Revision as of 23:07, 1 January 2021

• WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

• 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.

Rwandan genocide

Initiated by Saflieni (talk) at 18:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Saflieni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• HouseOfChange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• HouseOfChange
• Buidhe

Diffs added by clerk as filing editor forgot to link their notices

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Third opinion the proposed solution was rejected by the other party, and did not address my concern.
• WP:RS/N Attempt disrupted. No solution.
• WP:ANEW
• WP:ANI Explained my case as a defendant (see note in my statement).
• Not used WP:DRN. Seemed futile, given the other Noticeboard experiences.

Statement by Saflieni

This case is about WP:FRINGE and WP:ADVOCACY. Two editors, in disregard of WP:CIR, work on a Misplaced Pages article about a book which promotes theories that are widely rejected by scholars. The book is notable for the controversy it caused, but these editors confuse this with credibility. The fringe theories concern the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda:

1. The double genocide theory which claims that Tutsi rebels and civilians committed genocide against the Hutu majority. Conveniently, this second genocide was allegedly carried out under the cover of night, without leaving a trace.
2. An international conspiracy theory which claims that Tutsi rebels, aided by the US, were largely responsible for the genocide against the Tutsi too, by provoking, igniting, fueling and perpetuating it for the sole purpose of seizing power.

On the article's Talk page I’ve explained the scholarly consensus several times, e.g. . Some experts even qualify the theories as subtle forms of genocide denial, a.i.. The advocacy is reflected in polarizing language on the Talk page, hostility towards critical experts, defensive attitudes regarding author Judi Rever and her supporters. They use WP:BLP to remove relevant information, sustain neverending circular arguments (two summarized here ), and so on. Some examples:

• Labelling critical scholars as anti-Rever militants, her angriest critics , the well-known "friends of Rwanda",, etc.
• Dividing scholars into two bitter factions.
• Dismissing criticism in a peer reviewed journal as disrespect for Rever and Epstein and as a gratuitous and misleading slap.
• Downplaying the fringe theories as RPF talking points (RPF being the ruling party in Rwanda). and the term double genocide as misleading.
• Campaigning to elevate the RS status of non-experts and .
• Speculating about scholars' ulterior motives to undermine their credibility
• Quoting expert analyses is promoting inflammatory and misleading wording of attacks on the book's author or efforts by some Rwanda-genocide-activists to turn criticism of errors in a book into a personalized dogpile.

Aside from explaining content I created a new draft proposal for a more balanced version . A few sentences were used but the article is not improving due to their 2:1 "consensus".

Note: Most unsettling has been the quantity of false accusations with administrators echoing them without verification. For example: citing scholars' analyses was framed as ...your efforts to center accusations that Rever is a genocide denier, are inappropriate,, and the administrator echoes: He seems to want the author of the book to be considered a Rwandan genocide denier. Or an accusation of deliberately misquoting a journal article: although this is a phrase used by Caplan, it does not fairly represent Caplan-on-Epstein, is copied as: Saflieni misrepresents a quote from a review, as you can see on the talk page. It's not encouraging when administrators repeatedly assume bad faith on the basis of whatever one side in a dispute dangles in front of them, and then add their own collection of untruthful statements.

• Appendix:

I came to Arbcom confident that the evidence would take center stage. However, the comments so far focus on my alleged misconduct rather than the case. Yes, I was blocked recently. But using that fact as a decoy or to justify another avalanche of false accusations is not helpful. I've acknowledged my mistake, did my time. Clean slate. WP:HA says: It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of inept or disruptive behavior as it is to harass any other user. Misplaced Pages encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Harassment is contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

This case is not a content dispute. I'm not clear on how the facts would suggest that. This case is genuine, well-evidenced and obviously not limited to the twelve attacks against scholars listed here. I invite the committee to check if I'm pushing my POV or working against the odds to get the article to conform to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, and prevent WP:FALSEBALANCE according WP:FRINGE guidelines. Please beware that the diffs used by the other parties in their defence do not support what they suggest. Even the diff Drmies uses as their only piece of evidence supports my argument: that Drmies' based their accusation of misconduct against me on a post by HousOfChange, not on actual facts. Saflieni (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by HouseOfChange

I do not believe that the RPF committed "genocide" against Hutus, therefore I have never tried to promote that theory.

This is a content dispute about a fairly obscure book In Praise of Blood. I recently created a (too-long) Content section to try to give a balanced view of what is in it. Its subtitle "The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front" describes accurately its focus. To quote Gerald Caplan, " had only one story to tell: The deplorable, bloody record of the RPF from the day it was founded, as it invaded Rwanda from Uganda, through the geno­cide, and on to the ferocious wars in the Great Lakes area of Africa thereafter."

