Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Roman Catholic Diocese of Miami

Initiated by Student7 at 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Notice left on DominvsVobiscvm's discussion page.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Student7

I have tried to convince DominvsVobiscvm that his edits to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and John Favalora are POV or non-encyclopedic. He doesn't seem to indicate that he is seeing my comments. This has been going on for a week or more. I have left notes within the articles themselves, with no answer. I have left messages on his user page with no answer. I have left comments on the lines I have used to revert the entries with no answer that is responsive to the question other to say that is what he believes. I have left comments on the discussion page with no answer. Until now, I had no idea he was even reading his user page.

Statement by DominvsVobiscvm

The fact that a lawsuit was filed, and that allegations continued to be made publicly at a respected political activism site, is newsworthy. Especially when we note that the lawsuit was dismissed (but are clear on why it was dismissed). Allegations do not have to be upheld in order for them to be newsworthy; otherwise, we'd be forbidden to have articles on the Duke Lacrosse players, or articles nothing that Judanita Broderick accused Bill Clinton of raping her, or that OJ Simpson was accused of killing his wife. The "Miami Vice" scandal was--and is--huge. The story surrounding it are indeed worthy of an online encyclopedia.

Clerk notes

The filing party has not completed the section above regarding prior attempts at dispute resolution. Please explain in detail what methods of dispute resolution, if any, were tried before filing this request for arbitration. As stated above, arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, not the first step. If no prior dispute resolution has been tried, the filing party should explain why this is such an important matter that it needs to go to arbitration immediately. If you cannot make one of these showings, this request is very unlikely to be accepted. Newyorkbrad 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

Swami Ramdev

Initiated by Wikipost at 03:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Informed Hornplease about Request for Arb on user's Talk page [[1]]


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Have tried resolving this with the opposing user via Talk - but we are at an impasse[[2]]
  • Have backed off myself from making any edits/reverts on the page in question since proposng Mediation
  • 3 days have passed since my posting this request for Mediation on the opposing user's Talk page. In this time frame the user has engaged in posting more

than a 100 edits on WP but has chosen to provide no response to my request for Mediation [[3]]


Statement by Wikipost

This is a matter that concerns interpretation of Wikipedia Guidelines related to the use of:

  • Cross-referencing between existing articles and
  • External references


My position is that the opposing user is:

  • Selectively interpreting policy to further Personal Preferences and that
  • This is happening at the expense of Wikipedia and its general audience


More specifically, the opposing user is insistent on deleting a paragraph on the Swami Ramdev page [[4]]


This content had been in a place for over a year and is in compliance with

Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:External links Wikipedia: RS and Wikipedia:Attribution

Consequently, it is my belief that the paragraph has been deleted without just cause and should be reverted.

Your assistance in helping resolve the matter would be much appreciated.


Statement by Hornplease

I certainly think this is premature if an investiagion into editors, and - obviously- based on a disagreement about content if not. My deletion, as noted below, consisted of a paragraph with fact tags, and links to the website of the subject of this article, without any corroborating details, but with a list of times that the subject's TV programme was on the air. I subsequently asked on the talkpage for citations, and when told that the Pranayama article would serve, indicated the problem with that [5] and re-stated the requirements for sources for and article on a living person[6]. I haven't responded to an RfM because none was in fact filed. The note on my talkpage suggested Mediation cabal, which is quite another thing. In any case, all this content dispute needs is someone else to try and explain to this editor the basic facts behind sourcing.Hornplease 04:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Sanchom

It seems that this case is being filed primarily to receive a ruling on content. The diff that Wikipost provided [7] shows removal of uncited information. The discussion regarding the appropriateness of the references being provided lasted for only five days and consisted of five posts ([8]). I think this could be handled better by a third opinion. I would be willing to help in this effort if requested by the involved parties. Sancho 04:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

  • Reject. Premature. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. - SimonP 11:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Parties please get the assistance of other editors to help you solve this dispute. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution not the first. This dispute will likely be resolved with assistance of other users. FloNight 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Paul August ☎ 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Terrorist"

Initiated by Fanra at 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Fanra

The article Luis Posada Carriles was in an edit war over using the term "terrorist" to describe him. In May 2007, I got the parties to agree to use the word, "militant" instead, averting an edit war. In June 2007, Griot first edited the page and put in the word terrorist, despite the fact that the talk page held a discussion about it and our solution.

It was pointed out to him that Wikipedia:Words to avoid shows that the word terrorist should only be used in quoting others, rather than Wikipedia labeling someone as a terrorist. Griot felt he could use it if "it really applies".

At that point, I mentioned to him that is not what Wikipedia:Words to avoid means and used Osama bin Laden as an example because, at that time, the Osama bin Laden article never mentioned the word terrorist in the Lead section.

Upon visiting the Osama bin Laden article, I noticed that Griot had edited to it label him a terrorist. At that point I felt that Griot and I would be unable to resolve this issue and that Wikipedia would need to make an official policy on this or everyone would be free to label anyone they wished as a terrorist. Fanra 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Newyorkbrad asks me what methods of dispute resolution have been tried. The answer is that I only attempted to discuss this issue with him and I have not tried any other. I felt that by his a.)attempting to claim that Wikipedia:Words to avoid really says that instead of not using the word that it says that you can if "it really applies" and b.) editing the article that I was using as an example thereby showing a disregard for any real willingness to try to settle this issue; that any attempts to resolve this would be futile. I also feel that this is such an important issue that Wikipedia needs to have a policy on this. Without one, people are free to label people anything they wish. This is especially important since these people are still alive, as per our policy on living people. If Griot feels we can resolve this issue any other way, I would be happy to but his actions have shown he is uninterested in compromise and resolution. Fanra 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I forgot to add that his disregard for the fact that the issue was settled just before he arrived with a compromise and that he ignored this and is totally unwilling to agree with the compromise word, "militant", which was agreed on instead of either "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" strikes me as that anything other than an official decision on this would be futile. If someone refuses to agree to the middle ground and insists on breaking a agreement that brought peace to the article before they arrived, I feel that further discussion with them is pointless. Fanra 16:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Griot

I will address Fanra's points in a minute. The larger issue is how to use the word "terrorist" not just in Wikipedia, but elsewhere.

