Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:08, 8 December 2010

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: AGK (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Inclusion of Paul Siebert in the case

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

As a courtesy, someone can let Paul Siebert know that he's been mentioned here, but I haven't seen any evidence thus far of any conduct by this editor that would warrant bringing him into the case or an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I don't see evidence of misconduct by this user, as opposed to his happening to have made some edits that others disagree with. But in any event, he seems to be on notice of the case already, and someone can point him to this thread, and if more evidence comes in we will look at it. (Incidentally, arbitrators watchlist the case pages; there is no need to leave us talkback templates.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would like to add this user as a involved party. Involved in the dispute, made several controversial edits/reversions, see [1] and [2]. MikeNicho231 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs themselves implies that the user is a part in the case. YOu can also look into the WW2 article history, where the user has been doing several aggressive removals and reverts of factual war history. The user has been informed that he has a possible connection to the case, look here. MikeNicho231 (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't see how those edits by Paul were in any way 'controversial'. I reverted the second one, and we're discussing it on the article's talk page per normal practice - it's not actually very 'controversial' as we basically agree with the content but need to work out a way to include it in the article (and I think it needs a stronger reference). Paul has been involved in many discussions concerning this article and if wants to be involved in this case he'd bring a useful perspective, but there seems to be no reason to rope him in, particularly on the basis of the above posts. Nick-D (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participation of Georgewilliamherbert in this case

2)

My understanding is that parties cannot be added by a filing party beyond the pre-filing phase. I'm therefore asking Arbcom to consider adding as a party, or least canvassing administrator Georgewilliamherbert to make a statement. I did not include Georgewilliamherbert at the pre-filing phase because at that time he was understood to be recovering from illness.

GWH is aware of my application to Arbcom, but so far has not participated. Nor has GWH responded to my posting at his userpage concerning misconduct by party Habap, and other postings [3] and [4] concerning matters that have direct relevance to this case.

Arbcom may recall that GWH volunteered several months ago to intervene in the NPOV dispute, which he did, but in a most unsatisfactory manner. The core issue of NPOV was more or less completely ignored by GWH, though he did at one point admit to the possible need for a review to be undertaken of World War II article sources. Beyond that, nothing happened apart from three blockings being imposed on me by GWH for some very minor infringements. The NPOV dispute was allowed, perhaps even unintentionally encouraged, to escalate unchecked by GWH. An Rfc/U that GWH undertook to file never materialised. Communicat (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Anyone may notify Georgewilliamherbert that he has been mentioned here and invite him to make a statement or present evidence by December 17th. I do not currently see a basis for making him a formal party, unless significant new evidence is presented regarding him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

My understanding was that when Communicat filed, he listed Georgewilliamherbert as a formal party and left him a message to that effect. I know Georgewilliamherbert has been sick so he may have missed that. Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't see any reason to add GWH as a party. He showed up as an uninvolved editor and admin to help sort things out after Communicat's first arb request. His admin actions (blocking Communicat a couple times for personal attacks and the like) were well within admin discretion. His advice to Communicat was generally sound and well-spoken, and even supportive of Communicat's professed editing goals of adding non-Western sources to Wikipedia, as long as policy is followed.[5] It could be helpful to the arbs if GWH were to make a statement though. I would consider his take on things to be highly credible. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that I'm not a party; I was not involved in the content disputes per se, but acting as an uninvolved administrator.

I could put in both a bit of evidence and a bit of commentary / statement; I'm mulling over the best venue (evidence, evidence talk, main case talk). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side note - I understand I was asked to get involved with the behavior of Habap and others; I am not willing to take action in this case while arbcom is reviewing. Nothing approaching the level of requiring uninvolved admin actions in the middle of a case is going on. I can address the prior admin actions and the unfortunately incompleted RFC attempt. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to Georgewilliamherbert's question above about venue) If your input can by any reasonable measure be described as evidence, the evidence page would be the best place for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Si. After the ... umpteen more hours of online training required by work are done tonight, I'll start writing it up for the evidence page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly relevant to putting in a statement, but...

