless, senseless, disruptive, childishtic and harmful for the credibility of Wikipedia. This is my right to say this, and I am not directly attacking any users like you have done yourself. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming dispute. Fadix suggests Azeri or Turkish names of places are not to be even mentioned on an article explaining an Azeri territory. While the naming dispute is none of my concern, his tone is unacceptable in my view.
 * You simply made this up and you know it. You brought this claim on the articles talk page and Grandmaster clarified to you the subject of the controversy to make it clear that it has nothing to do with that. But regardless you recycle this, which BTW become a lie because you still use it after being told it isen't true and knowing it isent. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to be respected respect others and stop lying about them.
 * I guess this is the sort of things you could find to request an RfC against a member. What will be next?
 * These are one of the many examples of such behaviour. -- Cool CatTalk 19:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, do continue, I haven't seen anything relevent there. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * His response on this page can also be viewed as hostile. -- Cool CatTalk 01:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You have yet to show how... afteral, I wasn't the one making threats to get rid of a member directly, not from an article but from Wikipedia. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be insulted if someone was declaring my views 'childishtic' -- Cool CatTalk 08:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Chidishtic, the behavior, which is childishtic. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * His response on this page can also be viewed as hostile. -- Cool CatTalk 01:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You have yet to show how... afteral, I wasn't the one making threats to get rid of a member directly, not from an article but from Wikipedia. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be insulted if someone was declaring my views 'childishtic' -- Cool CatTalk 08:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Chidishtic, the behavior, which is childishtic. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Chidishtic, the behavior, which is childishtic. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So, you can always claim this to be about a users conduct, you aren't gonna convinced much people. Oh and, yeh, go continue your encyclopedic articles, you should start writting articles about some pockymons tails structures and colors, afteral, it is about all human knowledge. Fad (ix) 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no of course I wont convince anyone. Infact I dont need to. You have done a decent job yourself. -- Cat out 21:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Coolcat, you don't imagine how funny you sound by taking my and other users expressions and using them to pretend that you have something relevent to say, you are almost cute when you do this. Dude, you are lying in your RfC, and even Grandmaster clarified the thing to you, while ironically he signs this RfC by knowing about this. How do you even expect to be taken seriously when you are claiming something which you know isen't even true and is even not a question of interpretation. Fad (ix) 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So you have never called me a coward? You were prefectly civil all the time? Are you seriously suggesting that? -- Cat out 10:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I did call you a coward, this is a statment of truth slandering people on their back when you can't say it on their face is a cowardly act. I'm still waiting anyone supporting your RfC beside Grandmaster. Fad (ix) 17:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Failure to resolve the dispute: lacking
Could I see more precise instances where the signatories attempted to resolve the dispute? That section offers one (seemingly not very direct) example, and the other self-references to this page (attempts to resolve it should have been undertaken prior to the filing of this RfC). Thanks. El_C 05:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I warned him here about unacceptability of personal attacks, but he still continued behaving the same way. I don’t know what the exact procedures for the resolution of such disputes are, but I added my perspective to this page after I saw his comment here, accusing me of lie. I just had to respond. I don’t really understand the reasons for such behavior, because we were getting alone quite well, until at some point he became quite aggressive and started attacking me on any given occasion. Grandmaster 06:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect Grandmaster, I think you don't get it. If you read Cool_Cat RfC, very little has to do with our cases. And the only relevent, really relevent point regarding our cases has nothing to do about a RfC about a member but simply filling a RfC, and the information wasn't even true as you admited yourself. The important issues Cool_Cat bring was part of his evidences at an Arbcom ruling that concluded against him and I already brought evidences defending myself, the other one I apologised already. You were used by Cool_Cat to persue his personal vandeta. And also, let me remind you that Cool_cat brought this RfC soon after things started to cool down between us. Fad (ix) 06:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, I'm looking at your diff and its first sentence reads: "I’m not going to read his endless rants" &mdash; I'm uncertain that a warning with such a tone can count as an effort to resolve the dispute. Do you have anything more concrete to submitt here? El_C 07:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That was a response to a very long posting, which was dedicated more to personal accusations rather than to the discussed topic. So I did not feel like reading it at the time, though I did later. Grandmaster 08:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, but what I'm interested in are genuine efforts to resolve the dispute. I'm not going to justify the comment that preceded this response (which I haven't read), but "endless rant" and quoting an excerpt from WP:NPA I think falls short. El_C 09:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there were no other attempts, as I’m not really familiar with the corresponding procedures. I was not planning to be involved in this RfC, but I had to provide my side of the story after this comment:


 * 7. Those words were harsh, but I stend by them, anyone can read and understand the matter. When someone mislead others about the content of my edits, I call this to be a lie. Find another word less offensive and I will use it. I don’t think it was nice and if it was not for this comment I would have stayed out of this, but after reading it I had to interfere to explain what the real situation was. Grandmaster 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps anyone can read and understand the matter, as he says, but who actually has, who does? The procedure merely involves an attempt to calmly reason with the other party, or certification is deemed invalid (and since it's the 2nd and last signature, it means this RfC is likely to be deleted). The "endless rants" bit tends to defeat the calmness of the exchange. It's not too late for both sides to try and calmly resolve the conflict. El_C 10:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * By that time it was not my first conflict with Fadix, there was a very lengthy dispute at Iranian Azerbaijan article, where I suggested to him to start an RfC to resolve the dispute, but his reaction was pretty aggressive.


 * Would you mind to have a look at the dispute we are having at Talk:Nakhichevan? As an experienced user, you might be able to help resolve the dispute. The talk page is very long, but I can provide a brief summary and Fadix can add his view as well. Grandmaster 10:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Both of you feel free to summarize the dispute on my talk page. But please limit your summary to 250 words or so. I'm afraid I don't currently have the time to read such lengthy talk pages. El_C 11:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done Fad (ix) 17:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * El C, the only attempts to resolve the dispute is people warning fadix to be more civil. His incivility is visible even on this page.
 * I'll however cite the difs anyways as per procedure however this may take some time as on average fadix fills a page with his reposnses.
 * -- Cat out 11:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are the ones I cited enough, his talk pages history is full of such attempts... -- Cat out 12:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Step out of this, you are in no way involved in the conflict between me and Grandmaster. Fad (ix) 17:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ... And he orders me out... I was under the impresion I filed the RfC... -- Cat out 19:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)