Requests for comment/Harassement, intimidation and WP's rules infringements and abuse by French WP's administrator JPS68 and others

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. The user is directed to avail themselves of local dispute resolution procedures, see fr:Wikipédia:Comité d'arbitrage. I also should note that users involved in a RfC are more than anybody else welcome and invited to comment, and to try and tell them not to is silly. Snowolf How can I help? 13:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone.
My username on the French Wikipedia (WP) is Yoav1D3.
I'll start this Request For Comments (RFC), by a quote : "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely".
French WP's administrator JPS68 made this pattern the cornerstone of his interventions against all French WP's contributors involved in editing articles about the israeli-palestinian conflict while their contributions were duly sourced with reliable and verifiable sources and respectful of the principle of neutrality.
Though JPS68 behavior is the most revolting and blatant, he is not the only administrator in this case, substantial and not less abusive practices in complete violations of the rules of WP and their prerogative have been made by other administrators while the aim is the same. Intimidate, discourage punish these contributors in order to stifle them to prevent a fair and neutral presentation of the israeli-palestinian conflict in the French WP's related article, while in the same time they turn a blind eye on some other contributors involved in edit wars and others aggressive patterns against these so-called "Israeli/Zionist propagandist".

Before I'll presents the facts, I wish to underline that the French WP's arbitration committee is not operational and under decision-making discussion and that last but not least my account on the French Wikipedia's has been blocked indefinitely on 27 November,2012 by administrator Starus as an "intermediate measure" while I filled a Request to the administrators (RAA) on 19 November, 2012 about blatant abuses of user Prijgzeorij (complaint which has been dismissed on 29 December 2012 by administrator Sardur although two more contributors also filled complaints against this user on 21 November, 2012 and 25 November,2012), and followed by another RAA on 24 November, 2012 about the same user who had published an [[:w:fr:Discussion:Opération_Pilier_de_défense#Probl.C3.A8me_de_caricature_et_d.C3.A9s.C3.A9quilibre_des_images|anti-Semitic cartoon of en:Carlos Latuff] in the talk page of the article "Pilier de défense"]. This complaint, had been dismissed by administrator Kimdime after he wrote previously "adjective "anti-Semitic" attributed to this drawing seems at least specious". The motive of my blocking by Starus was that "the only use of this account is to feed discussions or polemics in support to other accounts".

In conclusion to this introduction I would like to mention that I had alerted steward Trijnstel, on 21 August 2012 about JPS68 abuses, that she advised me the same day to start a Request For Comments and that on 30 August 2012, I informed her that I will postpone my RFC in order to give a chance to dialogue with JPS68 as I've been asked by administrator Creasy. This message to Trijnstel was commented by Creasy as follows on 21 August 2012:"Your request to the administrators, your threats to realize a RFC or to call upon a steward are all methods you are only using to serve your vision of an editorial conflict". Unfortunately this trial on was not only unsuccessful but became a new opportunity for JPS68 to make new attacks, defamations and threats as recorded in my discussion on 11 November with Creasy on my talk page and after I tried to demand advices from administrators on 7 November 2012 in the administrator's bulletin. This demand became also an opportunity for additional personal and collective attacks by JPS68, Starus and user Lebob. In response, I received another message on my talk page on 8 November 2012 from Creasy saying: "If you had only demanded explanation on your case, and avoided to advertise this request in diverse inappropriate places, you would have not given me the impression that you are disorganizing Wikipedia for personal arguments" . I was warned not to do RAA, not to alert Trijnstel or fill an RFC, advised to address JPS68 on his talk page, which I did, following his "answers" which will be detailed below, I requested comments from WP's administrators and still I am accused of disorganizing Wikipedia and finally when I expose factually on 11 November 2012 all the issues concerning JPS68 to Creasy on my own talk page, his answer is "Remarkable citation and organization work in your argument: However, I have no, absolutely no desire to dedicate time to respond to your questions point by point. I intervened only to give you advices. Advices that you have visibly not followed, besides one. Now for the content of your conflict, I am not interested at all and I do not want to take part from one side or the other. I will thus refrain from following you by answering to your boring tome."

