Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Alex79818 (talk) at 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• User:Alex79818, filing party et. al. (aggrieved editors)
• Wee Curry Monster
• Pfainuk
• Apcbg
• Justin A Kuntz
• SqueakBox
• Gibnews
• David

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wee_Curry_Monster
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pfainuk
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Apcbg#Arbcom_complaint
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justin_A_Kuntz
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SqueakBox
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gibnews
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dpaajones

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• User:Alex79818 talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex79818
• Noticeboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Wee_Curry_Monster_reported_by_User:209.36.57.10_.28Result:_declined.29
• Medcab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11_Falkland_Islands/Mediation

Statement by Alex79818

Listed editors - among others - are, and for years have been, knowingly and purposefully violating WP:NPOV in the EN "Falkland Islands" and related secondary articles. As a result, the article is heavily, though subtly, skewed to present a pro-Britsh POV. The editors cited, as the discussion page clearly shows, have a history of seemingly coordinated editing behavior that aims to establish domination of consensus in the article to sustain said POV. Far from engaging in rational discourse, they attack and prevent any editor, new or established, confirmed or IP, to post any well-cited content on said article and related articles, if such content does not jive with the POV they are pushing. They attempt to confront editors in "tag team" style, taking turns and wearing them down until they lose interest in participation. Other tactics include arbitrary judgment calls about when an argument is simplistic, irrelevant, or not robust enough. When enough opposing editors do manage to fight it out and achieve consensus, the standard operating procedure is to create a related article and place the information there - then, slowly over time, work using the same methods to get said content removed. The cited editors claim to achieve consensus by backing each other's views every time. There have been countless violations of WP:NPOV, WP:GAMES, WP:PSTS, WP:OR, WP:RFC, WP:3RR, and most every other WP rule there is at one point or another. The discussion environment is simply poisonous, given users' behavior and rude, dictatorial approach, something completely detrimental to WP:AGF. Though I have been absent from discussion for some time, it seems my frustration in dealing with the cited editors has placed me in the company of many others who came before and after me - some of whom, it seems, have taken to sockpuppetting and other disruptive activities (probably as a form of desperation). Aggrieved editors, over time, include myself as well as:

Thanks for the mention. User Pfainuk will naturally be biased since he is a British citizen, I think I had a fry with him before. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask all frustrated editors to share their experience regarding the above-stated issues, particularly given that these editors have time and again removed "controversial" and other similar banners - and are now going for GA status.Alex79818 (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fsmallmann
• Vintagekits
• The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|
• Mariano
• Sebastiankessel
• DrFrench
• AndeanThunder
• Camilo Sanchez
• Michael Glass
• Pmt7ar
• TharkunColl
• MFIreland
• Cambalachero (formerly MBelgrano, account renamed)

these are of course a few, the reality is that there are too many frustrated editors for me to name - as there are examples of the behavior I've pointed out; to wit, I will invite administrators to review the discussion history of this (and other related) article in their totality before and since said users began to contribute - and, in particular, the following discussion threads:

• "British bias and edit warring and POV pushing" June 2009
• "UN Resolutions and more Argentinian references need to be included in this article" Feb 2010
• "Nootka Sound Conventions vs. Argentine POV" September 2007 (MEDCAB, unresolved)
• "Phrasing and Sourcing" Jan 2009
• "Starting Over" April 2009
• "Respecting while rejecting Argentine claims" Feb 2009
• "CIA World Factbook" August 2009

I understand that this is a contentious and highly polarizing subject matter, although no more than any other tough subject that WP has articles on. The aim of mediation should be to conduct a complete review of all the contentious issues (many more than the ones listed above) related to this article, and all related articles - inviting open commentary, and keeping a very close watch on the tone of discussion while taking prompt and immediate action to address all violations. Further, I call upon admins to analize the contribution record of the cited editors, and if my claims seem to have merit, to immediately enjoin the cited users, restricting their editing privileges until such time as this matter can be finally resolved. Lastly, I ask that administrators act now and place the appropriate controversy notices and restrictions on the article, as they may see fit to do so. Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Sorry for the spelling mistake. My statement is above. I will not insist on "Malvinas" case, although I am requesting a general review of the article (and editors' discussions) for POV bias and one of the major topic of contention was the article's name.Alex79818 (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckatz: Your observation is correct. Indeed I am here for a single purpose - as are we all, do determine if the allegations of NPOV/GAME violations I've raised have merit, or not. If you do not feel that way at all, it is helpful to say so. I certainly do and other editors might also feel the allegations I've raised have merit. However I don't see how my contribution history has any relevance whatsoever to the merits of the case, or lack thereof.Alex79818 (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 1}

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by bystander Ckatz

I'm here because Alex79818 posted a note on my page, claiming that I was supposedly "a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted" at Falkland Islands. I was rather surprised to learn that Alex was making such presumptions about my opinion with regard to this matter, given that I had never stated any such thing (nor interacted with this person, for that matter). I would like to assume good faith, but a review of Alex79818's 173 contributions suggests that he/she is here for a single purpose. Other than this Arbcomm motion, there are no contributions at all since last October, and no significant contributions related to the article in question since a MedCab matter in late 2007. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pmt7ar

I'm not used to arbitration procedures, but I also saw the note on my talkpage. I din't felt exactly that way either, but did felt discouraged and stopping editing because of the consensus imposed, even if I sensed it POV. I keep standing there is a POV towards British position, but spanish wikipedia is tons worse with an argentinian POV, so I resigned english wikipedia will have it toward british'. I didn't have any serious issues except some harsh with Justin and Pfainuk that was a tiresome. Neither I had a great participation to observe that behaviour (I only recall discussing about imperial/metrics units and citizenship), but I did left with an impression that there is a biased consensus watching that article. pmt7ar ^(talk) 02:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/1)

• Awaiting statements. I would like to see this controversy worked out short of arbitration, but the precedent from a series of editing disputes on articles on an analogous topic is not favorable (see, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar; indeed, I see some familiar names on the list of parties here who were part of that case). In the title and body of the request, I assume that the reference to WP:GAMES is meant to be WP:GAME; in any event, a more neutral title for the case, such as simply "Falkland Islands", would be more appropriate (although I assume that someone will soon insist that half the time we refer to this as the Malvinas case). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. No recent evidence of dispute resolution; indeed, no recent evidence of dispute, that I can see. Several of the editors that the originating party has identified as either a party or a potentially aggrieved editor are indefinitely blocked for reasons unrelated to this matter, others have very few edits to the article in question (or to the project as a whole, in some cases), two of them are the same editor with both his previous and current username, and still others have been largely inactive for an extended period, including the OP himself. Risker (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline I do have concerns that this is going to be yet another nationalist/name dispute, but no evidence of DR prior to this. SirFozzie (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]