Revision as of 23:59, 4 June 2011

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

<Insert the case name>-Requests_for_arbitration-2011-06-04T23:55:00.000Z">

Initiated by Parentsp (talk) at 23:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)"> ">

Involved parties">

• Kewlarticle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• HectorMesa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tvoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Ask clerk to help. Kewlarticle is aware. Tvoz and Alison will suspend anyone, like me, who contacts them.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• See Jimbo Wales page

I have written to Jimbo Wales on his user page telling him about my intention to proceed with a complaint and all uninvolved users and Jimbo Wales allowed me to proceed. I have been informed that Misplaced Pages users will try to avoid answering the question by accusing me of being a sock but the consensus was to proceed.

I am writing because of a user's five year history of harrassing others. This is extremely hurtful to a child, even if that child is old enough to be a teen.

I am a concerned parent. I am writing in support of Kewlarticle. He is accused of being of sock of many people, including Hector Mesa. I ask that an IP check be done against Hector Mesa as soon as possible (in view of the privacy policy stating that IP information is kept only a limited period of time). My child, Kewlarticle, swears that there is no connection with Hector.

I am a parent that does not have time to litigate a case and collect years of evidence. Nor do I visit Misplaced Pages often. Therefore, I present my case here. Please do not try to remove it or use excuses to hinder resolution. If the terminology I use is not the usual Misplaced Pages lingo or I do not know the exact ways to format a complaint, please do not use this as an excuse. There is some confusion over the words ban and block so I use the word "suspension" instead.

For five years, Tvoz has been harrassing people and violating Misplaced Pages policies. This has to stop. Tvoz has had the support and been assisted by Alison.

COMPLAINT 1. Tvoz violates Misplaced Pages policies on conflicts of interest. It is very clear in Misplaced Pages that you are not supposed to write about yourself or your company. The minute a user signs up as "AAA Roofing" and writes an article about AAA Roofing, they are usually immediately suspended. Tvoz has created an article, "Connected Education", which is his company. Because of this, Tvoz should be immediately suspended. Tvoz also writes about himself in the Paul Levinson article. Tvoz may have a sock or meatpuppet named Paul Levinson or PLevinson. There has been several reports that Tvoz uses socks and he has gotten some of these complaints deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Tvoz

Conflict of interest: Connected Education

Conflict of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_Levinson&diff=prev&oldid=321717080

Requested remedy 1.1: The Committee declare that "Users must not create or edit articles where there is a conflict of interest. If they have an interest or involvement in a company, particularly if it is a smaller company, they should not edit it".

Requested remedy 1.2: The Committee immediately suspend Tvoz until he agrees never to edit "Connected Education" and "Paul Levinson", that he disclose his past and present connection to the company and the Paul Levinson article.

COMPLAINT 2. In 2007, user Dereks1x was not very nice in dealing discussing things with people. He did not use profanity but was a little too persistent. However, he was a victim of a scheme by Tvoz and others to gain control over editors and articles by having him banned and using him as an excuse to ban anyone they pleased. They concocted a scheme to scare people saying that Dereks1x falsely claimed to be a doctor even though I've seen no such claim made.

They even banned a real doctor, who cannot be Dereks1x because that person is a doctor. That person contacted Jimbo Wales and provided proof. Ask Jimbo Wales.

Even if people insist that my child is Dereks1x, which is ludicrous, that shows that mishandling of a simple argument can create a five year old conflict. That argument was something about Dereks1x and Tvoz arguing over whethe to include Mrs. John Edwards' cancer in the John Edwards article. Big deal. Of course, that shows how vindictive Tvoz is.

Requested remedy 2.1: The committee retroactively removes the ban on Dereks1x to 2008, which would be one year from the original ban. The committee instruct Dereks1x that he must act in a civil fashion.

Requested remedy 2.2: The committee ask Jimbo Wales to vouch for his correspondence with this real doctor if more evidence is needed.

COMPLAINT 3. Kewlarticle is accused of being the sock of HectorMesa. This is not true. The IP determination was made by Alison. This is evidence that Alison is in cahoots with Tvoz.

