Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sclua

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. 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:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''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.''

Cause of concern
''{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.

behaviour problems
(the first few diffs are on spanish, sorry for that)


 * he compares denying the catalan origin of the bars with denying the nazi holocaust


 * says that only aragonese historians or heraldists support the aragonese origin, and he has removed one catalan author from a sourced list in order to support this (see section "deleting sources he doesn't like and misquoting") P.D.: See Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Catalonia, it seems that he was not misquoting that source, but he was wrong anyways.


 * says that Fatás, Montaner and Ubieto (famous aragonese historians and heraldist, with catedras or assistant to catedras, several books and awards) are "ultras", interested, partial, fanatized, amoral, the sames of always, aragonese nationalists, without a minimum of prestige, and ultranationalists . He also calls "ultra" a spanish wikipedia editor . In spanish, es:Ultra_(política) is " the term that designates generally the radical political position referred to the extreme right, which can be applied to persons, violent behaviours or ideologies.".


 * implies that he won't accept any historian or heraldist that "hasn't got a minimum of prestige or isn't aragones"


 * absolutely no hint ever on any edit that the problems, reverts and warnings could be due to mistakes made by him. According to his posts, it's all the fault of aragonese editors, ignorant editors, anticatalan editors, censors from spanish wikipedia, fascist hackers, etc.


 * not understanding NPOV and acting as if wikipedia was a battleground to impose an idea "you have the same right as me to impose your ideology in the lead but i have the more prestigious sources (...) on my side"


 * racial slurs towards User:Maurice27
 * "nobody say 'red bars', southamerican!!"
 * justifying on ANI the above racial slur "sothamerican!!" because he was called "You are absolutly ignorant in heraldic matters.", see complain at ANI
 * trying repeatedly to edit Chile (here, here, here and here) to add that it's a Thirld World country, apparently just because Maurice27 has a reference to Chile on his user page. He also deleted a complain from Maurice27 from Chile's talk page saying, ironically enough, that insults are not allowed on the wikipedia . He said as justification of his edits that all the countries should say this, but he has only tried to insert it into Chile, and only after entering a dispute with Maurice27.
 * He blanked Maurice27's warnings from his talk page claiming that "you have no moral authority to reproach me for anything"
 * Sclua gets warned by other editors to stop:
 * User:CenterofGravity warned him to stop vandalizing Chile
 * User:Likeminas warns him for "obsessively try[ing] to add the phrase "third world" (...) Placing irrelevant, already noted or otherwise non-related material is sufficient grounds for swift removal (...)", and that he would be reported for repeated offenses
 * User:Dúnadan agrees with Maurice27's assesment of the edits on Chile
 * starting a second ANI thread complaining that he is being called racist and xenophobic
 * only stopped after a warning from an admin
 * he still believes that it's ok to reply to "absolutely ignorant in heraldry" with "southamerican!!", and that his edits to Chile where not wrong, and that Maurice27 attacked him, and he complained that the admin warning was a "threaten against me" . Let me repeat this: he still believes that there was nothing wrong with his edits to Chile


 * misunderstanding what other editors do, and then assuming bad faith:


 * "I think Jotamar is trying that some administrator blocks this article in his aragonese nationalist version"


 * "I see your are sent all the sources that you don't like at the bottom of the page and sent at the top your monosource." (what really happened was this, where some sources were used only on the body or only on the lead, and I used them on both places. No idea how Sclua can reach the conclusion that I removed sources from the lead)


 * "They are trying to block me, are trying that i leave to edit, i am suffering mobbing from both users with lots of threatens.''" (he refers to the level 3 and level 4 warning I left on his talk page after he removed and misquoted sources several times on a row)


 * see RSN thread where he accusses me of trying to clear the sources I don't like after confusing one word with other.


 * He seems to carry a lot of grudges from the spanish wikipedia, which he believes to be as heavily censored as chinese wikipedia, and believes that editors disputing his edits are trying to impose the same censorship here


 * lots of time wasted by other editors dealing with him. As of 3 july, almost all 59 KB of Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Catalonia consist of trying to get Sclua to reach a consensus with other editors and discuss arguments on the talk page, and of Sclua accusing everyone else on the page of being biased, while other editors show him specific points where he is wrong.