JPS68's abuses[edit]

19 January 2012, JPS68, block for 3 days Sylway: “You are blocked without warning for your general conduct on WP. Also I am asking my administrators colleague to decide on your case.” This blocking follows a RAA made on January 16,2012 by Deuxtroy As a comment to Deuxtroy’s RAA JPS68 wrote on 16 January 2012 : "umpteenth complains against Sylway and consorts whose interventions have had only one goal, to minor Tsahal’s responsibilities. Facing such obstinacy to defend their POV, it seems to me that considering their “combat”, only a community arbitrage against these proselytes can ease the situation. The arguments brought up by Deuxtroy are the base". On January 17 he add: "To gauge the conflict, I place myself only on the side of those who suffer for a long time the PoVpusching of Sylway, David 5772 and associate, let it be sharp and clear. And when I say " gang" this is about this group that I'm talking and no one else." In order not to weight down this point, I will simply point out that the remarks made by Sylway on the Sabra and Shatila article's talk page, 3 Javier 2012, that this assassination was committed by Phalanges in order to revenge their leader, Lebanese president at that time Bachir Gemayel among other facts, 4 Javier 2012, 8 Javier 2012, 15 Javier 2012 which are at the origin of this RAA have finally been added by Sylway to the discussed article on 14 June 2012. This blocking of Sylway which was “for conservatory reasons” diff so that, “the administrators decide collectively on the future of this contributor on WP”, was not followed by any decision from the administrators. JPS68 deleted from his talk page on 27 January 2012 the explanation request made by Sylway on 23 January 2012, while warning him to “prepare for a virtual hearing in front of the arbitrage committee”.

March 13th 2012 JPS68 wrote as a comment "However, I see and it is not new, an intense PoVpushing from Sylway to impose his lobbying pro Tsahal and disorganize the encyclopedia. I think that we should seriously consider a blocking of this heckler who has been lurking for way too long the Sabra and Chatilla page to a RAA filled the same day by Sylway against Deuxtroy for personal attacks and lies.

March 22, 2012 an anti-Semitic message is posted in the talk page of the article on Sabra and Shatila: "This article is full of lies. It is a shame for the French, since it is their Wikipedia in French. It reminds us the old lie of the Jews saying that there were three Holocausts in three times, all in the last centuries. Why willing or allowing the protection of racist and murderers? Would it not be much more human that they accept their actions and ask for forgiveness, as civilized people? “. On 27 March 2012, David 5772 noting that anti-Semitic message is not purged by the administrators filed a RAA: "Anti-Semitic remarks" to the administrators to request the total purge of this message and the blocking of its author. The author was blocked for 3 days. After they argue if advocacy of hatred should be purged and getting to the conclusion that according to "Meta:Oversight#Policy nothing looks like that ". Later on Deuxtroy writes in this RAA "For information:, DNSBL [20], same like [21]". [20] is the anti-Semitic message IP's [21] is David 5772's. (David 5772 was publicized to all by Noisetier while he posted by mistake without login in to his account. He complained about it on 26 December 2011 and this lead to his blocking for 3 month. He was accused to had made judicial threats although he wrote quoting the law "On the other hand it is unacceptable (and possibly illegal and criminal to be the author of the disclosure of private information, but it is not the part that interests me, in any case as long as I will be a contributor here). On March 27, 2012 David 5772. files a RAA against Deuxtroy for the amalgam she made between himself and the author of the anti-Semitic message, reminding in his message how his IP was publicized and his remarks about publicizing private information. JPS68 answers to this RAA "What's next ? don't you push it too far, user David ? You dare starting from what you consider as innuendoes to assume that Empty citation (help)  would be susceptible to merit an exemplary blocking ? There will be no blocking for her but if you continue in this manner it will be you, again, that will be blocked. That's clear ? ". This was followed by a remark from administrator Hégésippe Cormier: "Tell me, it is an impression, or in the last sentence of David5772, it seems to me that there is an implicit threat of legal action ? to which JPS68 answered "The threat is actually made". David 5772 replied "You should read the passage you present as "threats" to Deuxtroy. it is a copy and paste from my post in December 2011 for which you have already asked my blocking for these alleged threats (which were not such as anyone may figure out ) which was done for three months :)". Starus blocked David 5772 for 6 month. Ubixman which wrote to Starus "what you say to be pursuing charges against Deuxtroy by David 5772 are of December 2011 and does not relate to Deuxtroy. This is verifiable and indisputable. Can you check? JPS68, replied by asking Ubixman blocking, demand supported by Starus. Ubixman has been blocked for a week.