Requested remedy 3.1: IP check on Kewlarticle and Hector Mesa.

COMPLAINT 4. Tvoz has repeated harrassed many users by following them and picking up fights with them. There are far too many instances to list. It would take hundreds of hours to find and tabulate them.

example: Tvoz is in dispute with a user, follows him to an obscure article, then gets him suspended using the Dereks1x excuse. He falsely claims that he is not following him but goes to the United States Astronaut Hall of Fame, a very obscure article. Since then, Tvoz has never gone to that article again.

example: Tvoz is in dispute with another user, follows him to the Derick Jeter article, then gets him suspended using the Dereks1x excuse. She falsely claims that she is a Jeter fan but, since then, has never edited that article in several years. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PresChicago&diff=prev&oldid=320544817 (quote from Tvoz)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Being_harrassed_by_a_user Tvoz says "First, I've been editing Yankees pages since I got here in 2006 (check the stats and my user page) and have been a fan since the days of Maris and Mantle, so no, I didn't follow you to Derek Jeter" See below where Tvoz has never edited Derek Jeter (first edited 2009-10-16) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3APresChicago&action=historysubmit&diff=320545891&oldid=320534661 and then see http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikifam=.wikipedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-edit_count&page=Derek+Jeter&max=100&grouped=on&ofs=100&max=100 (Tvoz is not telling the truth about having interest in editing Derek Jeter but simply goes there to harass a user)

Requested remedy 4.1: The Committee declare that "Following users around to harrass them by opposing their edits is not permitted. Vandalism is the only exception."

Requested remedy 4.2: In view of complaint 1 and 4, Tvoz instructed not to follow users to argue with them and their edits. Tvoz is suspended for 1 year.

COMPLAINT 5: Tvoz and Alison are in cahoots. Whenever Tvoz wants someone suspended, he uses the Dereks1x excuse and immediately contacts Alison, who can dictate whatever she wants and nobody can question her. She either violates Misplaced Pages policy by keeping IP information herself for years or gives false testimony saying there is an IP match.

I have asked Kewlarticle to swear that there is no sockpuppetry and Hector Mesa is a name given to me. There is no link. They don't know each other. evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAlison&action=historysubmit&diff=421244099&oldid=421136262 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAlison&action=historysubmit&diff=411219473&oldid=410813678

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAlison&action=historysubmit&diff=408457249&oldid=408376144 (but Tvoz has little interaction, so awesomeness is because they are in cahoots) Warning about privacy policy: http://wikimediafoundation.org/Privacy_policy "When a page is edited by a logged-in editor, the server confidentially stores related IP information for a limited period of time. This information is automatically deleted after a set period..."

Requested remedy 5.1: The committee declare that "checkusers are reminded that they must observe the Misplaced Pages privacy policy. They must not keep IP data for years." If they fear disruption, they should advise complainers that complaints should be primarily based on showing that bad arguments are being used, not resort to calling someone you don't like a sock

Requested remedy 5.2: Tvoz and Alison must not have any contact with each other except for the purposes of writing articles.

COMPLAINT 6: Tvoz aggressive actions hurt many people and harm Misplaced Pages. I have seen many complaints about Misplaced Pages in other, totally unrelated forums, like bicycling forums and travel forums. People like Tvoz, who create ill will, cause others to post like this and it hurts Misplaced Pages.

One user that I have seen contributions is Polounit. He is one of hundreds of non-controversial users which have been hurt by Tvoz' Dereks1x excuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Polounit&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1

I have seen quite a few productive users who were probably falsely accused to be Dereks1x but I don't have hundreds of hours to track them all down. Dereks1x and Tvoz were simply arguing over whether Mrs. John Edwards' cancer should be mentioned in the John Edwards article and this has led to 5 years of harrassment by Tvoz against many people. One of the victims is my kid.

Evidence that others are harmed: See Polounit (above). Also see Jerry Van Fleet. Mr. Fleet has proven his identity. Anyone who can prove they are not Mr. Van Fleet cannot be a sock of Dereks1x because, at most, only one of them is. Yet, Tvoz' scheme is to accuse anyone he doesn't like of being Dereks1x and, therefore, must be suspended. See http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:JerryVanF and http://en.citizendium.org/User_talk:Jerry_Van_Fleet#Welcome.21 (citizendium requires proof of identity).