 * when he has problems to access a page, he claims that he is being targetted by fascist Spanish hackers "i have an illegal hacker block (...) i think a fascist Spanish hacker has blocked my access [to a certain talk page]", he also complains on a user talk page . He still believes that he was being hacked, declines the advice from other editor saying that "Perhaps there are expert hackers with more knowledge than you" and he believes that an "anonymous expert" must have solved his problem


 * Sclua's behaviour is getting worse, and still shows no regret or understanding of having done anything wrong. After being blocked for edit-warring, he removes my questions with no comment, he still insists that his edits are sourced and that the other editor's edits are unsourced, and he also extends the accussations of bias to the blocking admin --Enric Naval (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

problems with other editors

 * insistance that editors who don't agree with him are either:
 * biased
 * spanish nationalists (or aragonese nationalists, or anticatalans)
 * mobbing him. blanking warnings as "mobbing i am suffering from an Aragonese nationalist", but they were warnings to get him to stop mass-reverting to a POV version, ignoring the mediation result, and misquoting.
 * lying (see how many edit summaries on his contributions contain the word "lie" or "liar"
 * using sources full of lies
 * have "gone beyond the limits of the decency"
 * spanish fascism, worse than chinese fascim
 * repeating some unespecified bad faith behaviour from spanish wikipedia "nobody knows what is happened on the Spanish wikipedia but everybody knows what happens in the Chinesese or Iranian ones."
 * ignorant, have read only read biased websites, have not read a book about the topic on their life
 * insists that Maurice27 and Enric Naval have only used an aragonese website as source, despite Maurice 27 adding a heraldry book and the spanish government as sources, a book by historian Payne (on that edit Maurice27 erases a ref mistake and restores it later
 * "have not read enough to edit this article"
 * "what is happening here that i am talking with people (jotamar, naval,maurice) that accept that they have not read a book about this article, only your websites."
 * this behaviour started before either User:Enric Naval or User:Maurice27 entered in contact with him "[Jotamar is] an ignorant that hasn't read anything but aragoneses nationalists versions and thinks that he (they) has got the truth." "jotamar has't any idea that they're talking about."  "no idea from anyone that has not read nothing"  "''(...), ignorant. (...)"
 * several of the above items


 * insistance that editors at eswiki are all anticatalans "Spanish Wikipedia (a place full of anticatalans)", that I (Enric Naval) have tried in bad faith to block pro-catalan POV " Enric Naval specialist in request blocks against Catalan editors on the Spanish wikipedia like this when he demanded to an administrator to block the user Periku" (see  first ANI thread)


 * insistance that aragonese editors are obviously biased "On my page talk only see Aragonese users for obvious reasons (...)"


 * after failing to revert to his version, he tags the article saying "this version is ultra Aragonese nationalist version, full of lies and nonsenses"

continuosly reverting to his version

 * Reverting continuously to his version on
 * Crown of Aragon
 * Coat of arms of Catalonia‎
 * Senyera


 * mass reverts that steamrolled several neutral improvements on Crown of Aragon and on Senyera

deleting sources he doesn't like and misquoting

 * he repeatedly deletes a catalan author from a sourced list so he can say that a certain theory is supported by "aragonese authors only", (he has done this like a dozen times already) . He acusses me of bad faith when restoring the info . He also says that "Outside Aragon nobody waste the time with such amount of nonsenses" . He also doesn't have problems on using that same source for supporting his point or using other encyclopedias after he complained that we shouldn't use encyclopedias as a source.
 * it seems that the catalan author was actually not sourced, but he had actually given support to that theory, despite Sclua's claims that he had never done such a thing, see Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Catalonia.


 * insisting that sources that don't agree with him are full of lies or wrong or biased
 * "Britannica source is false. Incredible what the aragoneses are writing!!"


 * insisting to using an unverifiable reference that cites no specific work, just a list of authors (this is the reference that he refers to later when he says that he brings prestigious sources to the article)


 * insisting that all aragonese sources are biased and should not be used, and removing a certain aragonese source for a statement that he doesn't think that it's correct, saying for example that a encyclopedia source should not be used but then using that same aragonese on a different place to support one of his statements


 * complaining that a prestigious source is being removed while removing a similar source that doesn't support his ideas on the same edit


 * insisting on citing primary sources when secondary sources contradict him . See also this discussion, where he first cherry picks the sources and then saying the sources are invalid once he's called on it


 * says that using a exact wording from a source is not NPOV, later he sayshere that Enric Naval is "falsifying the work of Stanley G. Payne". After reading his post, I agree that the exact wording is probably out of context and unnecessary, but that's after being accused of POV and of falsifying a historian's work. After my experience with him, I didn't expect from him to apologize or to say something about misunderstandings and I didn't bother to ask for them since I'm sure I would have reeived insults and accussations as the only reply. He never assumed good faith at any moment.


 * using strange arguments to remove sources he doesn't agree with, like removing a heraldry book because "is not official book"


 * continuously tries to remove a source from government of aragon that is sourced to an aragonese historian, then tries to replace it with a source that doesn't talk about the flag but about the emblem and says that it's the statement of "all members of International Heraldry Academy" (it's only the statement of one)


 * tries to remove references to all aragonese books, with no explanation of why


 * believes any mention of anything Spanish on a Catalonia article has to be false, and removes it on sight . Also removes anything that could remotely support aragonese theories, like a mention on Encyclopedia Britannica of a certain flag


 * tries to make the catalan origin version be the official version, leaving the aragonese origin version as an alternative one


 * insistance that he can prove what he says "I can prove that the authors do not state what they both are falsely pretending they say" but when secondary sources are shown to be saying otherwise, he says that the sources are not valid and tries to go back to primary sources.


