Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roninbk (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 17 January 2011 (→‎Request concerning Andrei_nacu: Statement by Roninbk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Request concerning Andrei_nacu   17 January 2011 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland none (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 21 June 2024

Requests for arbitration


Request concerning Andrei_nacu

Initiated by Codrin.B (talk) at 00:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Incident report
  • An innumerable amount of attempts were done to calm the situation, bring dialogue, collaboration and stop the harassment:

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

  • A large amount of attempts to calm the situation has been done from the project level:
    • Clarifying the scope:

[11]

    • Clarifying the neutrality and position of the project

[12] [13]

    • Invitations to the collaboration on various theories regarding Dacian language

[14]

    • Some of the invitations to use user space or project drafts space for high conflict articles, to avoid edit wars and prolong conflict

[15] [16] [17]

Statement by Codrinb

I am under a never ending stream of severe personal attacks, harassment and false accusations User Andrei_nacu. User:Daizus and other members of the WikiProject Dacia are facing an similar amount of incivility, personal attacks and false accusations by User Andrei_nacu. The same user is resorting to unfounded labellings, an extreme amount of canvasing and general disruptive behavior after being pointed out this original research.

User Andrei_nacu even resorted to reporting and labeling the entire project (formed by a very neutral and diverse group people with various backgrounds, origins, interests and beliefs). He went so far that even in that report (and the associated thread) which is suppose to be neutral and to the point, he resorted to false accusations, harassment and a myriad of personal attacks, trying to influence the objective assessment by admins.

  • A blatant proof for the enjoyment over extending the conflict indefinitely and as well as personal attack:

[18] [19]

    • severe personal attacks:

[20]

    • on a campaign (canvassing) to discredit and remove me:

[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

    • and other personal attacks and unfounded claims ignoring all invitations to calm and collaboration (see below):

[27] [28] [29] [30]

    • even more canvasing, tactics and personal attacks:

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

    • apologies (tactics?), unfortunately invalidated (including by the reply below) and followed by dozens of other personal attacks:

[37]

    • vandalism on a map, currently under discussion in NOR incident board:

[38]

    • also please review this very suspicious vandalism of User:Daizus page:

[39] - unknown source, sock puppetry (?) - țigan mândru means proud gipsy a very offensive remark, especially when addressed to a Romanian

I reported the personal attacks to the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, however his personal attacks and canvasing continues, including on that report as well.

Personal attacks, false accusations and canvasing continue even after the incident report report: [40] [41] [42]

  • My clarification and position: I put A LOT of effort in creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia, all with an interest for the subject, an open heart and in good faith. Most of the articles around this subject are incomplete, of low quality and need help organizing their expansion. Many articles are also missing. As I do not claim the best qualifications but just an interest, I have actively reached out to archaeologists, history professors and other specialists to contribute, none of whom are in any shape or form Dacomans (a pejorative term for certain perceived extremists related to Dacian history research). As a matter of fact these respectable academicians despise Dacomania. I am aware of the high amount of controversy, nationalism, original research and fringe theories which can lurk around this project, given the limited knowledge we have about Dacians. Still, I had the courage to create such a project in an attempt to bring neutrality and organization, which are much needed. Every single phrase I wrote in the few articles I personally created (see Amutria) has a valid, verifiable source, of non-Dacomanic origin (if there is such term). And if any source is suspicious, I am open to discuss it constructively in the corresponding article talk page. I have even invited User Andrei_nacu in good faith since the first days of the project (December), based on his previous edits. He chose to ignore it, and not bring his view or input, although he obviously has an interest in the subject. I respected that but his recent actions bring some light as to why he did it. I created the project work structure (hooked up bots, created sections, tasks, templates etc) which involved a lot of work, but by no means I assumed the leadership of the project or I am interested in or embrace any dictatorship. I treat this as a collaborative project, where everyone's constructive input and participation is welcomed. The people involved in this project, are of various backgrounds, nationalities and have different views (very welcomed!) over the various Dacia topics. The project focus is on the Paleo-Balkan culture, including the Dacians, as described in the scope, without exaggerating in any way the importance of the Dacians or disputing the obvious presence of other nations in the same time and space, or the obvious Roman involvement and the Eastern Romance heritage. The project is not linking in any way Dacians and Romanians nor denies possible links. I am fully aware of many WP policies regarding ownership, civility, original research, neutrality etc and I strive to follow each one of them.

Unfortunately, I also see other users like Fut.Perf., Folantin and Dahn, who invited themselves here, trying to downplay this horrible situation, and unfortunately extend the WP:DRAMA, providing free, good faith advice to Andrei_nacu on the best ways to discredit me: [43]. I would personally take their statements with a grain of salt.

Given the amount of attacks, the ongoing disinformation campaigns, the discrediting tactics, the alliances created among various users, I think this needs serious review and scrutiny and I believe it is not premature.

I am deeply saddened and offended, under an unwarranted, unfair and never ending harassment which I hope can be stopped.

Thank you --Codrin.B (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andrei nacu

I think Codrinb went too far to request the arbitration of our dispute. I believed we could come to terms and I even proposed that we ignore each other from now on. See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pseudo-historical_tendencies_and_false_acussations_of_Wiki-project_Dacia.27s_leader_Codrinb

What worries me are Codrin's constant false accusations on me that I a have an interest and I am following a hidden agenda, and that this is the reason behind labelling the Carpi and Costoboci Barbarian tribes as of Uncertain (and not Dacian) origin on my Roman Empire map. However I did this according to what the Cambridge Ancient History 2nd edition Vols. XI and XII say.