I understand that "terrorist" is a word like "Nazi" that can be thrown around indiscriminately. This accounts for Wiki's Wikipedia:Words to avoid policy of using the word "terrorist" (and "Nazi") judisciously. As everybody has seen, when arguments get heated, sometimes the word "Nazi" comes out. I've heard Ronald Reagan and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence called "Nazis." Clearly, they aren't Nazis, but that doesn't mean the word never applies. Adolph Hitler and Herman Gorring were Nazis. Nobody takes issue with that.

Similarly, the word "terrorist" really does apply to certain people and we shouldn't hesitate to use the word when the word genuinely applies. Bin Laden masterminded the deaths of 3,000+ innocent people; Luis Posada Carriles killed 73 innocent people by planting a bomb on an airplane. Are they terrorists or militants? Militants engage in violent behavior to advance their cause, but they don't target innocent, noncombantants. Terrorists target innocent people. They are called terrorists because they chose to advance their cause by striking terror in civlian populations. By this criteria, Bin Laden and Carriles are clearly terrorists.

Because the word "terrorist" is hard to define, does that mean we should never use the word? I don't think so. We should apply the "terrorist" criteria carefully, and when the criteria is met, we shouldn't hesitate to use the word "terrorist."

To address Fanra's points:

  • No concensus was reached at the Carriles about the word "terrorist."
  • As I tried to explain to Fanra, Wiki's Wikipedia:Words to avoid is just that -- words to avoid. That doesn't mean the words can't be used if they are used judisciously.
  • The first line of the Osama bin Laden article says, "Osama bin Laden...is a militant Islamist." And if you follow the "militant Islamist" link, you read this first line: "Islamist terrorism (also Islamic terrorism) is terrorism - an act of violence targeting non-combatants - done by a person or group identifiably Islamic, and/or to further the cause of Islam as determined by the acts' perpetrators and supporters." So bin Laden is a "militant Islamist," and a "militant Islamist" is a terrorist. I didn't think Wiki readers should have to click the link to see that bin Laden is a terrorist, so I inserted the word right into the bin Laden article.

I hope that others who contribute to this discussion will address the larger issue of what a terrorist is instead of engaging in he-said, she-said detective work as to who edited what first and the like. There is a larger issue at stake here. I don't think wiki editors should be afriad of making moral judgements if they do so wisely and carefully. Since we in the U.S. are engaged in a "War on Terror," we need to be clear about what a terrorist is. Wiki can help in this matter. Griot 17:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved GRBerry

I've not seen these two users disputing this, but I've seen this sort of misunderstanding before, see this Nov. '06 deletion review. This looks like a request to have ArbComm convert a guideline to a policy more restrictive than the guideline is, which is well outside ArbComm's remit. ArbComm is not for policy formation. GRBerry 19:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

The filing party should explain in detail what methods of dispute resolution, if any, were tried before filing this request for arbitration. As stated above, arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, not the first step. If no prior dispute resolution has been tried, the filing party should explain why this is such an important matter that it needs to go to arbitration immediately. If you cannot make one of these showings, this request is very unlikely to be accepted. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

  • Reject. A content/policy dispute. This simply needs some more input to help work out exactly how policy should be interpreted in this case. - SimonP 01:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per SimonP. FloNight 12:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Paul August ☎ 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Republics and other articles

Initiated by Nema Fakei at 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Negotiation: Talk page participation between WHEELER, Pmanderson (Septentrionalis) SimonP, occasional other comments.

Informal Mediation: Having read through initial negotiation, I hoped to mediate informally and provide constructive suggestions to all sides.

Third Parties: WHEELER requested comment at the Village Pump [14] (the diff shows the page at a state when the discussion was preserved: see the discussion body for the request itself, which was written prior to this diff).

Breaks: This particular round of controversy appears to have taken place immediately *following* a wikibreak on WHEELER's part. Various editors seem to have had intermittent 'cooling off' periods of a few days during this particular dispute.

Statement by Nema Fakei

A content dispute surrounding the definition of the word republic has spread to at least 6 different articles or their talk pages (I give the latter, being the more useful):

I hoped and tried to prevent discussion from turning into a mess of accusations by focusing the debate on content, and by removing or linking[15] crossposts to concentrate the discussion. In particular, I tried to sort out the list criteria for List of republics [16], specifically by inviting other contributors to propose wording (and offering to do it myself if they didn't want to) [17]. However, structured debate has been abandoned again for less relevant posting.

When I realised my efforts had failed, I asked WHEELER, who seemed to me to be having the most difficulty engaging with content disputes if he had any suggestions as to how to proceed [18]. His response did not suggest any [19]. I have looked over other possible steps that come under the dispute resolution process, but I do not believe there are any more options there that would be worth trying.

The dispute has been characterised by instances breaches of the following policies - or allegations thereof (which I list):

WHEELER in particular has been a frustration, as he has (or claims to have) no interest in editing outside this debate. He objects to the consensus process, so getting him to engage in it at all has been enough struggle without his periodic interjections to state that he's had enough. Time and page-clutter trying to get him back on track distracts from the content negotiations.

I do not ask the arbitrators to rule on content issues, but I will ask them to intervene to end the going-round in circles and in particular the constant incivility and accusations that are blighting the discussion pages. -- Nema Fakei at 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by PMAnderson

I began editing Wikipedia just as WHEELER was going on a long break over to Wikinfo; so my personal interaction with him has been limited. But my conclusion, from seeing Talk:Banausos/archive_1 and the interminable archives of Talk:Republic is that WHEELER has always been like this, and always will be.

At the same time, I am not convinced that ArbCom can usefully contribute to the situation. His edits represent a narrow and specialized PoV, drawn from two books, one obsolete; they are not consensus, indeed, a tiny minority view, in any of the several fields they touch, and they will be reversed in due course by the consensus of competent editors. His contributions to talk pages are unreadable long paragraphs, full of accusations in capital letters, which can be ignored, like any other single purpose account, of which we have so many.

