In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
{Add summary here, provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.}
Sclua has shown clearly that he doesn't desire to collaborate with users that disagree with his assessment of the sources, he has performed disruptive reversions, he has continuosly disqualified editors which disagree with him and accused them of bad faith, of ignorance, of fascism, of hacking the talk pages so he can't edit them, of bias, of trying to censorship wikipedia in the same way that the chinese wikipedia is censored. He has misquoted repeatedly a source that doesn't agree with him despite repeated warnings and explanations, he gets coaxed into NPOV only after several strong warnings, he reverts to the same behaviour several days later, he has ignored mediation and consensus on the talk pages, has plainly stated that he would ignore the consensus because it was wrong or biased or done by nationalists, has edited Chile with petty vandalism because of a dispute with another editor, etc.
Sclua is unable to edit history of Catalonia articles on a neutral way, unable to quote sources unbiasedly, and unable to refrain himself from insulting and acussing other editors. His edits are just too disruptive and uncivil.
I am now seriously uncomfortable about accepting any sources that only he has read.
Also, he has failed to collaborate with any editor on any article, and he insists that anyone opposing him is ignorant, biased, mobbing him, threatening him, etc., including an admin leaving a warning on his talk page.
Also, he believes that certain aragonese historians are "ultras" (near to the extreme right)
Also, he has shown absolutely no regret, he has shown no acceptance of ever doing any mistake or misbehaviour.
All of the above has created a very toxic POV ambient that scares editors that would otherwise contribute to the article.
(the first few diffs are on spanish, sorry for that)
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
Sclua should be prevented from causing further disruption at Coat of arms of Catalonia, Senyera and Crown of Aragon, either by blocks that increase in length every time he edit wars, by a topic ban, or by limiting him to making proposals on the talk pages.
Another option is that Sclua starts accepting that:
In short, that Sclua becomes a collaborative editor.
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
---
Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Hello, i have read some lies, or to be fine, false statements in the comments above like "he compares denying the catalan origin of the bars with denying the nazi holocaust" when what i really said was that the pales in the seal of Ramon Berenguer is internationally accepted so wikipedia can not accept to present this statement as "disputed". But today i have not much interest to reply all that they have said to me but i want to talk about what's going on with me here, on the wikipedia.
I want to explain it with an example: two users, Moko and Miki, Moko is very polite user, he always have the correct word but he is editing his bias thoughts, without sources. Even more, he makes up statements, falsify or clear sources he doesn't like, in order to impose his ideology, denies the evidences to avoid having to accept sources that he doesn't like, etc. but, as i have already said, he is very polite.
On the other side, user Miki looks for sources(he has brought the 90% of the article), he is trying that all his statements are sourced and he doesn't understand why he has to become a 'teacher' of users that have no read a book, users that do not accept what is said by prestigious sources and revert all his editions to impose their ideologies. When Miki see all of this, he makes use of personal comments against the others user in order to stop trying to impose their thoughts.
Example: Moko edits that "Nadal did not win 2008 Wimbledon Championships yesterday at the 12 o'clock" and Miki undo this and edits "Nadal win 2008 Wimbledon Championships" and comments "idiot".
And now, i want to ask experienced Administrators, What is the worst user? Could Miki be more polite? Could Moko leave alone articles that he has no idea and stop trying to impose his ideology?
At the first sight, any non concern user or not experienced Administrator only see the personal comments (nationalist, ignorant, liar...) and ignore all the statements sourced reverts, all the occult fight, ignore how the polite user does not accept what prestigious sources say, how he falsified sources, how he imposes his not prestigious source and sends at the bottom of the page the rest, etc. But, i would like to think that experienced Administrators sees this "second" sight, i would like to think that Administrators see the "refined" continuous personal attacks from Moko, how he censures manners to Miki that he is doing too, his mobbing, ... Yes, Miki could be more polite but only after somebody helps him to report and stop Moko's behaviour. --Sclua (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
i just want to add that i have read only a part of the Naval's initial text and only a few odd phrases of the new text (TLDR) and i have got enough to report that there is a lot of personal attacks in this rfc.