 * claims knowledge of a subject, and turns out to be dead wrong when the sources are actually checked. He states that a certain author does not dispute a theory, and says that this was a proof that we hadn't read his works, but he did dispute the theory, so Sclua hadn't really read his works. See Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Catalonia

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.


 * Assume good faith (WP:AGF)
 * Neutral Point Of View (WP:NPOV)
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground (WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND)
 * Verifiability (WP:V)
 * Burden of evidence (WP:BURDEN)
 * The Truth (WP:TRUTH) This is a humorous essay, but I (Enric) think that it applies prefectly to part of the behaviour of this editor.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute and failing

 * User:Dendodge, mediation cabal. Asking for a compromise between Sclua and User:Jotamar to avoid an edit war, asking to "just leave it how it is and work on improving the article" by mentioning both sides , making a vote  which was closed as consensus to keep both aragonse and catalan sides on the article , closing case as settled . The mediation page is here.


 * Sclua ignores the mediation result and removes the whole aragonese version on his first edit on the article after the voting, and on his second edit using some excuse about the seals , then goes on an edit war with Jotamar.


 * User:Enric Naval, informal mediation, see looong section analyzing the problems, after reverting to Sclua version and then working from there for a compromise version. After several improvement, Sclua's answer was removing again the aragonese version and misquoting again the GEA source in exactly the same way again


 * first answer on the talk page is only to complain about problems to edit page and then to refuse any version expect his and saying that we should accept legends as sources, that the versions by other editors are "editions full of lies with no reliable nor prestigious sources" . Notice that he is using his personal interpretation to justiy his edits, not the sources' interpretation.


 * User:Maurice27 is asked by another user to look at the article, has tried to improve the article with some heraldic sources, and has created Coat of arms of the Crown of Aragon to offload material that Sclua just won't allow on Coat of arms of Catalonia.
 * Sclua has acussed Maurice27 of bias and has insulted him and undone many of his edits, and Sclua is still edit warring to keep his version.

Desired outcome
''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:
 * he can make mistakes, and other editors might be right
 * notable historians and heraldists are not ultranationalist just because they are aragonese and they don't agree with the catalan origin theory
 * he is not the only editor qualified to know what the article should say
 * he should assume good faith on the other editors instead of assuming lies and falsifications

In short, that Sclua becomes a collaborative editor.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.


 * User:Maurice27
 * User:Enric Naval
 * User:Jotamar I had a conflict with Sclua over the same page at an earlier time, later I stopped editing the page because I thought that users Maurice27 and Enric Naval had better knowledge than myself about the subject. The dispute was in essence the same, stemming from the fact that Sclua is convinced of certain historical facts almost as if he had been there in person, so he feels qualified to remove any source or point of view that he doesn't approve of, regardless of Wikipedia's rules and principles, and regardless of other editors. --Jotamar (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.



Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response
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 have just read part of this thread and i only want to say that when i said that "Britannica source is false. Incredible what the aragoneses are writing" i forgot to write "'s", so the correct phrase would be "Britannica's source is false". I had just looked up this Enciclopedya and i had found nothing at all about this statement so this is the reason to say that it was "incredible", incredible that an user could make up a statement.--Sclua (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC) (when i have time i will teach why Sagarra did not support the "dispute" theory on talk page.)
 * i have no idea how it works wikipedia, i do not know what will happen. i compromise myself to avoid comments to others users but, as i said, wikipedia has to help me to stop them. Prestigious sources can not be denied or placed to a secondary row. (two aragonese and one latin american interested in coat of arms of catalonia when the article coat of arms of Aragon still does not exist. i am wonder if anybody have wondered the reason. ep! it was created yesterday, incredible) --Sclua (talk) 12:01, 8 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)

Response to concerns
{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.



Questions
''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. 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." 

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", 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", 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, 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.

Additional view by Neil
I warned Sclua on June 26 to stop edit-warring on Coat of arms of Catalonia (. Sclua continued to edit-war on the article .  I therefore blocked Sclua for 24 hours on 3 July following further edit-warring. . Neıl  龱  08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:


 * Neıl 龱  08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Enric Naval (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * MauritiusXXVII  (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 07:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional view by Coppertwig
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:


 * I agree. Even on the most egregious cases, it's better to assume that the editor has untentionally misquoted or has misunderstood the source, and then state what you think that the source says and why you think that the other editor's interpretation is incorrect. Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * MauritiusXXVII  (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional view by Cnoguera
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:


 * I agree with the assessment of the situation, and I also hope that we can find a collaborative option. Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * MauritiusXXVII  (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional views
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:



Proposed solutions
''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. ''

Sclua topic banned
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.


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sclua limited to talk pages
2) Same as #1, but Sclua would be limited to proposing changes on the talk pages, not being allowed to edit the articles themselves


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sclua on civility parole
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.


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Discussion
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.