This is partly because I doubt he has much to contribute; he has a strong PoV, and no Latin whatever, as this edit shows. (iorum is a genitive plural; this belongs in the second or third chapter of a first-year Latin book.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sanchom

My involvement was solely limited to an attempt to moderate the tone of WHEELER so that others might be able to work with him. I gave direction to comment on content, not other editors, but WHEELER quickly returned to a tone that made him very difficult to collaborate with. I explained this to him in this diff, to which he responded with a comment demanding ridicule for effeminate editors and characterizations of other editors as not being virtuous and not loving truth. At this point, I considered the best route would be to ignore the situation until WHEELER changed his behaviour such that I would be able to be of help. I left him with some final comments as points for improvement: at his talk page. Since then (20 June 2007), I have been out of touch with this situation. I would support an arbitration case solely on my interaction with this user. He has displayed a lack of assumption of good faith, civility, respect for talk page guidelines, and respect for other editors. I believe he would have much to contribute if he learned to work with the community instead of creating such an adversarial atmosphere. Sancho 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SimonP

I've had regular encounters with WHEELER for well over two years now. His tendentiousness, rejection of standard practices, and persistent incivility make him a very difficult editor to work with. He is not impossible to reason with, but even small compromises require huge amounts of effort by other editors. His contributions tend to be either original research, or the advancement of fringe theories held by only a few others. His pattern has been to strenuously push his views for a few weeks, and then disappear for some months, always returning to the same arguments each time. There was something of an improvement after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER, but recently his behaviour has been as problematic as it ever was, if not more so. - SimonP 13:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WHEELER

Look at the hostility here present on this page. It bespeaks what goes on here at Wikipedia.

This was posted at Wikinfo:

===cyber-bullies===
I think this is becoming a serious problem on wikipedia but not one that the administration have any wish to address. Groups of users now patrol wikipedia trying to enforce their wills on everyone else. They venomously and vindictively attack qualified contributors and deliberately hound them off the wiki for their own self satisfaction. If anyone accuses these people of bullying then they are blocked (often indefinitely). Anyone disagreeing with their viewpoint is labelled a spammer. They then attack anyone posting from the same IP address. It's a very unpleasant atmosphere and I was so glad to find this wiki to post to instead. It's madness over on wikipedia but I get the impression the nutters are running things.Ejn21 19:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I am a target of one of these groups. I try to edit an article with references. They revert. I place copious amounts of references and they deny my references. They will not allow me to edit.

The Wikipedian Article states that there are VARIOUS definitions of republic. Yet, won't let me clarify or state one of these various definitions. For a fuller exposition of this go to User talk:WHEELER/Trouble with Republic articles.

They constantly denigrate my references. They disallow my references. They talk circles around me, aggravate me to no extant and then charge me with being abusive. They have this methodology down to a 'T'. I am trying to add Sparta to the list of republics. Check out the talk page, Talk:List of republics. Back in 13th December 2006 I added Crete and Sparta. It gets deleted. I provide copious amounts of evidence, 8 June 2007 with references. It gets deleted. No matter what I provide, it gets deleted, it gets refused. I am open to suggestions as of yet, these people will not let Sparta be on the page of List of republics. I even referenced Wikipedia's own article Classical republic which mentions Sparta and it gets deleted.

And I am not supposed to be frustrated and angry. These are what these people want. They want to fustrate me to no end so I get angry and get banned. That is their plan.WHEELER 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a modus operandi very long time ago with User:Kim Bruning that was very good. We recognized that there were two definitions of republic. There was the Classical one and a Modern definition. It worked allright until a bunch of people came on and deleted the Classical definition of republic. Most of it was not original research.WHEELER 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is how sly these people are; User:Nema Fakei writes this in above complaint:

"When I realised my efforts had failed, I asked WHEELER, who seemed to me to be having the most difficulty engaging with content disputes if he had any suggestions as to how to proceed [10]. His response did not suggest any [11]."

What he doesn't to tell you or fails to mention is that he goaded me in his "suggestions to proceed". In his suggestions to proceed, he says this:

"Please try to understand that the sorts of changes you're asking for are very much disconnected from the point and context of the sources you're quoting.

Here he is demolishing my references because I am "taking them out of context. I just had an article published on an online Journal in England The Spartan Republic. This is permanently displayed on their website in the Politics section. They accepted my article and published it.

Again, he goads me:

"The vast majority of the quotations you regularly adduce are similarly taken out of context, "

In the same response. What am I to do? Of course I respond. But now he can goad me, and so I get banned? They have an excuse to everything I reference. They nullify and attack my references.WHEELER 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Work Permit

Comment by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

User:WHEELER is a consistently uncivil and tendentious editor with a lengthy history of disruption. Even a quick scan of his current talkpage unfolds an appalling display of abusive name-calling spewed in all directions. It appears that WHEELER has been carrying on with the same unacceptable pattern of behavior for years now, and frankly should have been dealt with much sooner.

The question for the arbitrators to answer here is not whether WHEELER can be allowed to continue editing as he has been, but whether a full-fledged arbitration case is required to address this situation or whether a quicker resolution can be found. Newyorkbrad 01:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't previously aware of the prior ArbCom decision cited by SimonP, which appears not to have made its way into the list at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. Given that there are no actionable remedies in the prior decision, I don't think this changes the analysis. Newyorkbrad 14:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/2/0)

  • Recuse. - SimonP 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. We can deal with this more expediently than the community can, at this point. Kirill 13:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse Fred Bauder 21:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Agree with Kirill. I think that ArbCom can help sort this out better than the community now. FloNight 12:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia and Valencian Community

Initiated by Physchim62 (talk) at 16:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

also several hundred kilobytes of talk page archives

Statement by Physchim62

Since at least February 2007, Catalonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Valencian Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and various related articles have been the scene of serious edit-warring. I feel that the users above are the "main culprits": they act as a group, and there are strong suspicions of sock puppetry concerning at least some of them.

The modus operandi is fairly classic in such cases. The said users attempt to revert certain edits which cite reliable sources but which do not conform to their point of view. They themselves are less than able to provide reliable sources for their assertions, or sometimes even to remain civil. The result is edit warring, talk-page diarrhea and a paralysis of constructive editing.

A Request for Mediation relating to Valencian Community failed because of the refusal of the concerned parties to participate. I am bringing the case to Arbitration because of the shear length of disruption, and because of new indications of disruptive sock puppetry which, if confirmed (as far as these things can be), would cover the much of this six-month period. As such, I feel that a case can be made on the basis of user conduct rather than on that of article content.

