Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Christ myth theory		23 February 2010	{{{votes}}}
Catholic Church		22 February 2010	{{{votes}}}
Bourbon-Two Sicilies		19 February 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Christ myth theory

Initiated by Eugene (talk) at 23:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Eugeneacurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Repeated discussions on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
• Endless wrangling on the article's talk page

Statement by Eugeneacurry

I know that this is somewhat irregular, but I'd like the ArbCom to consider finally settling the matter of the Christ myth theory article's status as a WP:FRINGE topic. The article cites literal dozens of references in support of this identification, yet still editors object. The article's FA candidacy was recently derailed for this very reason. (SandyGeorgia indicated that the charge of POV was instrumental here.) For the sake of style I want to trim the number of citations in the lead, but I'm afraid that that will only increase the number of arguments over the fringe status of the topic. So, in an attempt to forestall that, I'd like very much to have some sort of official ruling that states the Christ myth theory article is, indeed, subject to the policies of WP:FRINGE. It will just make the remaining editting much easier.Eugene (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Question - Is there a reason that a content RFC would not be helpful here? Steve Smith (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering how often this issue has come up I'd like to get something more official than that, if possible. The article has used RfCs a few times (E.g. here), but often when individual outside voices have stated that the topic does fall under WP:FRINGE, naysayers just accuse those voices of ignorance, bias, or outright conspiracy. (E.g. here) With an official ArbCom ruling all these attempts at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will be much easier to address. Eugene (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Initiated by Karanacs (talk) at 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Karanacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• NancyHeise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richardshusr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Taam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Haldraper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anietor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Afterwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• History2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Majoreditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marauder40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• NancyHeise [1]
• Xandar [2]
• Richardshusr [3]
• Pmanderson [4]
• Taam [5]
• Haldraper [6]
• Anietor [7]
• Johnbod [8]
• Afterwriting [9]
• History2007 [10]
• Majoreditor [11]
• Marauder40 [12]
• Farsight001 [13]
• Article talk page: [14]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church (deleted per priveleged nature of mediation)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise
• Numerous AN/I listings and 3RR reports, including [[15]]16 Nov 2009, Nov, 14 Dec

Statement by Karanacs

User:NancyHeise and User:Xandar have inserted/pushed a very pro-Catholic Church POV into Catholic Church and have essentially owned the page, making it extraordinarily difficult for others to enforce WP policies including NPOV and no original research.

Several editors (including me) have argued on the talk page that parts of the article reflect a very pro-Catholic viewpoint, give undue weight to relatively unimportant matters and gloss over more notable aspects, and often rely on synthesis and misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the sources used. When a new editor presents similar concerns NancyHeise and Xandar often greet them with personal attacks and sockpuppet accusations. This has driven away many editors with alternative viewpoints away from the article. A sampling from the last 2 years:

• 30 Jan 2010 User:Hamiltonstone: [16]
• 1 Dec 2009 User:Harmakheru: [17] (left Wikipedia completely the following week)
• 16 Jun 2008 User:Awadewit: [18]
• 2 Jun 2008 User:jbmurray: [19]
• 22 May 2008 User:Ealdgyth [20]

Editors who remain are often subject to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, misrepresentation of their comments and/or sources, personal attacks, and a gross failure to assume good faith. Personal attacks and lack of AGF have also been seen in those with opposing viewpoints, particularly Taam and Pmanderson.

Changes made to the article are almost immediately reverted if Xandar or NancyHeise disagree with the content, even if there has been consensus on the talk page for the change. This has led to edit-warring, resulting in repeated page protection. [21] - (a total of about 18 days over last four months)

If a change is not reverted, NancyHeise often waits a few weeks before accusing the "new" text of being "anti-Catholic" and rehashing the same arguments she originally gave, thus forcing the discussion to start over. The result: it takes months for any change to "stick", and often means those who disagree with NancyHeise and Xandar simply give up on that particular issue in frustration. The latest example of this is from 19 Feb 2010, where NancyHeise posted [22] in reference to a paragraph rewrite. This had been discussed extensively from 30 Nov 2009 through 9 Dec 2009, where NancyHeise had also registered the same argument - which was then refuted.(see Talk:Catholic Church/Archive_40#coverage_of_sex_abuse_cases)

Further dispute resolution is unlikely to be helpful. The mediation listed above was the culmination of over 12 months of argument on the first sentence of the article. At this rate, it could be decades before the POV and synthesis is removed. (trimmed Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Response to NancyHeise