I just noticed this issue:

I wasn't a named party, last I'd checked before the case was accepted, but I apparently was added by NuclearWarfare prior to acceptance ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=399418587 ). I am somewhat perplexed ...

A) Why? (NW?)

B) The notification the clerk sent out to my talk page didn't indicate that I was a party, just that the case was open. I routinely get these for things I commented on but am not a party to; the notifications probably should have a big bold "You're a named party" flag if you are.

(back to online training. yee haw.) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I contest GWH's assertion above that he was "not involved in the content disputes per se, but acting as an uninvolved administrator." GWH will recall that he intervened immediately after my request alleging POV-bias was declined by the mediation committee because Nick-D and another party refused consent to mediation. The Primary issues as detailed in my request of 21 August 2010 were:

POV bias through omission. Alternative / opposing / controversial non-Western majority and Western revisionist / significant-minority positions which deviate from conservative mainstream paradigm are not incorporated in article. Hence article not NPOV.
Double standards in source evaluation. One allegedly dubious, revisionist source/link subjected to intensive scrutiny and rigorous vetting, whereas at least 27 other identifiable, non-revisionist, dubious sources are permitted, perhaps even encouraged. This Mediation request does not concern merits or demerits of allegedly dubious revisionist source as referred to, but concerns specificially the issue of double-standards (i.e. POV bias) in vetting and acceptance of sources.

Given the above principal issues, of which GWH must have been well aware, his intervention was connected directly with a matter of content dispute. To set my mind at rest as to his competency for resolving a military history content/NPOV dispute, GWH even described himself as a "defense analyst" with a personal library of "250 military history books". In the event, however, he failed completely to address the content/NPOV dispute, opting instead to focus singularly on my alleged lack of collegiality, which is not what the dispute was about. Nor did GWH address the general lack of civility displayed by the other involved editors. His approach, IMO, was noticeably biased.

To his credit, however, GWH later conceded in separate discussion with me that: There is nothing wrong with non-western sources. Please see our reliable sources policy and our source verification policy ... we write Wikipedia as a neutral reference source]]. WP:NPOV is one of our core community principles in writing the encyclopedia. That means that non-western viewpoints are welcome. But it also means that editorializing in the encyclopedia is inappropriate. If the Russian consensus opinion on aspects of WW II history, among respected Russian historians, is different from "US / Western" consensus on specific points or opinions, that's fine - that's a opinion which is notable and something we can include as alternate interpretations of the history. Specific examples and references of that are fine ... (It is) important to differentiate between including significant opinions, and the opinion of the historians of the nation descended from the "other side" of the cold war and the third of the main Allies in WW II is significant - and adopting an advocacy position in the article. We need to balance the first and avoid the second. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, GWH's above opinion which I support entirely was expressed at a discussion page quite unrelated to World War II, nor did he convey that opinion to the World War II editors involved. I suggest that, had he done so, this current arbitration case might not have become necessary. Same applies to the continuing dispute over Russian sources, as evidenced at this current RS/N thread.

GWH's comments, as evidence or whatever, would be most welcome. Communicat (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

To Communicat

What is the situation with this? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion, though interesting, has become somewhat disrupted through WP:SOAPBOX on the part of apparently anti-communist elements who've completely missed the point. The point being that publication of questionable matter by dubious sources is not confined exclusively to "authoritarian" regimes. Communicat (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question I was asking was why you cited a date and page number from the Saturday Evening Post that didn't support your quotation. But I think I figured out what happened and I wrote it up at /Evidence. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood your question above, and also missed your posting at evidence page, which I've now read and understood. For your part, you seem to have missed my posting three days earlier at RS/N thread which states: Correction: Ignore citation Saturday Evening Post, 22 May 1967. It was included in error. The Sorensen attribution is correct. Communicat (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC) I invariably correct my mistakes asap after they're brought to my attention, as was the case with this one which you've referred to. Communicat (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't notice your correction earlier. That still doesn't explain how the error was made in the first place, which seems to be that you copied an incorrect citation from Winer without attributing it to Winer. Per WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, if you cite any source for something, you are supposed to have looked at the source yourself, unless you attribute where you got the citation. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing to my attention WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I'll keep it in mind. But what are your thoughts about what was/is essentially being discussed in the thread refered to: namely, the proposition that not only "authoritarian" regimes publish works of questionable validity? I think that's really the key issue here. Communicat (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pay any attention to the content of the RSN thread. Edward321 linked it from /Evidence saying there was a problem with one of your citations, I noticed that, and checked it out. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully suggest you do pay more attention to the content of the RSN thread. It encapsulates the essence of this current NPOV dispute as a whole. Should more attention be paid to the content, you'll notice that Edward321 who complained about a problem with one of my discussion citations, which I promptly corrected, then himself made a major mistake concerning another citation that I'd provided. He had the good grace to retract and apologise.