  • In partial reply to Casaforra below, User:Benimerin has now been unblocked and informed of the request for arbitration here. Physchim62 (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To complete the reply to Casaforra, as far as I'm able at this point, it is usual that the Arbitration Committee looks at all aspects of a case: the editors whom Casaforra names were all notified of the request for arbitration at the same time as those listed above, and have now all added a statement here. Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to various users below: I am not going to discuss individual administrative actions here; there will be time and space to do that later, if the Arbitration Committee accepts this request. Frankly, I find that the statements only confirm my reasons for bringing this request. Physchim62 (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask undecided arbitrators to look at this section of WP:AN/3RR and to ask themselves whether this is the sort of situation which a single admin should be resolving on their own? Admins have a duty to try to prevent disruption, by using their judgement in particular cases, but they also need support from time to time. Physchim62 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maurice27

I agree with this request. Each change or edit even if proven with legal and/or graphic sources has to be discussed, sometimes even for weeks, on talk-pages. --Maurice27 16:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In partial reply to Casaforra and Dunadan below: May you be reminded that this is a request for arbitration on 2 articles and not a judgement against my person? Neither Physchim's, Mountolive's or myself's statements have reduced explanations to a single user level like you both are doing. You are asked to take that matter to WP:AN if you wish.
  • Continuous addition of discussion by the involved users in a page where it says "This is not a page for discussion", clearly shows how this users are only working together to make their point stand over the others, no matter what it takes. Neither Physchim, Mountolive, Boynamadsue or myself are doing so. --Maurice27 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casaforra

If a Request for Arbitration happens, then please include all the users involved in the edition of those articles. That is (inalphabetical order): Boynamedsue, Maurice27, Mountolive, and the proposer Physchim62. I don't know if a blocked user could also take part, Benimerin.

As for me, I should say I'm only editing on the Talk page of the Valencian Community, I haven't ever edited in the article or the talk page of Catalonia.

But, please, go on, and read the archived talk pages as well. Psychim62 was very prompt to block indefinitely two anon IPS and one new user (Benimerin), but has done nothing regarding a very disruptive and incivil user, Maurice27.

I don't know where to sign but I fully agree that, once for all, somebody setles peace and gets some heavy consensus. I'll stand for whatever arbiters say. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Maurice27: The main problem on both pages Physchim62 noted is you, Maurice27. Just take a look at these articles:
* Andorra, Antoni Gaudí or Northern Catalonia: Diarrhea talk pages plenty of trollings (by you) and insults (by you) with your lack of sense to reach any consensus that doesn't fit your POV.
* And compare them with the way two different POVed users (Mountolive and me) resolve differences: Valencian Nationalist Bloc or Valencian pilota.
I could name many more examples where your posts begin a war-edit because of your bad behaviour.
We all have proved that we can debate with different sources, arguments and reasonings, you haven't. You only disrupt by lying (I never [31] edited in the Catalonia article as you claim [32]), crying aloud [33], laughing at others [34] , trolling [35] or insulting [36]. It's you who, in last term, is causing all this.
--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mountolive

I definitely agree to this. The medical symptoms couldn't be explained better by Physchim62: talk page diarrhea. Talk pages haven't proved effective at all in those articles.

Me personally I have been mostly out of these articles for a few months now. Actually, these very articles are responsible for having quite disengaged me from wikipedia. It would feel nice if we got a solution good for everybody who is there in good faith and this is, I guess, one more last opportunity, for I think that Casaforra is mainly in good faith (even though the fact that he is calling now that major vandal called Benimerin to be revived is really puzzling). I don't know how he's been acting recently, but Toniher has proved to me once or twice in the past that he can also be agreeable and in good faith. Thus, I guess there is a chance.

So, yes, you can count on me for this...if it is going to be different than those talk pages mentioned, of course.

Mountolive

Statement by Dúnadan

The situation at the aforementioned talk pages wouldn't have been as drastic as to request for arbitration if the administrator involved (User:Physchim62) had not only acted promptly, but fairly. I agree with Casaforra, Physchim62 has blatantly ignored the repeated insults, swearing, ad hominem attacks and disruptive behavior of other users. In fact User:Maurice27 had to be blocked, first temporarily, and then permanently, by another administrator, because of his disruptive behavior, and yet he was unblocked again.

Phychim62 permanently blocked a new user (eventually shown to be innocent) whose POV he personally opposes, by assigning him a purported puppeteer without solid evidence, and without a fair "trial" (no case was opened at WP:SSP). When confronted and asked to open a fair investigation to confirm the identity of the purported sock puppet, or to prove his innocence, Physchim62 said that this sock-puppetry case was "evident" and ultimately responded that "it is none of your business".

His sympathy for the POV of the disruptive editors involved has been evident, not only by condoning their lack of etiquette and disruptive behavior, but also by naming in this request for arbitration only those users who disagree with his POV (Toniher, Casaforra and myself), but not those who happen to agree with his particular POV (Mountolive, Boynamedsue and Maurice27), some of which have resorted to direct insults, article ownership, sarcasm and extremely disruptive behavior. I find it astonishing, and hypocritical, as the Arbitration Committee probably will, that the administrator Physchim62 names as "culprits" three users who have never engaged in 3RR violations and who have never resorted to insults (unlike Maurice27); in fact, none of us have been blocked for disruptive behavior or for violating WP:3RR. It is even interesting (and eye-opening) to note that even User:Boynamedsue's first impression was to say that this request of arbitration was most probably caused by Maurice27's disruptive behavior, not by us.

Physchim62 claims that we act as a group, yet six users (the three users he "groups", plus User:Xtv, User:Joan sense nick and User:GillesV), after debating peacefully, and disagreeing on many issues, agreed on a consensual version for Catalonia. After User:Maurice27 was unblocked (or forgiven from his permanent blockage), he contended, yet again, the consensual version, and starting a new edit war. Yet, Physchim62, sympathetic with Maurice27's POV claims that it is us who act disruptively.

Arbitration is needed for the following reasons:

  • Users diregard WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV, even claiming that the constitution of Spain and the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia are not unbiased sources (and therefore, should not be used). The first user repeatedly engaged in WP:3RR. He constantly challenges the consensus of other users (in Catalonia) who provide sources, and resorts to demagogy to disqualify reputable sources such as the aforementioned legal documents and Britannica.
  • A review of the [mis]use of the administrative privileges of User:Physchim62 who, being sympathetic with a POV has opened this ludicrous accusation, castigated and permanently blocked an innocent user while blatantly ignored, even when asked to do something, the disruptive behavior of those users with whom he agrees.
  • All users, therefore, should be added to this request for arbitration, not only one party. Please add User:Maurice27, User:Mountolive, User:Boynamedsue (those with whom Physchim62 is sympathetic) as well as other users who, like Toniher, Casaforra and myself, have helped build a consensus and participated peacefully: User:GillesV, User:Xtv, and User:Joan sense nick.