I have used administrative tools exactly twice in relation to this article: I protected the page on 26 Oct 2009 for a few hours due to edit-warring (in which I was not involved) and I extended blocks on both Xandar and User:Leadwind (who hold opposing viewpoints) after they both evaded blocks for edit-warring. As FAC delegate I have neither taken nor threatened to take actions on this article. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Haldraper

I agree with Karanacs' comments about the WP:POV and WP:OWN issues associated with both Xandar and Nancy Heise, in particular Nancy's tactic of attempting to reopen discussions that have been resolved after weeks of debate on the talk page after an interval on the spurious grounds that the resulting text is "anti-Catholic". Haldraper (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by History2007

Please excuse me from this discussion. A day or so ago, before the arb notice went up, I said goodbye to that article (with this edit: [23] which is copied below for your convenience) and do not want to be involved in that talk page or other long discussions on Wikipedia. That discussion was just too looooooong and non-productive for me. I think there are so many articles that need improvement and I do not think it is worth anyone's time to talk so much - it is better to go and fix other articles than keep talking on that type of page for ever and ever. I was so fed up with that talk page that I went back to write an article on computer science because I found the religious debate there totally non-productive. I have come to think that the current overall Wiki-infrastructure can not support this type of discussion. Anyway, this was my goodbye message to those people:

I should say that as an "outside observer" I find this discussion just unbelievable and surreal. This could not be happening.... I am not taking sides on the issue - I really do not care about this subtopic. But the types and tones of arguments presented by various sides is just amazing and makes me wonder if "any" progress can be made in this type of atmosphere. I would strongly suggest to all sides to calm down and be more focused, but I doubt it will work in this atmosphere.

My feeling is that current Wikipedia rules are inadequate for moderating heated talk page debates, and there is almost no way out except fatigue causing some participants to give up. I think I am going to stop watching this talk page for a while and just drop in very occasionally - reading this type of material is just non-productive. But I would suggest a banner on the top of the talk page advising new editors of what awaits them on this talk page. How about Dante: "Abandon hope all ye enter here" [24].

At least this joke may calm some nerves for a short while before the debate heats up again. My guess is that the debate will not go very far anyway and will be forgotten in 9 months, so you guys should probably try to stay calm..... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, I am out of here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hamiltonstone

(ec)I first came to this article about December 2009 I think. I agree with Karanacs' observations, including PMAnderson sometimes being as vociferous as either Xandar or Nancy Heise on the talk page (though in my experience usually more reasonable than either when it comes to edits in the article space). Examples of editing behaviour.

• Richardshusr tries to insert a neutral description of one of the contested issues (after previous edit warring, talk page discussion etc around this issue). A few hours later Xandar adds this, intrducing a POV that had been contested on the talk page. This then triggers others piling in to fix the POV, which Xandar then promptly reverts, prompting Richard to once again try and restore the balance, but notice that Richard has now been pushed to restore balance to a POV added by Xandar, rather than going back to his original, pretty sound formulation. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• A relatively uninvolved editor Mike Searson comes in and does some editing, probably in the wake of talk page discussion about excessive length. He removes some text, including a sentence about the similarity of contemporary Mass to its early predecessor, as being insufficiently important in the context of this article. Xandar immediately reverts. Searson reverts, with an edit summary "Revert, good faith edit, non-essential, and strongly POV. Discuss on the talk Page". Xandar, while reverting various bits of trimming, reverts again. The discussion on the talk page however shows no debate about the issue, as requested by Searson. Xandar's preferred text currently remains in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• I now note History2007's contribution above, which can be added to the other examples provided by Karanacs in the initial statement. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• On the talk page. There appears to be a long history of antagonism between some editors, esp Xandar and Nancy, and PMAnderson, that leads the latter to make some uncivil contributions, such as this. PM may have believed himself provoked, but nothing in Xandar's text appeared to warrant this reaction. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No, actually, there is a short history. As a side effect of the last change of article name, Xandar has been trying to change naming policy up and down Wikipedia. He has recieved no support from anyone not involved in the Catholic Church discussion - on the same side; and has lasted until now chiefly by canvassing for meat-puppets. Nancy has been among the most frequent of these. But none of this is much before the present discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Xandar

A request for arbritation is not proper here since all forms of dispute resolution have not been used. The mediation cited by Karanacs is no part of this complaint. It was on a very different issue raised by very different persons - namely the article title - and was successfully concluded. The only RFC made on the article was raised by Nancy Heise. There has been no attempt to involve the POV noticeboard. There has also been absolutely no attempt to enter into either a formal or informal mediation process on the issues raised as set down in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy.

