Case Opened on 19:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification

.

Involved parties

Nema Fakei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanchom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
SimonP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
WHEELER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Work permit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

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):

Talk:List of republics - the main problem article at the moment.
Talk:Republic
Talk:Classical republic
Talk:Roman Republic
Talk:Res publica
Talk:Politeia
Talk:Res divina

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[1] crossposts to concentrate the discussion. In particular, I tried to sort out the list criteria for List of republics [2], specifically by inviting other contributors to propose wording (and offering to do it myself if they didn't want to) [3]. 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 [4]. His response did not suggest any [5]. 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):

WP:AGF [6]

WP:UNDUE - Talk:List of republics
passim

WP:V [9]
.

WP:STALK has been implicitly invoked [10].
WP:CABAL - ok, not a policy, but the theme has come up a few time, such as here: [11]
.

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

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,

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]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/2/0)

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]
Accept. Charles Matthews 10:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles

Expectation of improvement

1) Editors whose editing is restricted by the Committee are expected to refrain from the behavior which resulted in those restrictions being imposed. Failure to do so may lead to additional restrictions, up to and including a ban from the project.