Saflieni has created a draft about the book, well-written but unfortunately full of his POV: that IPOB is a book about the 1994 genocide for which the author has been widely criticized as a "genocide denier" and a promoter of "double genocide" theory. Saflieni, meanwhile, does not want the article to discuss RPF war crimes, and considers other Misplaced Pages articles to need his improvement to rid them of "anti RPF" bias":

• "You can mention them in general, which is already done with references to the literature. But as I explained, you can't discuss that without creating an indictment."
• A list of proven (or agreed-upon) RPF-crimes would be quite short because how would you objectively determine them without turning the article into an indictment?"
• ".. the campaign by some editors on Misplaced Pages - some of whom are self-declared anti RPF activists - to introduce unscientific and sometimes demonstrably false content to pages related to the genocide and the wars in Africa's Great Lakes region"

There is POV-pushing going on here, but not by Buidhe and not by me. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

See also:

• Saflieni's recent ANI (result was one-week block for PAs.)
• History of Saflieni's Talk page, during his block, where PAs continued all week.
• Congratulations to Buidhe for wiki honor she got today. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Buidhe

I don't think that arbitration is going to be helpful at this point. Saflieni just got back from a 1-week block for personal attacks (see the ANI thread that they linked). They have the attitude that anyone who disagrees with them is biased/in cahoots. This attitude is not helpful to constructively working together to improve the article. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

It's not often you see so much bad faith displayed on ARE. Anyone who follows this tedious affair will know it started with these editors filing reports against each other on AN3, with me declining to block either one of the parties, thinking they could work it out and I might be able to help. You can read along on the talk pages, where I commented as an editor without choosing sides, commenting and criticizing without regard for who said what. (Buidhe knows that I've often disagreed with them on content and evaluation, and Buidhe and House are way too verbose for my taste.) Saflieni knows full well, then, that I never acted as an administrator, even though they kept on harping about it, and that's exactly what they're doing here--arguing that in so many ways they are being oppressed. They don't list EdJohnston or me as parties to the case, though they include diffs to our comments; worse, they claim that Ed and I are, what, merely parroting what those other two said. Pardon my French, but that's complete bullshit: I came to this and other comments after reading the material and searching through JSTOR for more reviews of the book. In other words, their very arbitration request hits Ed and me below the belt, misrepresents my words and shows an astonishing lack of AGF, and should be turned down. BTW, those who know, and those who look into it, will also know just how patient Ed was with these editors, trying to find a way to mediate--that Ed ended up blocking for personal attacks should give one pause: such blocks are rare for him to make.

So Saflieni was blocked for personal attacks? That is not a surprise. As I said in the linked diff, they have a habit of doing that. This premature arbitration request, which I am sure the committee will not accept because of its obvious personal nature (sour grapes) and its small scope, were better staved off by an indefinite block per NOTHERE. It's somewhat rare that I get so worked up over a simple little conflict, but Saflieni has a rare talent for tirritating. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

I have sometimes made statements urging ArbCom to accept cases where there were long-standing disputes characterized by battleground editing because the areas are real battlegrounds. However, I will not be making such a statement in this case. This appears to be a content dispute that is complicated by the conduct of at least one of the parties to the dispute. (I have not formed an opinion as to which editor is being disruptive, but it is clear that there is misconduct involved.) The filing editor has not tried to resolve the content dispute by a Request for Comments. Sometimes resolving the content portion of a dispute enables the editors to work through the dispute and ameliorates the conduct. If any of the parties disrupt the RFC, uninvolved administrators or the community should impose blocks to allow the RFC to continue.

It may be necessary in the future to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, but at this time what is necessary is to see to it that content disputes are resolved by Request for Comments. ArbCom should decline this case at this time, although a future case may be needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Rwandan genocide: Clerk notes

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

Rwandan genocide: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0>-Rwandan_genocide-2021-01-01T02:49:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Decline at this time. This appears to be a significant disagreement about an important topic, but arbitration (a weeks-long, contentious process) remains the last step in dispute resolution, and I am hopeful that there are other ways of resolving this dispute. I appreciate the efforts of those who have tried to assist so far, and hope that other editors with subject-matter expertise might provide additional help. I agree that it is premature to discuss the possibility of discretionary sanctions for a dispute that, so far as we are told, is limited to a single article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)"> ">
• Decline as well, largely along the same lines as NYB (and in particular because the locus of the dispute is a single page). TBANs and IBANs may be in order, but the community can decide that much more easily than this committee. Primefac (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously premature in terms of the users. This is best remanded back to ANI, or given a shot at DRN if the users will agree. Though I am interested in the community's feedback on whether DS would be appropriate in this area at this time. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Just noting that I've read this and am inclined to decline for the reasons outlined by NYB but am going to wait for further community feedback (most likely early next week when people return to work) before casting any formal vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Awaiting comments but leaning decline. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • At Saflieni's request, Saflieni is granted a 250-word extension (to a total of 750 words). Further requests for extension will be somewhat disfavored. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)