If, as Karanacs suggests, article improvement is being blocked, then mediation is the obvious step. If editors were acting against WP rules, then the incidents now vaguely alleged should have been brought to the attention of admins. I'm not sure what Karanacs exact complaint is. If it's about content matters, she is in the wrong place. She seems to be complaining that I, Nancy, and others have opposed some of her and her allies plans for the article. That is also related to content. I know that a group aligned with karanacs want to “put the article right”. However others see this as wanting the article to present an unbalanced negative picture. This creates content-related disagreement which can only be resolved by patient processes which Karanacs doesn't seem to want to undertake. As for other charges:

• "Undue weight given to unimportant matters in aid of a pro-Catholic POV". This is a content matter, and does not assume good faith in those of different opinion to her own. The article compares for balance with Encyclopedia Britannica, and presents more critical viewpoints. It has been rated as a WP Good Article for many years, and has been put up several times for Featured Article, with a majority of reviewers in support.
• Namcy and myself have several times tried to get the current review of the article to run in an orderly constructive way. However editors have constantly raised new issues before others are settled, which has been the main stall to progress – along with disruptives such as Taam and PMAnderson.

• The accusation that I and Nancy Heise greet newcomers and others with personal attacks is false. No diffs for this are provided. In fact Nancy and I have been the victims of unprovoked attacks. Constructive editors are welcomed. And I have made just one sockpuppet accusation, when an anonymous new account with extensive knowledge of WP processes edit-warred fringe conspiracy theories. Unlike many controversial articles Catholic Church is not semi-protected and so attracts disruptive anonymous edits.

• No consensus edits have been reverted by me or Nancy. Controversial changes made without discussion get reverted on most articles on the “Bold, Revert, Discuss” principle. Some editors unfortunately ignore the “discuss” phase and try to edit war unagreed changes in place, causing the page locks.

• Hamiltonstone complains that I reversed certain edits, however these too were unagreed substantive changes made after requests by several editors to agree text on talk first. He also misrepresents History2007, who, like many Catholic leaning editors have been forced away by the tone of detractors of the article. To sum up, this is primarily about content. Attempts to allege that Nancy and I are somehow breaking WP rules by standing up for what we consider a balanced approach are bogus, unfounded and unverified.

(Short version. Longer version on my talk page) Xandar 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Johnbod

Here we all are again! I commented at some length on the Rfc on Nancy & don't want to again. In fact Nancy was very little present on the talk page for some time afterwards, until a recent return, and this made absolutely no difference to the amount of argument and level of rancour. The behaviour of some on the "other side" is at least as bad - PMAnderson is especially savage to new faces, while Nancy generally only gets heavy with people after a period of argument. There are a number of other editors who could have been made "interested parties" (Soidi = Lima, no? If so, he is no 4 on the talk page edit count) and many who pass through quickly, lacking the stamina that following the page needs. Many of these come in with fists flying too. User:Harmakheru was extremely agressive & uncivil, to name but one.

While I broadly support the sort of changes the nominators want, I very often disagree with their specific suggestions, & others will do so more strongly. There are real difficulties with this page, trying to cram in a balanced treatment into a very overcrowded page. Nancy and Zandar feel that every controversial issue connected with the Church should be raised and the church's official stance or response given, as it is with similar articles. This is not in itself a wrong position, though I don't always like the text it produces. One particular problem is that there is no one editor with a really sound knowledge of the whole area, or even just the history, and NPOV, who all sides can respect, and who can produce drafts. In the absence of such a figure I'm not sure how things will progess. There are a great number of wordy participants, and new topics keep being introduced and taken up without old ones having been taken to a conclusion. Just following the page fully is virtually a full-time job; I certainly don't do that. I still believe that the potential is there for progressing the page, and I suppose it is improving, perhaps more than the regulars appreciate. But just blaming the problems on Nancy and Zandar is neither fair nor helpful. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment to PMAnderson (see his below)

Re my quote, Taam had said "Agree with PMA, the Black Legend article is a good example of whitewashing of history and Wikipedia should not be an apologetic's web-site ...". I was, rather obviously, quoting from Black Legend, which begins: "The Black Legend ... is a term ... [for] the world's Hispanophobia in the Early Modern period, resulting in the perception of Spain and Spaniards as "cruel", "intolerant" and "fanatical"." To which my reply was, in full: "And clearly you have your own POV here! So "Spain and Spaniards" are indeed" "cruel", "intolerant" and "fanatical""?" Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by NancyHeise