And about the "collaborative behavior" of Jotamar i want to say how the history was in a few words only, everybody can check it. Jotamar arrived talking about NPOV so my edition didn't (personal attack). I cleared the GEA:Palos source twice (9 jan and 20 jan editions) but i accepted it since 29 feb, 1 mar editions... On 2 Mar Jotamar say "he has repeatedly tried to remove sources he doesn't like" so this statement in that date was false. On the 17 mar, Jotamar cleared one source (chronicle king Peter III), on 10 Apr again the same, on 13 Apr he cleared 3 sources (chronicle, Fluvià, Jequier), then i began again to cleared the source (palos) in my editions, on 15 Apr Jotamar again cleared the 3 sources, on 17 Apr cleared 4 sources (3 + ermessenda) and on 18 Apr Jotamar cleared 5 sources, world wide record,(chronicle, Fluvià, Jequier, Ermessenda and Poppof) and the 20 Apr arrived Naval and later Maurice27 saying that i was removing sources and then he began to clear a source (chronicle king Peter III) and falsified sources of odoncat and, later, jequier's.--Sclua (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
{Add summary here.}
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.
Q.
About the Vatican flag, that's a content dispute, and I found that the Vatican official website backs the Britanica version, I answered on Talk:Senyera#colours_vatican_flag. Sclua, from now on, when you see a source saying something that you think is totally wrong, are you going to keep removing it inmediately without any proof that it's wrong, or are you going to label it with a "fact" tag and make an effort to to double-check it with other sources? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A
Q.
Sclua, one of the biggest problems I have with you is that, when you see a reliable source saying something that you personally think that is wrong, you delete it inmediately as if you were in possesion of the WP:TRUTH, and you could never be wrong (as in the above question). On wikipedia we are supossed to follow what the published sources say, and you are supposed to make an effort to find other reliable sources that explain what that source was wrong. That includes the vatican flag colors, the seal evidence, etc.
Do you realize and accept that you having removeing reliable sources because you personally think that they are wrong? Do you realize and accept that you have been doing wrong? Do you promise to change that behaviour on the future?
A.
Q.
Are you going to accept that works from catedratics on History that have published several books and papers and have several awards are reliable scholar sources? Even the ones that whose conclusions you don't like? Even the ones that dismiss the catalan origin of the bars? Even the ones by aragonese historians and heraldist Fatás, Redondo, Montaner and Ubieto, which you called ultranationalists or "ultras"?
A.
Q.
Are you going to keep calling aragonese historians and heraldists ultranationalists? Are you going to keep refusing to accept as valid any of their published works and theories, and keep refusing any work that mentions them as source or echoes their theories?
A.
Q.
Sclua, we are supposed to use the strongest sources for our changes and use their conclusions and reflect on the articles their intended general meaning.
The opposite (and very wrong) option is having a personal theory and then using any source that marginally backs our statement or/and that marginally talks about the topic, then interpret it as strongly backing our argument by using passing mentions, and then try to use it over common sense in order what we personally believe to be true.
I think that you did this with the Cingolani's source: using a source that talks about dynastic feelings but doesn't analyze the union itself, to source a statement about the dynastic union that goes against common sense, basing yourself only on a certain wording used on the english abstract. Seeing the paragraphs above, do you understand why I feel that this source is used very incorrectly? On the future, are you going to stop using weak sources and interpretations based on one word and against common sense?
P.D.: I mean, do you agree that a source that intends to talk extensively and exclusively about dynastic felling of counts should be used mostly to source the dynastic feeling of those counts? And do you agree that it's not adequate to use for something that is not dynastic feeling just because a certain wording on the abstract happens to fit something else?
A.
Q.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can be edited by everyone, see WP:PILLARS, and editors must provide sources that can be verified by other editors by the verifiability policy.
Are you going to accept that editors that don't know anything about the topic can verify the sources and make corrections to the article basing themselves on what the source says? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A.
Q.
Are you going to stop dismissing and reverting other people edits on the basis that they are "ignorant" and/or that they have read less books than you or no books? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A.
Q.
Are you going to start WP:AGF assuming good faith on other editors, and stop thinking that other editors are purposefully trying to lie and falsify? If someone removes a source that you think is very clear, are you going to assume that he must see it in a different light or must have misread it or didn't think of checking the source before removing it to make sure that he was correct on removing it?
A.
Q.
Wikipedia works by consensus.
If there are several editors insisting that the interpretations that you make are incorrect, are you going to assume that maybe you are the one that is wrong? Are you going to abide to the consensus and you will refrain yourself from edit warring back to your version and arguing endlessly on the talk page that all other editors are wrong and/or lying on purpose? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A.
Q.