Additionally, User:BVande has proved his identity to Art La Pella. This shows that there are at least two users, Mr. Vande and Mr. Van Fleet. I have offered to show Jimbo Wales my driver's license but I was told that it is not necessary.

Requested remedy 6.1: The Committee should declare that "Users should try their utmost to cooperate and not seek to harm other users.

Conflicts must not be allowed to go on for years. Such conflicts harm Misplaced Pages."

COMPLAINT 7: Since Hector Mesa is not the same as my kid, Kewlarticle, one of them cannot be Dereks1x, which is what Tvoz calls everyone he doesn't like. HectorMesa made contributions on March 12. At that time, I was with my child shopping for a birthday present so this is impossible.

Requested remedy 7.1: The suspensions of Hector Mesa and Kewlarticle are ended.

Statement by {Party 1}">

Statement by {Party 2}">

Statement by {Party 3}">

Clerk notes">

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)">

Falkland Islands and related articles

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

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• User:Alex79818 talk http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Alex79818
• Noticeboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Wee_Curry_Monster_reported_by_User:209.36.57.10_.28Result:_declined.29
• Medcab http://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

• Fsmallmann
• Vintagekits
• The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|
• Mariano
• Sebastiankessel
• DrFrench
• AndeanThunder
• Camilo Sanchez
• Michael Glass
• Pmt7ar
• TharkunColl
• MFIreland
• Cambalachero

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)

@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)

@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)

Addendum to Statement

In the last 24 that this case has been up, you've seen but a small sample of what I'm talking about. There is no one intractable dispute; there are multiple intractable disputes spanning the entire history of the article and of closely related articles.

Admins, you've now seen the kind of responses I'm alleging on this page: personal attacks, homogenization of perceived "enemies", a complete lack of WP:AGF. Frankly, as demonstrative as this single page has been, I don't believe anyone can fully contemplate the amount of vitriol (and denial thereof) in relation to this page without taking a good look at some of the discussion history, especially with respect to the threads I cited above. Unfortunately, the issue of sovereignty is one in which both sides attempt to build up a "case", meaning that the information presented has a cumulative effect on the reader. Whereas an outright POV might endeavor to say "the islands belong to X", the type of POV violation I am alleging here is that slowly, but undoubtedly, elements of that case that represent the Argentine claim are purposefully missing or have been diluted by information from disputed sources - whereas information that support the British sovereignty point is all there, presenting the British case as "rock solid". Therefore, an NPOV violation would IMHO exist if the basis of the sovereignty arguments for one side are present and strong, whereas the basis for the other sovereignty arguments are missing or flimsy. This is where all the little "fights" come into play. History. Who was there and when. How long. What treaties apply. What sources are ok. What arguments are "robust" enough. Too many of those decisions have been arbitrary. Too many have been made by the same people. Too many times have those people ganged up on other editors, who questioned their POV, or presented alternative sources. Too many times have those editors been worn down over time, chosen to stop contributing altogether, or turned to vandalism.

If the requirement is to list specific intractable disputes, then I will endeavor to research and post as many as I can find. We can start with mine: inclusion of the Nootka Sound Conventions, which is an extension of what seems to be an attempt to exclude or ignore anything having to do with the Islands in relation to what is now Argentina before its independence. As I said - the effect is cumulative. Nonwithstanding, I believe the larger issue here is related to the tone and manner of discussion - specifically, of those editors and admins which some would refer to as the "regulars", the "law", the "cabal", etc. This isn't just a problem about an article - this is a problem that goes to the very CORE of what Misplaced Pages is, and has EVERYTHING to do with the accusations made against it in the public sphere (accusations which I believe to be unjust, as the hard work and dedication of countless volunteers attests to). If WP is to be taken seriously, then one group of regular interested editors and admins cannot be allowed to hijack an article, push their POV by deleting historical facts, academic opinions and sources that don't further their views, and coordinate edit or argumentative attacks against other editors that call them on their actions. Much less should such a group be allowed to continue their actions with impunity, feign consensus with each other, and game the system to their advantage - especially through peer review and GA status.