--the Dúnadan 01:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC) --the Dúnadan 01:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I read your statement, I notice you are also saying that I disregard WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV and, also, seems that I even claimed that the constitution of Spain and the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia are not unbiased sources.
This is not probably the right place to make it, but I would appreciate it if you could prove to me in my talk page that I did that and said so. If I did, please accept my apologies beforehand for asking you to prove it. Otherwise, I will be willing to accept your excuses.
Mountolive
I do apologize, I had edited this section over a dozen times see history), until I realized that this is not the place to provide evidence, but to support the request for arbitration, so I restructured and summarized the above points. From the edits, your name was left in there by mistake. From Talk:Catalonia, there is no evidence to suggest that you said so. Again, I apologize. --the Dúnadan 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boynamedsue

Will appear here.

Boynamedsue 12:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Dunadan, the link you have posted does not support the conclusions you have drawn from it. I was unsure as to why the mediation had been requested, but had not assumed Maurice27 was the person being investigated.

I don't want to get into a bitch fight here, and I am still unsure what the specific charges against Toniher, Dunadan and Casaforra are. I am aware that Cas and Dun are excellent contributors on a range of non-Catalan and/or less political topics. I would suggest that they aren't deliberately breaking any Wiki policies, but that they are people with very strong political convictions who often unconsciously fall into double-think. I think that their narrow focus on stressing the exceptionality of Catalonia and cultural unity of Catalan-speaking territories has acted to the detriment of these articles, which after their edits can often read as missionary tracts.

I feel that they sometimes also selectively misunderstand arguments in discussions, and use sources that have no validity.That a government legislates that something is true, citing the example Dunadan quoted, does not make it in any objective sense, true. At one point I was arguing that the fact that Catalonia is defined as a "nationality" (not a "nation", a nationality) in its statute does not make that either true or encyclopedic, and should therefore be reported as opinion not fact. One can't simply keep posting "Catalonia is a nationality" citing the statute, without answering the core of my argument, as was done at the time.

However, I don't see that any action can or should be taken on these pages, it is a free web, and anyone has the right to write what they please. The users are biased but in the main well-meaning

I feel that these articles are damaged by the narrow focus of the contributors (myself included) on minutae, but I strongly believe that wikipedia must not become a trojan horse for a political viewpoint to insinuate itself into English language discourse, particularly when it is one that has such disregard for objective reality.

Boynamedsue 15:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. Mountolive.-
The problem is that you are defining objective reality and ascribing it to a particular point of view. You say that the Spanish constitution cannot be the objective reality (i.e. "truth"). And, like I said in Talk:Catalonia, maybe [perhaps remotely] you are right, maybe, just maybe there are no "nationalities" within Spain. But, like I said in Talk:Catatonia, by WP:Verifiability (please read it), the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth (or, as you aptly put it: objective reality, or our perception of what "truth" is) but verifiability. By demagogy you might argue that that neither the constitution nor the Statute of Autonomy (being primary sources) are not encyclopedic. But, it really doesn't matter what we think truth is, but what can be verified. And Catalonia is defined as a nationality by two verifiable primary sources. That is why I argue that you are disregarding WP:Verifiability. I have no political opinion whatsoever: I am not even Catalan. I read what the constitution says, and I report it. Simple. --the Dúnadan 22:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you really not understand what I'm saying Dunadan? A government can legislate and we can report what they have legislated. Which of these goes better in an Encyclopedia

"All Americans have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

OR

"According to the constitution, all Americans havew the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Boynamedsue 08:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. That is why the consensual version proposed by Joan sense nick, avoided the term from the lead paragraph, and contextualized it in the lead section by literally citing, in quotation marks, and referencing, what the Statute of Autonomy says. (I think you were absent during that time; I am not sure). However, this consensus was, yet again, contested for being "inaccurate" and "biased". --the Dúnadan 11:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that was more or less what we were working on a few days ago. It wasn't contested by me, I just think it needs extending.

Boynamedsue 11:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xtv

As an involved part in all those talk pages, I am quite surprised of the selection of the involved parties made by Physchim62. Let me then please take part of this discussion.

First of all, I was astonished to read Physchim62 arguments. It seemed he was talking about other articles, other users...

He starts accusing to act as a group, which is completely false, since we have also different opinions in many aspects as it can be seen in many discussions (here and in the Catalan Wikipedia). However, it is normal that we have a similar opinion relating to evident, trivial, clear facts.

Then he accuses of deleting sentences with reliable sources and adding other sentences without sources. Well, it puzzles me to hear it from somebody who doubts that Catalan and Valencian are the very same language. It's ironic he defends exactly the ones who give wrong sources and attack who defend versions with consensus. Let's remark that 4 administrators of the Catalan Wikipedia have been involved in those discussions, respected in ca-wiki without any significant dispute and with a clean block log. In the other side, there are people as Mountolive, with whom it has been possible to discuss and find a consensus in some quite problematic points as the aforementioned Catalan/Valencian, but some other with a rich block log who unilaterally have modified exactly those consensual points.

This all together with his multiple false accusations of sockpuppetry and his premature block of users (just because someone shares some opinions with a vandal), makes me doubt about his administrator aptitudes.

How can somebody accuse and request a checkuser for a respected user as Dúnadan of culprit and sockpuppetry and forget to mention Maurice27, with 5 blocks for personal attacking, trolling, 3RR, etc. (and continuing even after the last block)? -and this is not a judgment against him, it's just an evidence that the request has been incomplete and POVish.

Therefore, I don't simply ask for an arbitration, but I beg it. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GillesV

I'm only editing on the Talk page of Catalonia and I don't understand a request including Dúnadan who usually is contributing with sources that are WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV (laws approved by both parlamients of Spain and Catalonia by an ample majority are not NPOV?) and that usually tries to reach a compromise with other editors.

Moreover I look at the page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes and I don't feel that the administrator making this proposal followed that way at least in Catalonia. In Catalonia there has been no mediation and Physchim62 has not contributed in the talk page since 1 of june of 2007 so I think he is ignoring the "First step: Talk to the other parties involved".

About the proposal I don't understand why some users are in and others are out: if one includes Dúnadan then it should also include Maurice, BNS, Montoulive, Joan sense nick, Xtv, me , etc etc because the situation is not created only by 3 users.

In fact at Catalonia's talk page I remember a discussion between Dúnadan and me saying that we should reach reach a new consensus because the rough consensus reached by a minor group of users that included Dúnadan,Xtv, me and the same Physchim62 [37] was not agreed by another group of users (I think that Maurice and two anons...)

seeing then a request for an Arbitration for Catalonia by Physchim62 after ignoring that point in the discussion page is confusing me -> after reading that I understand what happened with user:Dúnadan ,seems that users cannot ask to admin Physchim62 what he says that is "his business". --GillesV 22:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the situation in Valencian Community but if there the situation is different then the proposal should be at least splitted but Physchim62 I think that excluding the opinion (probably backed with sources) of some editors seems not to be the smartest way to include all the points of view. In fact I think it is near to an abuse.