• The items listed in "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" lists three actions. One of them is a mediation that was deleted "due to privledged nature of mediation". I was the party that initiated that mediation after a lengthy dispute on the talk page prevented the article's advancement. Over 19 editors participated in that mediation and the successful outcome was posted here by the mediator [25]. This was not a failed mediation but one that ultimately helped the article progress beyond the name dispute.
• The second item listed as a dispute resolution effort is Karanac's RFC against me here [26] - In the past three months, I have been minimally involved, editing the article 24 times, most of which were minor, none of which were contentious. I've listed them here [27]
• Karanacs initiated this arbitration against me and Xandar but just as she did with my RFC, failed to see the extremely disruptive behaviour of other editors like Harmakheru [28] [29], Taam,[30][31] and PMAnderson who is probably the most vociferous and persistently insulting and edit warring. These sections of the article's talk page [32] offer a glimpse of this. (see collapsed portion in second para[33]), [34]. Here's an example of when I provided a Routledge source that discussed scientific evidence collected from 1960 to the present day regarding the quality of Catholic schools - yet Haldraper calls this POV pushing and Karanacs says the evidence is outdated when the book lists a series of scientific studies from 1960 up to 2001.[35] I was trying to improve the section entitled "Catholic Institutions" and the Church operates the world's largest non-governmental school system. It has been very difficult for anyone to try and insert actual facts that say anything good about the Church without being labeled POV pushers by some editors.
• My previous complaints about Karanacs [36]
• Evidence of our problems with Karanacs behavior on the page [37]
• Evidence of another involved editor who disagrees with Karanacs assessment [38]
• Most recent evidence of my and Xandar's participation in the improvement process[39]. Xandar has reverted edits to the article that were made without discussion and change sourced agreed text. Other editors make these same corrections. Since I own or have access to most of the sources, I sometimes check the page to see if the cited sentences agree with the source and correct them if they don't. PMAnderson is probably the worst violator - he/she makes frequent undiscussed changes to cited sentences that then makes the sentence say something that is not in the source. This editor has very little knowledge of the article subject and provides virtually no sources in our discussions but only seems to participate on the talk page in an effort to create a battleground mentality there and engage in edit warring on the article page.(recent examples [40] [41][42] [43] [44] [45]

Nancy's response to Hesperian's comments below

Because of space limitations on this page please see my response to Hesperian on my talk page here [46]. NancyHeise ^talk 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hesperian

Add me to the list of people who tried to contribute to that discussion and were driven away by the dogmatic irrationality of NancyHeise and Xandar.

In my case the issue was their attempt to source their claim that most modern historians agree with the Catholic Church's view of its origin. First they tried to source it to Giovanni Battista Pagani's The pillar and foundation of truth, an 1840s Catholic tract that set out to prove, using logic, the infallibility of the pope. It took several days of arguing to convince them that a 19th century Catholic tract cannot possibly shed light on what secular historians believe today. They never conceded the point, but eventually they changed tack and offered another source. And another. And another and another and another. Source after source after source, not one of which supported their cherished assertion. It went on for weeks. There's an entire archive page in there dedicated to Nancy and Xandar throwing up sources ato support their claim; and others shooting them down as utterly irrelevant. Meanwhile Nancy throws up spurious objections like 'The book you cite above is listed as a "religion" book by googlebooks, not "history".' or 'there is consensus for that claim because it was present when the article failed FAC'. All the while Xandar insists that our objections are the wikilawyering quibbling of anti-Catholic POV-pushers, because of course the sheer volume of trash that we've taken out proves our bad faith.

The talk page was, and still is, unbearably putrid. I had to leave.

Statement by Richardshusr

I have wondered in the past whether I would like to be an arbitrator and have always decided that the answer was "No". This case is an example of why. What a useless and counter-productive squabble among Wikipedians. Nobody is right and everybody is wrong.

My opinion is that there is not much to arbitrate here except to hand out a few stiff warnings or even a couple of good solid smackdowns for incivility.

While I do not see Xandar and NancyHeise as being as noble, judicious and fair-minded as they portray themselves to be, neither do I see them to be quite as detrimental to the article and the project as Karanacs and others portray them to be.

NancyHeise in particular has done yeoman work on this article and anything I say on the Talk Page is always said with awed respect for her prodigious efforts.

That said, Xandar and NancyHeise have contributed to a battleground mentality on the Talk Page because they fight tooth-and-nail to put the Catholic Church in a positive light rather than seeking an NPOV treatment of the topic. The one single thing that I could most hope for from this arbitration would be a recognition on their part of how severely their intransigence and pro-Catholic POV impedes progress on the article.