As for the editors against whom I've made accusations, I've stated my opinion on their actions above - some agree and others do not. Some would even disagree that there are disputes currently on the page - to all I say, exasperation should not be taken as a sign of abandonment of the disputes - and rest assured, there are too many to name. Even if that weren't the case...certainly, no one disagrees that the page has been subject to heated discussion, to edit wars, to multiple 3RR violations. No one disagrees that certain editors always seem to back up other editors when engaged in discussion by new editors who WP:AGF. No one disagrees that the very same certain editors always seem to be "policing" the page, or that they rarely or never hold a view that would be beneficial to the Argentine POV, such that the article would contain any semblance of balance. Within that context, it is amazing to me that some editors and interested admins can't believe this request is being given serious consideration - while I myself can't believe an article marred by so much vitriolic dialogue and knee-jerk rev actions is up for GA status. But I suppose the Spanish article is messed up, so the English article should be messed up as well - right? Well, I suppose that is what we're here to decide - personally I believe the German version should be the NPOV standard for articles regarding the Islands, but that's just me.

Nevertheless, the merits, or lack thereof, in my request will be found in the history of the article and of its discussion. I did not start this so it could devolve into yet another nationalist / name dispute or sovereignty dispute. I started this so some sort of authority can get involved to "break the back" of these VERY MUCH ONGOING disputes, which are sometimes petty (over words or punctuation), almost always heated, and largely pro British-POV; and, in which - as a review of the discussion history demonstrates - always seems to involve the same characters pushing the same viewpoints no matter what is being discussed.

THIS ARTICLE NEEDS SOME SERIOUS - SERIOUS - IMPARTIAL OVERSIGHT.

Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Wee Curry Monster

• 66.177.19.78
• 166.137.9.162
• 166.137.9.165
• 166.137.9.249
• 166.137.11.153
• 166.137.11.221
• 186.122.217.13
• 186.124.60.14
• 209.36.57.10
• 209.36.57.248

All are believed to be the same individual. I am aware of Alex79818's real life identity, hence I have evidence (that I cannot reveal on Misplaced Pages) that the IPs are User:Alex79818 AKA User:Smackyrod. This is yet another example of abusing wikipedia's processes to disrupt the articles around the Falkland Islands. See also , posted less than an hour after the talk page was protected to stop this disruptive behaviour.

There is no dispute on Falkland Islands, we were working toward improving the article to GA status. Frankly, I can't believe this wasn't rejected out of hand.

I am dealing with a double bereavement at this time, I have precious little time for editing and frankly I really don't need the stress. It would be nice if admins acted to protect editors from this sort of harassment, I've had to put up with stalking from this guy on and off for the last four years.

Response to comments by Marianocecowski

Marianocecowski alleges that things have changed a) without his knowledge and b) fail WP:NPOV. Please refer to Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands, where in 2008 there was extensive discussion of the subject with him, including the use of anglicised names and finding a better name for the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to comments by Mercy11

I was confused by this until I saw Pfainuk's post. I have a good memory for names and couldn't remember this guy. He refers to two reverts I made in 2009 A and B (I still don't see what his problem was as the edit was already cited and they're weeks apart so the edit war accusation bemused me). A was made by User:Mummy34, B by User:Mercy11. Mummy34 is a known sock puppet of Mercy11. Sock puppeteers and a whole bunch of banned editors, in an arbcom case lodged by a prolific sock puppeteer? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

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_spy 01:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

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 02:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Martinvl

I'm here because Alex79818 posted a note on my page, claiming that I was "a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted" at Falkland Islands. I have been at odds with User:Pfainuk and User:Wee Curry Monster on two counts.