Are you going to accept that aragonese people and people that don't have the same ideas as you can perfectly remove your changes, as soon as they are using wikipedia policy and guidelines, and as soon as they are basing themselves on reliable verifiable sources? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A.
Q.
The WP:BURDEN burden of proof is on the editor that adds or removes material from the articles.
However, you have been asking other editors to provide proof for your changes to the articles. "I asked Jotamar to tell me some member of International Heraldry Academy who disputes the bars in the Ramon Berenguer's seals and [he] had no answer. Out of Aragon nobody disputes it and inside Aragon, the member of the Academy, Faustino Menéndez-Pidal neither. So, only is disputed by aragoneses nationalists for obvious reasons." [128]
You also made broad-reaching statements like "Faustino Menéndez-Pidal, who tells in all his works ("I seminario sobre heraldica y genealogía", "Apuntes de sigilografía española", "Los Emblemas heráldicos: una interpretación histórica" "Palos de oro y gules"...) that the signal was the personal first" [129], and you provided no verifiable sources for them except for a list of some of his works, when, as far as I know, Pidal has hundreds of works and papers. You are asking to believe that you have read all and every one of his works and correctly understood them, without providing any secondary source from a historian that reviews Pidal's works and confirms your view.
You also say "Sagarra did no disputed the bars on the seal, this is a prove that you have not read it" [130], yet you provide no source for Sagarra saying that the bars on the seal are good, and you follow it by a smear of the capabilities of me, Jatamar and Maurice (the only other three editors that have edited the article heavily after you started editing).
You also added a reference that said "see all the International Heraldry Academy works" and listed a few authors [131], and you have still not provided a ingle specific source where those authors said that. On the same edit you also said " Disputed only by aragoneses nationalists" used a tertiary source that lists aragonese authors among the sources at the bottom of the page.
All these statements run directly against the WP:V verifiability policy on wikipedia if they don't have published reliable sources specifically saying them: "for obvious reasons", "all works by [some author]", "[some author] never said x", "disputed only by [authors from a certain geographical origin]", etc.
Do you realize and accept that you must provide specific and verifiable sources for your statements? Are you going to stop saying that a certain author never said a certain thing, without reliable sources that specifically say so, and that other editors can verify? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
I warned Sclua on June 26 to stop edit-warring on Coat of arms of Catalonia ([132]. Sclua continued to edit-war on the article [133]. I therefore blocked Sclua for 24 hours on 3 July following further edit-warring. [134]. Neıl 龱 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
{Enter summary here.}
I was looking at Recent Changes and noticed this edit where Sclua accuses another editor of lying. Editors should not accuse other editors of lying on article talk pages. Article talk pages are for discussion of article content only. It's OK to say that something is false and to provide arguments and sources, but to say that someone is lying is a statement about the editor (inappropriate on an article talk page) and assumes an ability to read minds. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
As an editor active in Catalan-related topics I have been invited to leave my opinion here. Unfortunately I can't say much. Some months ago I noticed the existence of a pretty nasty fight in some of the pages in my long watchlist between the editors Sclua and Jotamar. It wasn't difficult to realize that Sclua had a highly improper behavior. Since I wasn't (and still I am not) competent enough in the topic to try to solve the dispute, I just watched it from the distance hoping that at some point they would be able to find the way to collaborate fruitfully. It was clear that they had a different view on the history of coats of arms from the several countries that integrated the ancient Crown of Aragon. I admit that I am not able to tell who was right on the dispute, but I can tell for sure that Sclua's behavior was far from collaborative. Later on, afer Jotamar gave up, the situation seems to have been essentially the same with other serious editors, such as Enric Naval and Maurice, who have been trying to proceed in a civil way, compliant with WP policies, something Sclua doesn't seem to care much about. I truly hope that this discussion will help the involved parties in finding a good collaborative solution that will allow to improve the current entries in order to reach a really neutral and comprehensive information. --Carles Noguera (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
{Enter summary here.}
Users who endorse this summary:
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
1) Sclua should be topic banned from any article related in any way to the history of the "Crown of Aragon", including related heraldic articles and articles like Senyera and History of Barcelona.
2) Same as #1, but Sclua would be limited to proposing changes on the talk pages, not being allowed to edit the articles themselves
3) Sclua should be put on a civility parole, and blocked every time he insists on calling people liars and falsifiers without assuming good faith.
4)
5)
6)
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.