The battleground mentality on the Talk Page has stoked intense frustration among Karanacs and others. This is a frustration which I share. However, the frustration by no means justifies the incredible lack of civility that has been exhibited by PManderson, Taam and others. Harmakheru was also somewhat uncivil but that incivility was an order less harsh than that of PManderson and Taam.

I will comment that I agree in substance with most of the comments made by Karanacs, Harmakheru, PManderson and Taam. I just refuse to condone the incivility that has often accompanied those comments. This is not the Wikipedia way.

Thus, the second thing that I would hope for from this arbitration is a serious smackdown of those who have crossed the line with respect to incivility. However frustrating working with Xandar and NancyHeise may be, it is unacceptable to call someone a liar when assumption of good faith might explain the other person's opinions as being sincere ignorance or prejudice.

Of all the statements made so far on this ARBCOM case, the one I agree with most is the one made by Johnbod.

--Richard S (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Per my comment above about the arbitrator's task being a thankless one, just reading this request for arbitration fatigues me and we haven't even started the arbitration itself. However, I think it is important to note that there has been little or no mention of the "Tag Wars" in which a number of editors (most notably Haldraper and PManderson, I think) insisted on putting various "too long", "disputed", "NPOV" tags on the article. The ensuing edit wars and endless Talk Page arguments were seriously obstructive to making progress on the article. Frankly, watching them derail constructive discussion was so frustrating that I wanted to scream. --Richard S (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis (PMAnderson)

When I first came to the page, some months ago, its talkpage was a clubhouse for expressing sectarian political and theological opinions:

• May I also point out that when the Orthodox Church Split from the Supreme Authority of Rome, it lost all rights to claim the name is previously had as Catholic Church. (addressed to an Orthodox editor).
• Blame those subversives who ignited the French Revolution for the Church currently not having the correct amount of influence over temporal affairs.
• There's no such thing as "Christian" anti-Semitism.

History2007 called Xandar, who wrote the last, mayor of the article.

Several editors see anti-Catholic proganda where there isn't any: Johnbod accused an editor of saying that "Spain" and "Spaniards" are "cruel" and "fanatical", with those quotation marks - when he had said nothing of the kind, and indeed used none of those four words.

But Nancy is the worst. Her RFC shows being abusive, to new and old editors alike for years. Consider a request for comment by her:

Our article text, the one that has gone through several FACs and peer reviews, states in the lead and in Origins and Mission section that there are different opinions among scholars regarding the Church origins. WP:NPOV requires us to present these views giving each side equal weight. We have done this but some editors here are saying that there are no historians that agree with the Catholic POV on the origin of the Church even though we have included three sources in the article to support this POV. I have also provided some more sources on the talk page above. See [13] and [14]. Because Karanacs and Richard are eliminating our consensus text in favor of hiding these important facts, I would like to have a vote here to see what true consensus decides.

Please vote Support if you favor our consensus version of text or Oppose if you would like to eliminate these facts altogether.

Consensus text is here: (third lead paragraph and second para in Origins and Mission)[15]

This is what happens when we lose the consensus text [16]

Please note that this does not state what the actual issue is. Instead it appeals to "the Catholic point of view", and to "consensus" without any evidence that Nancy's unstated position is the Catholic point of view, and with no evidence that it was ever consensus. (Her position was unsupported by any source, including the Catholic Encyclopedia; but that is an issue to be brought up in evidence.) Nevertheless, several editors voted for it.

I think a fair example of the conflicting standards here can be seen at Talk:Catholic_Church#World_War_II. ): Nancy and Xandar regard pro-Catholic statements as neutral, and object to their removal as anti-Catholicism.

Again, when Richard S. requested removal of a sentence, or at least a {{cn}} tag, because the sources cited did not say what our article did (and got support). Xandar objected, claiming that the proposal was solely because certain editors had not fully studied the issue. It is at that point I called him a liar - because he had just lied about the statements on the page he was editing.

Xandar and Nancy should be removed from this article for a period of time (three to six months), not as punishment, but to permit the subject experts, whom they have driven away from it, to edit and correct it. The people who voted for Nancy's vacuous poll should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground.

This is not my field; I was drawn into this because my opinion was asked on a question of principle underlying the naming dispute, and because the article is tendentious and nonsensical where it does cross my field. However this comes out, I expect to leave until that rewrite is done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not refactor this; editing suggestions welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Johnbod

No, that is not, and was not, obvious. Even if it were, Johnbod has leapt from "Taam dislikes the article Black Legend" to "Taam supports the view condemned in the first sentence of Black Legend", without a shadow of justification. Whoever is not with us is against us. This binary thinking may well be the basic problem; it is neither sensible nor logical - and it is heresy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth

I debated making a statement here, but as "outside" voices are always welcome at ArbCom, I thought a short statement from someone peripherally involved might help.