18 April 2012, Ubixman ask JPS68 on his talk page about a specific WP recommendation "I want to ask if there is a reason "administratively" speaking for which you ignore all my requests for clarification on the rule of the 3 Reverts ?, JPS68 replied by making a false accusation against Ubixman accusing him that “since the first official day of you inscription on WP, you found without any problem the RAA page to demand the blocking of Deuxtroy” adding the hurtful words game about the “Crystal Night” “ this administrator, who, among his super powers received a crystal ball. May I wish you a quite night?” . JPS68 never answered to Ubixman’s denial of this accusation with evidences and explanation request about his words game.

May 11 2012, GastelEtzwane commented “I would like to respond to this request with this Arabic saying: the dog barks and the caravan passes” to Ubixman's RAA asking the administrators to explain to GastelEtzwane what a consensus is about. In response to Ubixman’s RAA on May 16,2012 following this comment, administrator Hégésippe Cormier denied that this comment was insulting and JPS68 accused Ubixman to be “continuously looking out and ferreting in all corners” to attempt to eliminate any contradictors” Ubixman’s demand to JPS68 to justify his allegation did not receive an answer.

August 13, 2012 Deborah1709 complain in a RAA about GastelEtzwane edit warring while a tag (3RR} affixed by myself while I am not involve in the edit warring neither in the discussion warns that one doing so will be blocked is affixed on the top of the page to prevent it. After a long discussion in which I was involved presenting the history of the 27 edit warring, she offered a compromise : she will agreed to withdraw her RAA under the commitment of JPS68 that GastelEtzwane will be blocked if he will restart edit warring. JPS68 accused me on August 19, 2012 of doing “a true indictment, worthy of a CAr [arbitration committee] in an attempt to bring down GastelEtzwane" while Sylway also brought evidences of it.I reminded to JPS68 that Deborah1709 could not make a clear presentation of GastelEtzwane edit warring as she was not use with WP and I asked if he agrees with Deborah1709's compromise proposal. JPS68 reply was "Unless you think I am an idiot, it is clear that I am including in the warning to GastelEtzwane the condition made by Deborah1709 to pull off this RA. Any infraction, from his side, at this modus vivendi will grant him a blockage. Same for you, by the way, Sylway and Ubixman, many times warned and blocked for PoVpusching." This new accusation is a lie. Sylway and I were blocked once the same day, 6 August 2011, for reverting once each one, edit warring, while a 3RR tag was affixed, this can be verified here and here Ubixman was never blocked for edit warring. GastelEtzwane has not been blocked although he continued edit warring.

August 20, 2012, I demand in a RAA to JPS68 to prove his accusations as well as those of another administrator Ludo29 that the 3RR tag was not legitimate therefore invalid. His reply was that he agrees with this administrator view adding " Furthermore, the instrumentalization of WP to political ends done by Yoav1D3, Ubixman, and Sylway cannot lead to a constructive dialogue with them even on their PDD pages. As predicted very justly by our colleague Malost, this posture will lead them straight into the wall.".

August 29 2012 Deborah1709 complain again in a new RAA in the same article about GastelEtzwane edit warring while again a tag (3RR} is affixed. JPS68 writes "I think that the one who intervened will gladly discover the suspicion of “sock puppet” that weight upon her. This will be my only answer." This was another lie the IP checking request made by Ludo29 based on a specious and misleading assertion establishing a possible link between Deborah1709 and myself : « An element rather disturbing tie each other, non-use of accented letters in their discussions. », I don't but Deborah1709 does, just mentioned " Same location, same ISP, but distinctly different signatures. It may still be of faux-nez ou de meatpuppetry, but the CU [Check user] is not able to establish it », while the location is the one of the ISP, Bezeq International-Ltd, Petach Tikva 49170 Israel, that provide internet connection to 1,15 million Israeli users, my IP was public since my message toTrijnstel, Deborah1709 disclosed her's in order to deny JPS68's allegation as it was demonstrate later on by Sylway. Nevertheless JPS68 made a rude remark to Deborah1709 adding "If there was only the ISP, you are forgetting that you have the same location than your alter ego or colleague Yoav1D3(d.c.b) and specially the duck test. The bullshit is over and I think that your blocking is justified".