PD:sorry, but seeing Maurice saying : I agree with this request. Each change or edit even if proven with legal and/or graphic sources has to be discussed, sometimes even for weeks, on talk-pages. --Maurice27 16:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC) is simply awesome :) is this irony?

--GillesV 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PD2:In Catalonia there has been no mediation because some users pronnounced (mainly Maurice in his talk page) that they will not sign it. In case of an arbitration I think that it should include more users and probably exclude the ones who are reasonable and support with sources their opinion.

PD3:I see in the policy that arbitration is the last resort, in Catalonia I feel that we can try a mediation first but I think that during the last days BNS, Dúnadan and me were trying to build a new compromise...and I think it was working.

--GillesV 20:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Benimerin (formerly User:Joanot)

"Good and bad persons", in the Lonja de la Seda, Valencia.

I've stopped during a time to contribute in wp:en as User:Joanot because I was tired that Valencian related articles were hijacked by Maurice27 and Mountolive, as they act as a coordinated team to avoid (see this) and to check (in a censor-way style) contributions of Valencian and Catalonian wikimedians users came from wikipedia in Catalan. Note that in the involved parties, there are four administrators from wp:ca (Xtv, SMP, Dunadan, and me) which are being having problems with these users when we want to improve article related to Catalan-speaking world in wp:en from our quality-rated articles there.

Very later (around of four months) I've again started to participate but from anonymous to check if the situation is the same, and I had considered that it was not necessary to reveal who I am. When Mountolive and the disruptive user Maurice27 (see: block log) asked me to register a new account I've tried to recover my forgotten password but the email address related to User:Joanot is unaccesable for me, so I've created this another one.

I'm not consider myself as sockpuppeeter because: a) I have not used twice any of my rights as wikimedian user; b) I have not contributed with two accounts at same time; c) I have not used both accounts to figure out there are two different persons: d) In the same day I've registered this new account, administrator User:Physchim62 have blocked me quickly in a unbehavioured action based simply on casual facts, and so I had not be able to notice soon about my new situation.

In my humble opinion, I think that anybody can see at every historial that the attitude of Maurice27, as the bad person (very unrespectful, see this), and Mountolive, as the good person, is avoiding and to disrupt the normal participation of Catalan and Valencian users fron ca:wp on Wikipedia in English.

--Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 08:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC) PD: And unrespectful attitude is going on, before if it was about penis, and now it's about LGBT people...[reply]


Statement by Toniher

Dear all, I lament not having contributed to Wikipedia much lately, partly because of lack of time due to personal and professional reasons and, I suppose as well, partly because of the attitudes pointed by some other Catalan-speaking wikipedians before. I'm writing this and I'm not sure why I am supposed to do this and what it is the point of this arbitration. Am I asked not to contribute anymore? I joined English wikipedia because I thought I could contribute about Catalan-related matters not covered in this project. And, as you can easily check if you follow from my profile, I think I can help well enough. During this time I have been personally insulted and threatened, sadly I think under the condescension of some admins, and all this despite I believe I have always tried to have a respectful attitude with all people with different POVs. I hope all these dynamics may change in the future, and I may contribute back again in the different topics where I think I could still offer plenty of information. Best regards, Toniher 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

The four votes to accept the case are noted. Case to open Wednesday absent further developments. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

  • Accept. James F. (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. SimonP 13:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, may be s/w premature in terms of dispute resolution, but the claims of sockpuppets and the mention of improper blocks makes me think that we need to take the case. FloNight 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary International

Initiated by User:PierreLarcin at 07:40 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[38]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[39] and Talk page

Statement by User:PierreLarcin

I would be happy to have until Saturday to enhance the form and documentation of my request. I mentioned that I use TextReader, it is time consuming to manage such loads of administrative work. User Bombastus has committed the same edit war and declined mediation in the same time on the fr.wiki, I have also asked there for an Arbitration, I need some days to document & form both request. Thank you Pierre 14:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calomny used by Bombastus

Bombastus hereunder claims that "I was banned" on nl.wiki and bases that he claims against me on fr.wiki. On the fr.wiki, he claims that I was lifebanned on nl.wiki. He 'forgots' to mention that I was banned on nl.wiki for changing "Pinochet Dictator" into "Pinochet President" in the list of "Famous Rotarians"

These statements of Bomastus are both fakes and calomny : http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:PierreLarcin3#Les_mensonges_de_Bombastus I am perfectly operational on nl.wiki !

ProRotarian activity of CeeGee

On wiki CeeGee is the only user, working on Rotary wiki, who declared himself as a Rotarian with a label. CeeGee is from Turkey and works in the military area, so his interest in en.langage. His interventions restructured the Rotary enwiki, explaining recruitment, and for "positive" facts. Please note that he added the label after edit wars against me. Please note that he never edited again the Rotary wiki in a polemic way (blanking issues) after I had edit war on Rotary wiki with other users like BridesMill or AndyJones.

But I remark that I am the only one wikipedian who states 'negative' facts on Rotary, receiving strong edit war and coalition, I never' blanked or modified 'positive' facts, while others users, declared or possible-non-declared Rotarians (CeeGee, AndyJones, BridesMill) do not allow negative facts, make edit wars, and push positive facts. So my present RfAr.

ProRotarian activity of AndyJones

AndyJones always edited wiki to smooth the image of the Rotary. Andy promoted Rotary on wiki in a very subtle way : ([40])

AndyJones does it with sophistication : he blanks this spontaneous Rotarian autopromotion, that may lead to the though that indeed Rotarians use wiki as a promoting media : AndyJones did it the evidence of "a precedent". So, the wiki of Rotary seems not to be used EVIDENTLY by Rotarians. It is "neutral" as it seems not to be used by Rotarians.