I have never said anything against other neutral and un-biased contributors to the Wiki-project Dacia. I have only questioned Codrinb's Dacomanic beliefs, his constant identification with other contributors (here and here) and the way he is using the Wiki-project to lay false acussations on me and other users. Also please read the Wiki-project's stance on neutrality written by Codrinb which is insulting a reader's intelligence by claiming that the universal ridiculing of Dacomanic Protochronism in outside sources is somehow wrong or excessive, and amounting to an attempt at destroying Romania's supposedly rich Dacian heritage - never mind that it suggests all those who do not share a pro-Dacian view that is implicitly advertised here are "anti-Romanian".

For those of you who are not aware of what our debate is all about, let me draw a parallel between Romanian and Mexican history. The Dacians are to Romanians what the Aztecs are to Mexicans. Promoting the Aztecs, their supposedly rich and highly advanced culture and spirituality (while ignoring their ritual human sacrificies), and their firm unaltered links with modern ethnic Mexicans would make you an Aztecoman. An Aztecoman would also deny, partialy or completely, the unquestionable Spanish and Christian origins of modern Mexico and would even go so far as to acusse you of not being a Mexican patriot because of your lack of enthusiasm for Aztec-biased ideas and tendencies.

Codrib is using the wiki-project he started as a Trojan horse against what he believes are users having hidden (presumably anti-Romanian) agendas. However I feel deeply offended as a Romanaian by his statements and I think he is instead trying to paint an iddylic and highly biased history of the Dacians, a people noted for their illiteracy and human sacrifices in the name of their all-mighty deity Zalmoxis. Drawing any forceful ethnic or cultural connections between ancient Dacians and modern Romanians is an attemp to deny Romania's Eastern Roman legacy, neo-Latin official language and Christian character.

Thank you for paying attention to my statement.

Andrei (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me to learn how to make use of those diffs Codrinb is using? Thanks.

Andrei (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

This is premature. True, there is a real issue to be solved (in my perception, Andrei nacu may have engaged in some OR in a certain corner; Codrinb has annoyed a couple of people through what has been perceived as instrumentalizing the wikiproject he created with some personal POV disputes of his own; and the disagreement has lately escalated on a personal level between these two users), but this is all far from Arbcom level. Some of this might be solveable through mediation. If conduct issues become too serious, it shouldn't be too difficult to get them contained on the admin level (we are inside WP:ARBMAC territory, after all.) A case will help nobody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folantin

What Future Perfect says. This is premature. It's just forum-shopping by Codrinb. This issue has already been raised at WQA and ANI within the past couple of days. In my short acquaintance with him on Wikipedia I've noted that Codrinb has a rather dubious tendency to try to resolve content issues in his favour by templating his opponents, accusing them of vandalism, edit-warring, harassment or other misdemeanours. I also have my doubts as to his objectivity regarding Dacomania/Protochronism (a fringe nationalist ideology once promoted by the Ceauşescu regime in Romania) as well as ownership problems with WikiProject:Dacia. But it's still early days...The arbs should probably advise Codrinb against indulging in vexatious litigation and that's about it. --Folantin (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update We've just had a perfect example of Codrinb's tendency to melodramatic inflation in action. Further up the page he's just accused me of "providing free, good faith advice to Andrei_nacu on the best ways to discredit me" [44] and being part of a conspiracy against him. All I did was point Andrei Nacu to the Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide so he could format his statement properly after he asked on this page: "Can someone help me to learn how to make use of those diffs Codrinb is using? Thanks." Likewise, as far as I can tell, English Wikipedia interaction between Codrinb and Andrei Nacu goes all the way back to January 12 this year (i.e. last Wednesday) which puts Codrin's accusation of "never ending harassment" in perspective. --Folantin (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roninbk

I have been an somewhat uninvolved editor here, having only come into contact with this dispute through the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dacian script. I have been in contact with both parties in this conflict through conversations on my talk page, User talk:Roninbk#WikiProject Dacia scope clarifications and disclaimer as well as through an incident on the AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pseudo-historical tendencies and false acussations of Wiki-project Dacia's leader Codrinb. I have attempted to help defuse the Civility issues between both sides. Though it was not through any formal process, I respectfully submit my involvement as an attempt to satisfy the Wikipedia:Third opinion step of the dispute resolution process.

Now I have no opinion on the content dispute portion of this case; I couldn't tell you the difference between Protochronism and Protozoa. Regarding Andre nacu's claims that Dacomanic theories have no place in Wikipedia, I did attempt to point out that there is a proper place for fringe theories within Wikipedia, as long as said theories are not given undue weight. I also pointed out that one of the goals of a Dacia WikiProject can and should be making sure that said points of view are balanced. One of the points I brought up in AfD is that merely adding weasel words such as "so-called" does not correct NPOV issues, and in fact makes the issues worse. In the Protochronism article alone, there are POV-laden assertions such as "largely relying on questionable data and subjective interpretations," that I find highly problematic.

If this RFAR is premature, I will accept a portion of the blame; in the conversation on my talk page I believe I may have been the first to bring up the possibility that this case may eventually result in an RFAR. [45] It was not my intention however to suggest that other dispute resolution steps should be bypassed. -- RoninBK T C 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Waiting for further statements. I note that other than the WQA, no other formal DR options have been done. This presents a higher barrier to accepting a case, and I would like to see parties who wish this case too be accepted address that in their statements. SirFozzie (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be premature. All the diffs are from the last week or so, and there is no history of dispute resolution. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=408422558"