Units of Measure

The first is the demands that imperial units be given priority in many situations in the Falkland Islands articles even though all the sources cite metric units. User:Pfainuk forced an agreement on units that were codified in WP:FALKLANDSUNITS by unreasonable behaviour when at 21:01, 31 March 2010 he wrote "Looks like I'll have to revert to imperial first for all units after all. People decided to wait until after I implemented before objecting to my proposal. Never mind, if they insist on our remaining at the previous consensus, we'll just have to remain at the previous consensus". His justification was a classic case of WP:SYNTH when at 17:08, 10 August 2009 he wrote "I object to a move to all metric-first: we should use the units in common use on the islands - and the Islanders are generally more likely to use imperial units than even the British are". Since he was unwilling to follow the units of measure used in the soruces (and therefore to honour WP:VERIFY), I raised a request to into WP:MOSNUM (where I believe it belongs), but was frustrated in doing so by, amongst others, the abovementioned two editors. I did not take this to arbitration as I had too many other commitments in real life.

Within the United Kingdom, metric units are used for almost all official government and many non-government purposes. In addition in many United-Kingdom releated Misplaced Pages articles including Inner Hebrides and Outer Hebrides metric units take precedence. The Argentine also uses metric units. I therefore assert WP:NPOV is best achieved by metric units taking precedence except where it can be demonstrateed that other units were used in the related primary sources (nautical miles for seabed claims, mph for speed limits). In addition, I request that the arbitrators speedily delete WP:FALKLANDSUNITS.

Status of the Falkland Islands Government

The second is and the insistance of the abovementioned editors using the phrase "self governing British Overseas Territory" in the article lede without including the qualifying word "internal" even though the British Government and the Falkland Islands Government both use that qualifying word. I have not yet tried to resolve this other than on the article's talk page as I found it too wearing to argue with these two editors. Their arguments in this instance were facile and in my view they were putting WP:POV above WP:VERIFY.

• Response to User Camilo Sanchez

The map produced by User Camilo Sanchez, although done in good faith, appears to disregard the offical agreement at government level on the translation of placenames. Links to this agreement can be found in the article List of Falkland Islands placenames.

Statement by MarianoCecowski

I received Alex79818 on my talk page, and I'm glad he did so, since I'm not very active in this particular Wikimedia project. Upon a quick look some of the articles I can see there are a lot of new pro-British things and some pro-Argentine things have been removed.

To give some examples, the current version of Falkland Islands chooses not to consider Argentina before its independence and thus ignores the Spanish claims as Argentina's, but the Spanish claims came mainly from the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata (whose name is Anglicized without motive). Another example is that the 1833 incident has been renamed to Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands ('rule' here means having a settlement for 5 years, whereas Spain had been there almost 5 decades), while Argentina's 1982 attempt to re-establish control is called 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands (I wouldn't call it anything else). The British invasions of the Río de la Plata of 1806/7 are only briefly and tangentially named in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article and are completely absent from other related articles, but are crucial to understand the position of the British empire and the events that took place short after on 1833.

But away from these, I think the most important missing thing is the Argentine point of view. There are very little if no reference to Spanish publications supporting the historical claims on the islands nor the Argentine side of the events that took place in the several conflicts, and the few that are present are quickly disregarded as fallacious by the British POV right in place.

I don't know who pushed what when, and I'm not looking for any banning nor punishment to any editor, but I would really like to see more balanced articles regarding this topic. After all, the Argentine view is a critical part of the story, even if it is disregarded as false by the English speaker world, and history can not be fully understood without it. --Mariano(t/c) 09:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User Camilo Sanchez

I had contributed with a map a while ago and I had a bit of a disagreement with editors. I don't really know to what degree the article is biased towards the British side, but I must say that the inclusion of the Argentine perspectives regarding the Islands are small in comparison to the ones presented by the British and in general English speaking contributors. I believe the entire Argentine perspective and information usually falls within the never ending topic of sovereignty of those Islands. I would like to say that I am adding this since user Alex put this notice of arbitration on my User talk but I don't endorse his opinion outright since I haven't looked closely to the current situation of the article. As i said, I had disagreements before on a map, to what degree the disagreement is biased, i can't say. But definitely if there is a history of a few editors concerting to keep the article biased towards one side then the content should definitely be reviewed and biased contributions should be addressed by the community at large. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Response to Martinvl