Does it not occur to you that, by focusing exclusively on my mistake and even submitting it as evidence, you are displaying bias? Evidence in this case is supposed to focus on the actions and ommissions of all the parties involved, and not just on my own. Communicat (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:X

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 ::::::B) The notification the clerk sent out to my talk page didn't indicate that I was a party, just that the case was open.  I routinely get these for things I commented on but am not a party to; the notifications probably should have a big bold "You're a named party" flag if you are.
 ::::::(back to online training.  yee haw.)  [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 04:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
+I contest GWH's assertion above that he was "not involved in the content disputes per se, but acting as an uninvolved administrator." GWH will recall that he intervened immediately after my request alleging POV-bias was declined by the mediation committee because Nick-D and another party refused consent to mediation. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/45 Primary issues] as detailed in my request of 21 August 2010 were:
+* POV bias through omission. Alternative / opposing / controversial non-Western majority and Western revisionist / significant-minority positions which deviate from conservative mainstream paradigm are not incorporated in article. Hence article not NPOV.
+* Double standards in source evaluation. One allegedly dubious, revisionist source/link subjected to intensive scrutiny and rigorous vetting, whereas at least 27 other identifiable, non-revisionist, dubious sources are permitted, perhaps even encouraged. This Mediation request does not concern merits or demerits of allegedly dubious revisionist source as referred to, but concerns specificially the issue of double-standards (i.e. POV bias) in vetting and acceptance of sources.
+Given the above principal issues, of which GWH must have been well aware, his intervention was connected directly with a matter of content dispute. To set my mind at rest as to his competency for resolving a military history content/NPOV dispute, GWH even described himself as a "defense analyst" with a personal library of "250 military history books". In the event, however, he failed completely to address the content/NPOV dispute, opting instead to focus singularly on my alleged lack of collegiality, which is not what the dispute was about. Nor did GWH address the general lack of civility displayed by the other involved editors. His approach, IMO, was noticeably biased.
+To his credit, however, GWH later conceded in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_South_Africa&action=historysubmit&diff=398977575&oldid=383927324 separate discussion with me] that: ''There is nothing wrong with non-western sources. Please see [[WP:RS|our reliable sources policy]] and [[WP:V|our source verification policy]] ... we write Wikipedia as a neutral reference source]]. [[WP:NPOV]] is one of our core community principles in writing the encyclopedia. That means that non-western viewpoints are welcome. But it also means that editorializing in the encyclopedia is inappropriate. If the Russian consensus opinion on aspects of WW II history, among respected Russian historians, is different from "US / Western" consensus on specific points or opinions, that's fine - that's a opinion which is notable and something we can include as alternate interpretations of the history. Specific examples and references of that are fine ... (It is) important to differentiate between including significant opinions, and the opinion of the historians of the nation descended from the "other side" of the cold war and the third of the main Allies in WW II is significant - and adopting an advocacy position in the article. We need to balance the first and avoid the second. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 23:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)''
+Problem is, GWH's above opinion which I support entirely was expressed at a discussion page quite unrelated to World War II, nor did he convey that opinion to the World War II editors involved. I suggest that, had he done so, this current arbitration case might not have become necessary. Same applies to the continuing dispute over Russian sources, as evidenced at this current [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Talk:Aftermath_of_World_War_II RS/N thread].
+GWH's comments, as evidence or whatever, would be most welcome. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 13:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 ===Template===