He removes pro-Rotarian edits who are "too much" and come publish on wiki some advertisements :

(notice the 'good reason')

Note that the authors are systematically IPs. There is no WikiUserId who would do that, oh no... Note also that AndyJones' edit wars led from a "huge rotarian communication program" onto polio eradication to "there are been some limited criticisms onto Rotary polio program" (["http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotary_International&diff=58760432&oldid=58754950"])

About my so-called POV pushing

According to Max Weber axiomatics, I declare myself an opponent to the Rotary International, which is, in my opinion, an international pilar of the most conservative right politicians, namely a public relation office. But this opinion always staid in talk pages. I never stated my opinions on wiki pages, I never blanked any "positive" facts about the Rotary. I had to fight severe edit wars by declared Rotarian CeeGee, or users AndyJones, JohnSmith or Bridesmill, all users that I find, by their centers of interests, close to the Rotary, namely non self declared Rotarians. The problem is not that the facts are true but verifiable. The honesty claims that we may not verify why Rotary honoured Pinochet, if there are really 1.2 millions members, etc. And even as there are masons or not in the Rotary, well, it is a fact that Ron Hubbard gave speeches at the Rotary clubs.

The central problem, having lists of Rotarians

I opened a list of "Famous lecturers" as I found that the lists of famous given on the wiki for Rotary reproduces the literature given by Rotary on famous members. More, the use by AndyJones, CeeGee and BridesMill of an alphabetical list reproduced the strategy of RI on its "Famous Rotarian" site, where after my imput of Famous Rotarians, including Pinochet, they did a separation on their site between 'Active Famous' and 'Honorary Famous'. Check on their site : finding Pinochet the...dictator...or Lindbergh, the elitist and antisemist, is now very difficult.

Such a list of lecturers has the advantage of being independent of Rotarian info, based on independent sources, and based on facts.

The ground of edit war between me and Bombastus edit war relies this simple point : "may we have, or not, a list of famous lecturers at the Rotary clubs ?" I think "Yes, at is collect facts". Bombastus and proRotarians seems to say "No, because it is not a complete list".

The ground argument of Bombastus for its edit war is then not valuable. This speakers list is open, regroups all famous speakers we may found. I found them. It is verifiable on Internet.

On the POV edit war done by Bombastus

User Bombastus came very recently on en.wikipedia.org, in june. He worked about directly on Rotary, until this RfAr, and only to revert there the negative facts I collected on Rotary. These are the three axes of pushing by Bombastus : he blanks : ([43]) ([44]) ([45])

About the second link, Bombastus speaks of my propaganda. Where on the page is there any anti-conservative propaganda ? By mentioning facts ?

Bombastus comes here exactly AFTER the end of my blocking on fr.wiki (July, 7th), and he works politically on three phases : he DOES NOT allow the facts of 1934-1937, he revert the list of speakers, he blanks the mentions of "conservatives". Well, he wants to give me a lesson, does he not ?

On French wiki I stated that the list is admitted on 'others' wikis (en) ([46]) and Bombastus came on en.wiki to remove the list of speakers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotary_International&diff=143182722&oldid=143182281

Note that on the same link, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotary_International&diff=143182722&oldid=143182281 Bombastus removes the fact that Rotary went 'at repeated times' to the NDSAP court to ask a recognition of his compliancy to nazi regime, as documented by d'Almeida.

He proceeds the same POV-edit war on both fr. and en. wikis created about Rotary International, simultaneously.

Based on that, I notice he blanks a list of notable speakers who gave conferences or speeches at Rotary clubs, or changes the meaning of texts on Rotary having reached a balance (Rotary and nazi Germany), like the structure itself. He alters the though and thesis of a international class reseacher, d'Almeida. The structure of the d'Almeida text is evident ([47]) and with Bombastus, it becomes this [(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotary_International&diff=143506633&oldid=143489101)]. This is a clear proof of wikipedia fiddling.

Bombastus destroys the collection of facts that I built does simply break wiki rules. Someone should again open an RfC, as I did, to have a consensus. It is a key point, of course, as the various clues of that subject leads me to think that Rotary is a pillar of the international politally conservative networks.

I find self-speaking the recent blankings of Bombastus about the REPEATED Rotarian actions done between 1934 and 1937 (established by researcher d'Almeida), the fact that Bombastus changed my "d'Almeida writes" into his "d'Almeida claims" ,

Pierre 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bombastus

Mediation request by PierreLarcin has already been rejected for "Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution" by the same PierreLarcin. Indeed, despite my several messages on the talk page, I'm still waiting for any logical argument advocating the changes made by PierreLarcin. I also add that the same PierreLarcin already faced in 2006 the same logical arguments I stated and never gave any answers to them.

You can read the Talk:Rotary International page to get a good opinion of the user and see that already several experienced users as User:AndyJones, User:J.smith[1], User:Bridesmill, User:Aldux, User:SuperNova, User:Jkelly or User:CeeGee[2].

Here is an excerpt from PierreLarcin's rethorics "Of course you fiddle ! and you will be kicked out of wiki. You bet I spoke of arbitration as for a joke. You and Rotarians are in the error. As you are in error when you defend the most conservative and criminal politicians in the world : Bush and Pinochet. For freemasonry reasons and for money reasons. This can not continue. PierreLarcin 84.102.229.40 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)".

Logically, I will lose no time here on an arbitration that can bring nothing, as it brought nothing on French WP except 5 bans for PierreLarcin: a three days, then a one week, then a two weeks, then a one month, then a three months ban on all the IP adresses he used. He has also been blocked on WP NL for POV pushing. The only viable solution with this user is a life ban, I'm sorry to say it.

Edit: Given the persistant attitude of PierreLarcin, I eventually accept the idea of an arbitrage if it may change. Being mostly an user of French WP (I only used IP here till June), here is a link to my Userpage, Talk page and Contributions plus Blocklog on WP FR. --Bombastus 07:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Who declared on the talk page "A partial list of "conference-makers" is inappropriate for this article. Partial lists suffer from "selection bias" and are potentially POV. However a complete list of "Rotary International conference-makers" would likely be acceptable. ---J.S (t|c) 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)"
  2. ^ Who declared "To User:PierreLarcin2: It seems that you are mistaking Wikipedia for a place for your own hatred against Rotary. Even though it may be possible that some people, who have been once elected honorary member to Rotary, have no clean slate, the right place is in his own biography and not the article Rotary. So, I will delete now once again the part you added on 23:43, February 12, 2006. This is to inform you that in case of your repeated action I will report you to a sysop. CeeGee 19:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)"

Statement by User:AndyJones

I have to confess that I long ago lost patience with Pierre Larcin's bizarre edits to the Rotary International page, his repeated failure to assume good faith, his constant charges of "wiki-fiddling" (whatever that may be) and the weird strange accusation against me personally that I am "pro-Rotary" (supported above on the grounds that I'm interested in Shakespeare (!)). I've copied below the analysis I made of Pierre's behaviour (for AN/I) in June 2006:

I think an admin needs to review the behaviour of User:PierreLarcin2 and his IPs in relation to the edit war on Rotary International, and consider a block. Incidentally, since I started reviewing this, I see the user I'm complaining about has put in an RfC and claims to intend to start an arbitration. If true, I'd suggest that any block should permit him to pursue those, even if (as I'd recommend) he cannot edit at Rotary International for a time. A review of his behaviour took me far longer than I'd expected, but can be summarised as follows: POV editing: [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. Illiterate editing: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. Just plain weird editing: [58] [59] [60]. Advocating POV: [61] [62] [63] (especially the motherfucker comment). Failure to assume good faith: [64] [65] [66] [67]. Breaches of the no personal attacks policy and civility policy: [68] [69] [70] [71]. Accusations that editors who change his edits are Rotarians engaged in a conspiracy against criticisms of Rotary: [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]. Wikilawyering, and accusations of "wiki-fiddling", whatever that may be: [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]. Evidence User:PierreLarcin2 and 84.100.98... IPs are one and the same (about halfway down):[96]. Evidence User:PierreLarcin2 and 84.102.229... IPs are one and the same: [97]. Evidence of trying the patience of the community: [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]. An odd piece of duplicity was the argument that these strange "how to use the links"-links were there to assist blind users, which led me in good faith and (in consultation with User:127) to initiate Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Accessibility for blind users] (now fallen out of archive). In fact, these edits, and a few around them, make clear the actual intention was to give prominence to "bad" Rotarians like Pinochet and Hubbard. On the whole, I think the guy needs a lengthy block: he's disruptive, he's uncivil, he angers and attacks people, he adds bullshit to wikipedia, and he just fundamentally doesn't get it: but it's a shame: he seems kinda genuine in his own beliefs. AndyJones 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The current edit war is exceedingly odd: Loads of 3RR, not much substance. I've previously recommended a block, and I think that may be the only way to achieve a sensible Rotary page. AndyJones 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:CeeGee

Invited by User:Bombastus to contribute to this case, I would like to say only that I am really tired of reading the ill-founded accusations of User:PierreLarcin2 about Rotary International, and I have really not so much time to waste on this as he obviously has. I belive that a scientific analyse of his sayings would contribute much to the knowledge of mankind. CeeGee 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-involved Ghirla

I see no evidence of a serious attempt undertaken to resolve this mundane content dispute. The talk page, to which the request refers, displays two or three threads of lengthy quotations and slow-tempo bickering. I may readily name several dozen pages where the disputes are ongoing on this level of urgency. If there is a behavioural problem, something along the lines of RfC or mediation should be attempted before dragging the issue to ArbCom. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Bradipus

Although I am not involved in the present dispute, I am currently involved in a similar dispute on the french Wikipedia (fr:Rotary International), in the context of which Pierre Larcin made a RfA vs Bombastus and myself. Similarly to what happens on Rotary International (as Ghirla notes above), no serious attempt to discuss has happened on WP:fr either. The reactions of Pierre Larcin to any critic of his input range from the insults to the weird accusations: his opponents can only be rotarians or right-wing activists...or worse: this message on the talk page of Ordifana75 (on the hebrew Wikipedia) is interesting, as he refers to me as a "jew from the conservative liberal party of Brussels", and adds that he hopes Ordifana75 is not Bradipus, as, says Pierre Larcin "I hate communautarist jews : they are generally potential murderers". This antisemitic stance seems to be an isolated event in Pierre Larcin's carreer on Wikipedia (except for a message on my fr:Talk page where he refers to the murders committed by the "jewish army"), but it is for me typical of his approach of the issues. Bradipus 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note in reply to PierreLarcin who says I insult him by saying he is an antisemit. Well, I did not say that, and I am sorry if PierreLarcin felt it that way. As a matter of fact, I have no idea whether he is or not, but he is probably completely honest when he is adamant that he is not.
I just quoted a message from PierreLarcin that contains an antisemitic message. The fact that this message was antisemitic does not really need further explanations ("I hate communautarist jews : they are generally potential murderers"). The fact that PierreLarcin appears to think it was a reasonnable way to express his concerns about certain right wing jewish movements is in a way typical of the way he interacts with others. Bradipus 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

you maybe noticed that I am trimming now myself. I use TextReader, and managing wiki links is a bit difficult for an half-blind. I even did multiple edits on this page itself and thank you for that, I now it is inhabitual. I was afraid about rules for RfA and placed all what I could ASAP, then enhanced. Thank you for your patience. Pierre 03:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, try to trim it down by about 85%. As it stands now, the sheer length of the request will discourage us from taking the case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Youre right, JP. The action of Bombastus needs maybe ten lines for requesting sanctions : edit war, 3+ unjustified RV, ¨POV blankings,etc. I did not claim in ten lines in a short way for two reasons
I do not want to seduce arbitrators by a well-drawed ellipse. Rotary is neither white nor black.
Judging biased blankings on RI, motivations, probable memberships, needs time and distance.
User Bombastus made a sort of AntiPierre league, with strong motivated users, and on both wiki.
I am really fed-up by these edit wars. A long time ago, I thrilled BridesMill to open a case
for the 'antinegative' fiddling by proRotarians. I think this subject needs to drag
some Wiki authority attention. That why I mailed Wiki Foundation today. Now all important facts are there,
and everyone can link them to other related subjects. Pierre 10:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
do not trim too much, please. As far, JpGordon is not more concerned, and his order is without interest for him. Some of my args seems to disappear, and I have sight-difficulties to watch what are the differences between MY text on MY arguments, and the trimmed result. I react mostly on the antisemitism allegations by self-invited French user Bradipus. In France, antisemitism is a penal crime, and regarding to my defense on that, you may understand that for very personal reason, I may not accept Bradipus insults. There were not trimmed, these allegations.

Friendly, as I understand the purpose of a trim User:PierreLarcin 19:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/4/0/0)

  • Accept. Kirill 18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. James F. (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. No evidence of actual dispute resolution, nor of any other form of community involvement. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Content dispute without prior attempts at dispute resolution. - SimonP 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Encourage several experienced editors and administrators to involve themselves in this dispute. This can be solved more quickly and just as effectivley by the community, I think. FloNight 13:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Premature. Paul August ☎ 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.


Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)


Archives

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=145445752

Leave a Reply