By my editing history, I should be deeply involved in this article. In the topic area covered by the Catholicism wikiproject, I’ve shepherded 16 FAs through FAC, 47 GAs, 1 FL, and a featured topic. I obviously have an interest in a subset of the project. Why do I repeat these stats? Mainly because it shows I don't have a "anti-Catholic" bias.

However, I've never seriously tried to contribute to the CC article. I've dipped my toes in a couple of times, and I watch the talk page religiously (ooh, bad pun!) but have never seriously dug in and edited. Why? Mainly because the atmosphere from many of the participants (on both sides) is so poisonous. A couple of times when I've tried to contribute, I've been accused of bias against the Church. (Never had pro-Church bias alleged, but I'm sure it could happen). It's just not worth the bother to try to contribute, I have better things to do.

Yes, there is a lot that is good about the article, but to edit a contentious topic you must try to understand where the other side is coming from, and accusations of bias against or for Catholicism don't help. That just starts a cycle of mutual recriminations that never ends.

I have my own personal views of who is "more wrong" in the dispute, but at this point what needs to be done is to set a good example. Maybe that means topic banning people on both sides. The article needs more editors who remain calm and attempt to see the other side's viewpoint (whatever side they are coming from), not more folks who pick sides and spend their time defending it vociferously.

I really have no desire to get dragged into an ArbCom case, but I wanted to make it clear that the problems go beyond "content" to "behavior", at least as this mostly-uninvolved editor sees it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mike Searson

I, too was going to keep out of this one, but I'm just going to make a comment as I see I am being dragged into this. I was an early editor on this article, before many of the current parties, despite one of them erroneously referring to me as a "new editor". I saw this turning into a quagmire long ago and pretty much have distanced myself from it aside from reverting obvious vandalism. I think good work and bad work has been done by all sides. I think personal attacks have gone overboard from both sides, although I've only personally been attacked by one side. (Ironically I've been accused of being a "Traditionalist Catholic", a "Schismatic Catholic", an "Anti-Catholic", and a "Liberal Catholic" by the same parties). I am a practicing Catholic (who admittedly prefers the Latin Mass, but attends both), I was in the Seminary(I know a little bit about what should be here and what should not), I want to see an article about the Catholic Church that is fair in its POV(which does not mean exactly midpoint between a hit piece and an apologetic tract). I want to see an article that is written and sourced so well that it attains featured status; something I realize will never happen if the current pattern of behavior is left unchecked. From questionable sources, to misrepresenting what sources actually say to the outright ridiculousness that a Post Vatican 2 Mass complete with clipped-haired female former gym teachers dispensing the Eucharist and choirs singing "Bridge Over troubled Waters" is closer to the original Church's version of the Mass than the codified Tridentine Mass. I have better things to spend my time on than to work with editors who refuse to engage in conversation and want every miniscule detail inserted into an article that neither informs nor engages the reader nor any longer has any semblance to an encyclopedia article. The ownership issues need to be addressed. People who wish to edit need to read the rules and work on consensus. They need to understand what Summary Style means. Granted, due to the nature of its subject matter, this article will be a long one. However, expounding on trivial bits of information that are better discussed elsewhere is completely unnecessary. We went through this nonsense maybe 2-3 years ago when certain parties wished to include the Nicene Creed verbatim. The bottom line is between the snarky personal attacks tossed back and forth on the talk page, deep problems with ownership, and constant edit warring…nothing can ever be accomplished with regard to improving the article…a 12-fold expansion including lists of every priest and altar server should be right around the corner at this rate. How anyone can edit in this toxic environment is beyond me! I say that as someone who has had his life threatened over other wiki-articles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Farsight001

As I am not listed in the participating party above, and have not involved myself in the discussion on the talk page, I am not entirely sure I am supposed to comment, but I was asked to. So I will keep it as short as I can. Since other users have posted link after link after link to edits, I will refrain (also because I am horrible at it myself) In reading what people have typed on the talk page, and in tracking edits as I have (while I did not participate in the discussion/edits, I did keep a fairly close eye on it), I find this to, frankly, be an issue of the pot calling the kettle black, except my kettle in this analogy is an average grey instead of black and is severely outnumbered by pots. This is, in my view, what the ultimate problem is. Xander and Nancy are trying to actually keep the article pretty npov (though a tiny bit biased), while the copius other editors, in outnumbering Xander and Nancy, have instinctively come to the conclusion that they are trying to own the article instead. People with superior numbers have a psychological tendency to assume they are in the right and this often clouds a person's objectivity. In my view, as a psychologist, that is exactly what is happening here.