November 1st, 2012 as mentioned in the introduction I contacted JPS68 on his talk page in order to clarify some of his problematic interventions. His answers among others were: "From a simple checking of your contributions – yours and your friends’ – it is self-evident that you have only one goal : manipulate WP and use it for your biased aims. You go on with your undermining work which bores your contradictors. If they resist, and you did it until last August, you massively post request to administrators in order to revile and block them. It is not a caricature and it sums up your intentions, Sylway’s, Deborrah1709 and Ubixman’s one.”, “Until now, Ubixman’s sickening blog committed last April 19th stayed out of WP, you know introduced it, if to surpass yourself the Goldwin point is a common exercise, I cannot accept to be called a Nazi without any reasons, one must have one’s head in a ghetto to forge two sentences and create an amalgamation.", You are undermining the work of your contradictors which bores them.". "A gap which makes the difference between you and us in the real life, the one of moral rectitude in front of your false methods." I asked to support his allegations with quotes and diffs (links to the quotes}, mentioned that he only focus on the "Crystal Night" issue with Ubixman and asked him to prove that Ubixman is the author of the blog he named. This blog, named " La wikipédiabolisation d'Israël" is in fact the work of a former WP's contributor Haneelam| blocked indefinitely , this could not been ignored by JPS68 as it's name is "". Moreover JPS68 himself was the one who cite this blog in his message and provided a link to it ([23]). His answer was "When will you stop considering yourself as a prosecutor ? WP exists to let everyone build an encyclopedia, not to become a court. I don’t have to prove the evidence and you know it. As far as Ubixman is concerned, the duck test is enough. No more." I replied that like any WP's contributor he have to respect its recommendation, to stay polite and to provide evidences to prove accusations. He answered "Are you going to stop this harassment? You want proofs, here they are, simply click on the c (=contribution) of the following users: Yoav1D3(d.c.b), Sylway (d.c.b), Ubixman(d.c.b) and Deborah1709(d.c.b). Everything I say is here. Now before giving me lessons on manners, to come talk to me about politeness, courtesy and respect, moderate your resentment if not your hatred toward myself, I didn’t call anyone a Nazi, neither did I make an amalgamation, that doesn’t honor you, between a crystal ball and a wish for a good night, to imagine a “Crystal Night”. I am thus expecting your excuses and your condemnations of the words written in this blog. If you do not obey, it will signify that you are making yours, those ignominies and that you are only on WP and on my PDD to seriously insult me and to attack me personally. You doubt the consequences. I answered " I note your reference to history as your justification for your various sentiments. I doubt it’s enough, because, as written above, WP terms require those allegations – and specially blocking – should be justified by evidences ? As for the blog you point out, being only a reader thanks to the link you supply yourself, and not responsible for it, I don’t have any excuse to deliver for its content. Concerning the sentiments written on that blog about you, and as you rejected any hostile allusion in your words about Ubixman, and according to the WP term asking to believe in the good faith of my interlocutors, following to this challenging, I only can disapprove of them. As for your order to comply with and your uncalled-for and unfounded presumptions, I referred you to : ”cordiality : contributions must be done with cordiality. Arguments exchanges close to the subject should be constructive, without any rude allusion, aggressive or insulting comments.” I inform you my intention to submit to your colleagues the content of this discussion He replied "Great! you show up on my talk page claiming I would have made “ an uncalled-for and hurting allusion about “Cristal Night””, central remark of your argumentation, and now you have the guts to claim that you are only an occasional reader of this disgusting blog, thanks to the link that I gave you, although it is the only one that has this hint? Do you think I am a retard or something Yoav1D3? You disapprove? But you will have to do more than that user Yoav1D3, since I find the signature of Sylway and Ubixman who, probably, completely by chance, wrote in there, you are going to take me away from the web this garbage.". As a matter of fact this blog was pointed out the first time to JPS68 on his own talk page on May 30th, 2012 by Ishpashout " somethings tell me that I was not mistaken" while he pretend that Sylway was the author of the blog as I reminded on November 11th, 2012 to Creasy during my discussion with him on my talk page about JPS68. The assertion that he "found the signature of Sylway and Ubixman" was another lie as it can be verify on that blog. In response to my demand of opinions about my late discussion with JPS68, he reiterate is baseless accusation against me "I hardly trust his good faith and his actual wish for a dialogue, above all using his “Cristal Night” that he took from an appalling blog.".