Whooaaa!...I said I had a disagreement but I am not trying to say I was right or wrong. No need to make me look like a fool here. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User Dpaajones ("David")

I was a little surprised to have been included in this as I have had little to do with the Falklands article, perhaps editing only a handful of times during my many, many years of Misplaced Pages editing (I've lost count of the years!). I'm not going to make a proper statement of my own on the matter as I can't take the complaint particularly seriously. Seems to be a politically motivated attack against the real-world (as opposed to the on-goings in the world of Misplaced Pages) reality that the British govern the Falkland Islands. Frankly I suggest this arbitration request is declined and the real aggravators (including the complainant) be looked into. I would also like to add that I have never been part of any collusion between editors to attack or disrupt or POV-modify an editor or article, as has been accused. David (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Further...

As an example of how juvenile this whole "dispute" is:

User talk:Alex79818#Feedback

"In other words - you're a long way from England, and Argies aren't going anywhere."

It's stuff like this (not just that one confrontation, but the way in which a complainant such as Alex can partake in such pathetic, blatantly political behaviour and seemingly get away with it) that puts me off from bothering with many articles on Misplaced Pages and it's about time the Admins took note. David (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And further still...

Even on this arbitration page they can't help themselves. I quote from above:

"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"

Unbelievable!! David (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User Mercy11

I was notified of this Arbitration procedings and am not surprised that it is taking place. I contributed to this article in 2009 and left discouraged after perceiving an undue amount of animosity by various editors. I had neither the time nor the energy to take on the various offending pro-British editors. Since I was neither British nor Argentinian I am sure that too contributed to my decision to leave. I could cite cases of the relentlessly lobsided editorial games in this article but anyone with 5 mins will see this in any of the history pages, for even the most minute POV disagrement with The Establishment would earn you a run with The Law (see, for example,). There is more of this relentlessly pro-British behavior by the same offending editors at the article Falkland Islands War. It is a reflection of poor judgement -- as well as another manifestation of the POV accusation above -- to seek to push an article that has such recent history of unstability, edit warring, etc, to GA status. At a minimum regular editors contributing and moderating in this article should do so with a overdose of caution and understanding of the sensible nature of the article. Editors that are not willing to go the extra mile to accomodate the views of others should exempt themselves from participating in this article for the benefit of the encyclopedia. It also does not fail my attention that the article's talk page is archived after just a few listings. Why? Maybe someone out there has an excellent explanation for this as well. Kudos to Alex for having the cojones to take on the challenge required to bring this matter to a forum where it can be debated and judged by others outside the article's long-establish pro-British inner circle.

Comment to arbitrators: Please allow more than what are just 6 sleep-time hours for the bulk of Misplaced Pages editing community between the time the grievance is filed and the time judgement is passed. It is often best to first hear out the various parties before drawing up a conclusion as such conclusion could be perceived as premature. Thanks.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Comment by uninvolved Fetchcomms

Fun and games, oh my! Can I join in the party? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Damn, Brad already pointed out the mistake. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Pfainuk

What this editor is complaining about is nearly four years of normal editing on a subject that is controversial. To illustrate this, it may be worth taking a look at the changes that have taken place on this article since the mediation to which he refers (his last acknowledged comment on the subject).

Falklands articles in general are actually pretty much free of the nationalist issues that articles related to other such disputes have. The biggest dispute over the period in question had nothing to do with British-Argentine relations at all, but rather occurred when a couple of editors spent eighteen months trying to force full metrication of Falklands articles. Why didn't it come to arbitration? We weren't anything like that far down the line - and consensus was eventually found for the system described in WP:FALKLANDSUNITS.

I note that Alex has spammed this to just about every editor who has been involved in a dispute on that article in the last four years. He has taken no account of the subject of the discussion, of whether a consensus was found in discussion, or what the positions taken by the editors concerned were. He includes editors as "aggrieved" who are banned or inactive. This is essentially an exercise in trying to chuck some mud about and see what sticks. Arbcom should not allow it to continue.

To be clear, (and to use John Vandenberg's words) there is no "intractable and current dispute" here.