I also want to point out that neutrality here does not, as some people seem to think, mean half good and half bad, but rather to accurately represent sources. Sinc the CC has, overall, had a more positive than negative history, then the article really ought to be a bit more positive than negative too. And personally, I still feel that a whole lot needs to be cut from the history section of the article. There already exists a History of the Catholic Church article, so why list it twice, especially stuff that was relatively minor in the history of the Church? ...So...not as short a comment as I thought. Oops.Farsight001 (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by str1977

It's been a while since I have been involved with the article and have encountered the people in question here (both Nancy and Karanacs) so I can't speak about recent behaviour. However, when I was involved I cannot confirm the accusations levelled here. Nancy did not spin a pro-Catholic POV. Not that I was not, at times, critical of her and other editors.

(And "very" in this context can only be hyperbole. It takes a lot of nerve to speak this way when for months various editors even blocked any acknowledgement of even the name of the "Catholic Church".)

Indeed, there have been various cases of "Undue weight (being) given to unimportant matters" but not simply to push a pro-Catholic POV but often in responses to some editor's request. Quite often, some editor requested that something be covered (often in a POV critical of the church) and Nancy would immediately make edits to that effect, including the matter. Way too often and too ready for my taste, as including such details in the overall umbrella article Catholic Church opened up new problem conciseness and a full and balanced coverage of an issue collided. (The sex-ed example linked to above also works this way: somebody wants to add this into the article - in itself a violation of the "undue weight" policy IMHO, leading to a constant back and forth between those that want to simply take a shot and those that want to give a balanced picture).

These all are content issues and I therefore agree with the comments above that ArbCom is not the proper avenue for this. However, that these situations flare up point out, that Nancy did not do what she is accused of.

PS. I wholeheartedly agree with Johnbod's summary above and also in principle with Farsight.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/1/1)

• Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Recused; I was one of the mediators in the mentioned case. Shell ^babelfish 07:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Accept - Dispute resolution on the conduct side seems to have gone as far as it can without our involvement. Steve Smith (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bourbon-Two Sicilies

Initiated by Caponer at 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Caponer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notice of this arbitration request was left on the user talk page for LouisPhilippeCharles here at 01:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC). --Caponer (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Confirmation that settlement has been attempted is quoted below. Please review both of our talk pages for further evidence of our attempts at resolution. Caponer (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Caponer

LouisPhilippeCharles made significant edits to articles (and conducted mass-moves of articles) on members of the Royal House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies without any prior discussion or arbitration with fellow editors. LouisPhilippeCharles has been moving articles and editing information to the effect that he has chosen to rename "Princes and Princesses of Bourbon-Two Sicilies" to "Princes and Princesses of the Two Sicilies." LouisPhilippeCharles has provided no sources or reference data to stand by these mass edits and article moves. I've since undone many of his edits and article moves, but there continues to be debate without his providing of references or sources to stand by his claims. In line with Wikipedia's policy for arbitration, I have decided to bring our disagreement for a solution here. LouisPhilippeCharles has been both respectful and civil, but his past unilateral actions have caused me some concern. I have provided LouisPhilippeCharles with the following rationale for keeping the articles "Princes and Princesses of Bourbon-Two Sicilies" and NOT "Princes and Princesses of the Two Sicilies":

When you say that you are not satisfied with the articles "at all"...what does this "at all" comprise of? Are the articles not grammatically correct? Are the data provided not accurate? If "at all" is pertaining to the titles of members of Royal House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, you may need to take your concern to the members of the royal house themselves, for they use "Bourbon-Two Sicilies", "Borbone delle Due Sicilie", "Borbón-Dos Sicilias", "Bourbon de Deux-Siciles", etc. etc. At no time did any Prince or Princess regard themselves as a Prince or Princess "of the Two Sicilies." Not even when the Kingdom was in its existence. You'll also notice that no other Wikipedia site refers to them as being "of the Two Sicilies." Please check out the two official sites of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies here and here. You'll notice there that the official press statements of the family use "Bourbon-Two Sicilies." The "Bourbon-Two Sicilies" surname is also used to describe them by a number of third parties including but certainly not excluding: thePeerage.com, and AnOnlineGotha, etc. An Online Gotha even mentions at the top of the Two Sicilies page: "The children, and the children of sons, of the head of the house, bear the title Prince[ss] Royal of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (Royal Highness). Other members of this family bear the title Prince[ss] of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (Royal Highness)." So given this, I would please ask you to be more specific with your grievance. In the meantime, I will find an appropriate venue for this conversation to take place. --Caponer (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, LouisPhilippeCharles and I have also had some disagreement about members of the Royal House of Orléans. In English, members of this family are known as "Princes and Princesses of Orléans" and LouisPhilippeCharles has been renaming articles "Princes and Princesses d'Orléans" when "d'" is the French version and not the English one. I would like for an arbitration committee to please find a solution so that these disagreements can be settled. Caponer (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Louis Philippe Charles