December 10th, 2012, as a response to Golestân message " " Unbelievable, the intimidation attempts towards users who don’t share the Zionist ideology ! What I find even more unbelievable is that some administrators forget their confidentiality duty and give credit to this kind of requests" in the RAA I filled a Request to the administrators (RAA) on 19 November, 2012 about blatant abuses of user Prijgzeorij (complaint which has been dismissed while two more contributors also filled complaints against this user on 21 November, 2012 and 25 November,2012), and followed by another RAA on 24 November, 2012 about the same user, JPS68 wrote: "What let you think such a wrong and ridiculous amalgamation ? I don’t know any administrator who would give credit to such a request and least of all anyone who would be outside of his duty (if you mean to support those who claim to adhere to the Zionist ideology).”

December 15th, 2012 a RAA was filled by GiL GooL against Vitefait about multiple abuses of WP's rules including vulgar insults which few administrators including JPS68 considered that they deserve a blocking, JPS68 wrote later on "In GilGool’s request against Vitefait, I only considered his scatological remarks and asked for his blocking. But this case takes another turn when one knows that David 5772 coming out from his blockage, on last November 23rd, warmly greeted Ubixman and went back to his regular contesting activities on WP. It’s the same for Deborah1709, Yoav1D3’s mask blocked by Starus and here, there is a blockage bypass. Elfix, following a RCU [user check] of Ludo29, said there were very close. So, plenty of masks not being a plague, I notice that user GG [GiL GooL], who so easily find his way to RA, seems to be an unexpected backing, he introduces request without having taken part to editing battles. We recognize Yoav’s methods at the duck’s test to strengthen me in this idea, he also asks for opinions request [28], same title than on BA “opinion request”. In response to this Sylway wrote " Good evening JPS68, could you please present the result of RCU done by Elfix stating that Deborah1709 is Yoav1D3’s mask? On the other hand, don’t you think that the use of the words "opinions request " is quiet common? Would it be against WP rules for a contributor to ask for the opinion of other contributors on a WP portal, in that case the one of Judaism, clearly concerned by these article and discussion and that the answer is made by this RA as explained here ? I remind you that Ubixman justified this way of doing in reaction of Vitefait’s sentence « “Hamas is an islamist movement. It is linked to Islam, a religion. So, a religious site linked to Judaism is a partisan source. One wonders how come a religious site gives its opinion on a party political charter, even if it is an Islamist party. They confuse their religion and an unconditional support of Israel.” Do you support such words and don’t you think they justify a RA? Regards." GiL GooL add "Administrator JPS68, anti-Semitism is a more than worrying problem. I have been asked for my opinion on this question in the framework of an article about anti-Semitic contents, clear and widely known, whose presentation is disputed on the adjoining page of discussion. The arguments, if they can be considered as so, brought to support this questioning, are all the same. That is to say, sources, quotations, references, coming from academics, famous experts, websites or organizations linked in a way or another to Judaism, are not qualified because named as Jews. Tolerate such slip-up is not acceptable. This is the reason of my contribution. Issues that I have pointed out, vandalism and dubious commentaries are up to you, you can take sanctions or not. As for your remarks, let me ignore them. I have no intention to participate to this discussion beyond this clarification" JPS68. david 5772 wrote "My blockage ended on September 28th, 2012. Can be checked here. To communicate with a contributor on his own PdD is not prohibited. My contributions started since November 20th didn’t break any WP rule". As a response to Sylway, JPS68 reiterate his allegations against Deborah1709 and myself which were later on refuted by Sylway. No measures were taken against Vitefait.