Incidentally, I endorse Curry Monster's point about the IP rants that he refers to. I don't believe my evidence is as strong as his, but I still consider it sufficient to make the assumption that Alex is behind them. If Arbs want to get involved here, the best way to do so would be using their checkuser and administrator hats to confirm this.

The article, IMO, is basically neutral. Is it perfect? No, but it isn't finished yet. There are some who would have the article represent purely the Argentine POV. I'm afraid to say that IMO those editors should be disappointed. In exactly the same way, those who would have the article represent purely the British POV should also be disappointed. We have experience of Argentines who say the article takes a British POV and we have experience of British who say the article takes an Argentine POV. I view that as a good thing since it probably means that we're somewhere in the middle, which is where we should be. Pfainuk talk 18:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note on Mercy11's comment - I cite Mercy11's contribution to Talk:Falkland Islands. He has, to my knowledge, never contributed to Falklands War. I note that despite coming on to talk threatening blocks from the outset - hardly the best way of getting a positive response - he got the cite he requested within an hour of his posting on talk. The reason given in the reverts was that there was nothing there that wasn't already cited. He even posted thanks. Given this, I can only react to his statement with bemusement. Pfainuk talk 19:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note to PhilKnight - You seem to presuppose the existence of an underlying content dispute here. I would therefore bring to your attention the filing party's contributions: he has not made any acknowledged contributions on any Falklands-related article or talk page since September 2007. His last acknowledged comment on the subject anywhere on Misplaced Pages was in January 2008. His last acknowledged edit anywhere on Misplaced Pages on any subject prior to this request was in October 2010. This is not the contribution history of an editor who is trying to get arbitration for an active dispute. Pfainuk talk 18:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Michael Glass

I, too was approached by Alex79818 and am not surprised that a case like this has come up to arbitration. After a long and acrimonious | battle with Pfainuk and Justin over the question of which units to use I decided to spend most of my time elsewhere. I won't comment on the personalities involved. However, I will outline the problems that I see with Falklands Units.

• This is a separate policy on units for the Falkland Islands with clear differences from MOSNUM's guidelines for British articles.

• It mandates the use of Imperial measures in some context. There is no such requirement for UK articles in MOSNUM. A may is not a must.
• It mandates that inconsistency in units is to be resolved in favour of Imperial units. There is no such requirement in MOSNUM.

As a result, Falkland Island articles are frequently at odds with their sources and even with modern British standards, such as the Times Style Guide. One example is Bleaker_Island. Instead of following the source - which is totally metric - the article gives primacy to miles. Then it changes hectares to square miles, even though the Times Style Guide accepts hectares and MOSNUM says nothing about square miles, square kilometres or hectares. Far better, in my opinion, to follow the measurements given in the sources, followed, of course, by appropriate translations into Imperial measures. This would be consistent with MOSNUM but, unfortunately, not with the Falklands Units.

Some mediation on this question could be helpful. Michael Glass (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Nick-D

I was asked (as an uninvolved administrator, I think) to look into the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands#History Section. I have to confess to not reading the discussion in much detail (it's a bit TLDR and as the subject of an active arbitration request there didn't seem much scope for a single admin to get involved), but what's there is generally quite civil and, importantly, it hasn't flowed into any kind of edit waring or other problems in the article itself. As such, I don't see a need for arbitration or any formal admin involvement at this stage. A RfC seems the best option. Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

I have given this request a more neutral title --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

• 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, Misplaced Pages: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)
  • Decline per my colleagues below. A few more administrators watching these articles might be helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Decline. The request and statements don't specify where there is an intractable and current dispute which couldnt be resolved by editing, mediation, RFC, etc. John Vandenberg 13:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Decline in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. Suggest having a look at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution - there are several different kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. In regard to the underlying content dispute, given the complexity of the issues, I would suggest the next stage is informal mediation, and if there are more serious problems you could try either a Request for Comment on content or formal mediation. For the user conduct dispute, if there are relatively minor concerns you could try Wikiquette alerts, and if there are more serious conduct problems, I would suggest a Request for Comment on user conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Decline per the above. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)