Two Scilies

having moved many of the articles within the Two Sicilies family, myself and Caponer have had a mild disagreement! i moved many of them as it makes more sense that they are titled as Prince/ss X of the Two Sicilies simply because a person is not a Prince/ess of a royl house; one is not an Infante of Bórbon, Son of Bourbon of Grand Duke of Romanov, he is an Infante of Spain, Son of France and Grand Duke of Russia. I can understand the reasoning behind Caponer naming them as Bourbon-Two Scilies but this could be seen as misleading to people who are not familiar with wiki naming conventions and people who are just visiting for whatever reason.

The italian name of these Princes is Prince X di Borbone delle Due Sicilie, thus indicating that delle Due Sicilie (of the Two Siclies) is indeed a style. as i have said, one is not a prince of a royal house, he is a prince of a nation!

surely the most simple way (again going back to ease of access for people regardless of what they are here for) is to have all the article as the Two Sicilies. i say this as to me, it seems logical for them to be named this for the noted reasons! also, Caponer gave me some link and they also name people as X of the Two Sicilies rather then di Borbone delle Due Sicilie. surely this style of translation is best for Wikipedia as well as consistency! some articles are called Bourbon-Sicilies and others of the Two Sicilies! this is very misleading to the untrained eye!

another point of mine, is reagrding the Naples and Sicily dispute; Princess Luisa Carlotta of Naples and Sicily (1804-1844; future Duchess of Cadiz) was born as such, and now known as Bourbon-Two Sicilies!? this is misleading also as it makes our she was born as a princess of the united kingdoms, when she was not! it needs to be sorted out! how does it make sense!? her sister called Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies, even in the first line it says principessa delle Due Sicilie! later on; Her Spanish name was María Cristina de las Dos Sicilias..)

i also cant help but say, this..;Hello Louis, I created the majority of the Bourbon-Two Sicilies articles[..] as he write on talk page a few days ago; i can help but feel that Caponer has a slight issue with people changing/editing the majority of these articles in which I [he] created! that sort of dispute is not fair at all

I hope my little rationale has helped :)

Princes d'Orléans

With regards to this hot topic, i have said it once and will say it again however many times it takes; the title of Prince of Orléans is fine, that is a style, a title by ones birth! i, and many others, have an issue with the translation of the surname for example Prince (prince taken from the wiki convention as he is not a monarch and only a duke) Louis Philippe Charles d'Orléans, Duke of the Two Sicilies, Prince of Orléans! when d'Orléans is a surname it is not translated; however as a Duke/Prince of Orléans, this is allowed as it is the correct style! an old example of Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Orléans (1676-1723); a more recent example is Prince Jean Carl Pierre Marie d'Orléans, Duke of Vendôme, Prince of Orléans! is it so difficult for people to understand :(

as a member of the House of Orléans, he is a prince of Orléans which as noted, is his style! but his surname is d'Orléans. i hope this makes sense! people seem to find it very hard to understand :( LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Giano

I don't edit these pages and don't want to become involved, but if you want the correct answer explaining drop by my talk.  Giano  13:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0)

• Decline arbitration at this time because arbitration is not the best way to resolve this dispute. The Arbitration Committee usually resolves disputes concerning allegations that editors have behaved improperly. Formal arbitration is a contentious process generally regarded as a last resort. Here, the dispute appears to be a content disagreement between knowledgeable good-faith editors about what the articles should be titled or say. There are other steps in dispute resolution that are better suited to resolving this disagreement, such as a third opinion, request for comment or mediation. Please pursue one of these avenues toward resolving this disagreement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per Brad. Steve Smith (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per Brad. SirFozzie (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline as a content dispute that doesn't appear to have gone through other steps in dispute resolution. Arbitration is considered to a last resort for issues revolving around user conduct. If you're unable to come to an agreement, try asking some other users for their thoughts on the issue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per Brad. KnightLago (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per Brad. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per Brad and Hersfold. Shell ^babelfish 03:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline:  Roger Davies ^talk 05:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per NYB. - Mailer Diablo 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)