December 22th, 2012 Sylway fill a RAA against Vitefait for several vandalism and the re-inclusion of anti-Semitic propaganda he deleted in the article fr:Terrorisme Sioniste. AdministratorKimdime write "I do not argue with someone who introduced or reintroduced, it's the same for me, or links to Radioislam, that's quite clear. Therefore no opposition for blocking along Vitefait for my part. Sylway can also be blocked if it is estimated that he hinders the editorial process". JPS68 respond "I have a vision quite different from Kimdine on the case, as usual Sylway's non collaborative attitude became public. If there is really someone to block it's him and nobody else. "Adding later] "What cannot be accepted Sylway, is your obvious bad faith, your inability to calmly confront your views with those of others to reach a compromise, your unwavering commitment to want to load on administrators the burden to eliminate your opponents by depositing successive RAA. In short, I ask your long to final blocking." Few minutes later, JPS68 fill a RAA against Sylway.

30 December 2012, Hégésippe Cormier dismissed the RAA against Vitefait.

5 January 2013 Sardur blocked Sylway for 3 months following JPS68 request.

Sorry for the lenght, but one year of harassment, excluding edit warring and other offensive comments can't be summarize shorter.

Thank you in advance for your comments. Yoav1D3.


Each Wikipedia is independent of the others, and of Meta-Wiki. This RFC has no sense. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That affirmation makes no sense, in fact, its name explains what is this section for: it's for commenting about problems in any of the Wikimedia projects, to gain consensus and undertake actions. For sure, each Wikipedia organises as wanted, but this is the coordinating project. Furthermore, I'd recommend you to not participate in this RFC, since you're one of the subjects exposed in thos RFC. Tokvo (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't 'participate in this RFC': it's enough to say that it has no sense. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 15:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since my name doesn't come up in this report, I'll take the opportunity to make the same remark : this RFC makes no sense, as Meta is for coordination between different projects (or to check all projects operate under the same basic goals and guidelines, and complies to the WMF policies), and here only one project is involved (and one big enough to ensure the community can handle POV-pushing as well or better as Meta - not perfectly of course, but good enough for practical purpose). Here's a case of someone looking for another decision of the community when he disagrees with the first - so he's looking for another community. Do what you want of it, but whatever decision is reached here on meta won't be binding on fr.wp, so it's mostly irrelevant - hence Hégésippe's remark. Esprit Fugace (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 the user is trying to get a community overruled by presenting its case here. This RFC is a conspiracy theory involving dozens of good standing admins, at least a check user, a steward ... nothing else to add. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, see Requests for comment/Sysop abuse on the Turkish Wikipedia as an example. It's coordination between projects, that doesn't imply that only multiple projects can be dealt. Tokvo (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no apology for your illegitimate attempt to limit my legitimate freedom of speech in a request where I am involved. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a party to this conflict, so please take into consideration the fact that I totally agree with Esprit fugace and Pierre Selim in their opinion - my English writing is basic, so please read this post in French : N'étant pas partie prenante de ce conflit, je vous prie de prendre en considération le fait que je rejoins totalement Esprit fugace et Pierre Selim dans leurs avis. Thank you, Égoïté (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the comments above from French WP's administrators aimed to one point: Reject in advance any external involvement from Meta- Wiki (Wikimedia) that could endanger the ability of the involved administrators to commit severe abuses and violate WP's rules in order to harass and ban contributors denouncing bias in the presentation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict including blatant Anti-Semitic propaganda and remarks in the French WP. Yoav (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a Lie, neither Egoité or I are administrators on french WP. Please stop your disruptions. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote is "All the comments above from French WP's administrators aimed to" this do not mean that all the comments above are from administrators of the French WP. Actually this formulation exclude all comments except those of the administrators. Now, there are 2 possibilities. You have a poor english and you misunderstood the sentence. You're just an agressive, rude and unpolite person. In both cases you're apology is not interesting me. Just take out your comment. If you will not do so within a reasonable time after my warning on your talk page, I will submit this issue to the Wikimedia Forum. Yoav (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify a point: French Wikipedia ArbCom is now functionnal, new arbiters having been elected in March. --Dereckson (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]