Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions
Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/1/0): accept, tally now 1/0/1/0 |
→Involved parties: fix |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=== Involved parties === |
=== Involved parties === |
||
| ⚫ | |||
<!-- use {{[[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] }} if the party is an administrator --> |
|||
*{{user|Habap}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
*{{ |
*{{user|Edward321}} |
||
*{{user|Hohum}} |
|||
*{{[[User:Edward321|Edward321]]}} |
|||
*{{admin|Nick-D}} |
|||
*{{([[User:Hohum|<font color="Green">'''Hohum'''</font>]]}} |
|||
*{{admin|Georgewilliamherbert}} |
|||
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> |
|||
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
||
Revision as of 00:01, 29 November 2010
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Military history POV-bias | 28 November 2010 | {{{votes}}} |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | none | (orig. case) | 30 April 2024 |
| Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 | none | (orig. case) | 13 May 2024 |
| Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 13 May 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for arbitration
Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Military history POV-bias
Initiated by Communicat (talk) at 19:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Communicat (talk · contribs), filing party
- Habap (talk · contribs)
- Edward321 (talk · contribs)
- Hohum (talk · contribs)
- Nick-D (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick-D#arbitration_military_history_POV-bias
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hohum#arbitration
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Habap#arbitration
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edward321#arbitration
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert#military_history_POV-bias
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Approximately 60,000 words discussion over a period of nearly a year at various military history project talk pages, including among others:
Talk:World War II/Archive 41#Communicat and fringe-POV pushing
Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production
Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net
Talk:World War II/Archive 39#WW2 origins of Cold War
Talk:World War II/Archive 39#Link to www.truth-hertz.net
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#User: Communicat
Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities
The record is incomplete because other discussion concerning milhist article [1] disappeared after it was deleted by Afd closer following intervention by above named party Nick-D
- Mediation request that was dismissed because Nick-D refused to consent to mediation. (Deleted 7 October 2010 AGK (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II (overview article)" (Case management (deletion of older, indexed rejected requests), for the Mediation Committee.)
- Arbitration request that was declined on 7 November 2010 as premature, with proviso that request could be refiled within 10 days if Rfc/community involvement did not resolve dispute. [2]
- Further inconclusive discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aftermath_of_World_War_II generally and in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aftermath_of_World_War_II#Progress_Publishers_.2F_Russian_sources among others
- Discussion re Failed attempt to have me blocked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive647#Continued_tendentious_editing_by_User:Communicat_despite_warnings_and_blocks
- Further inconclusive discussion at NPOv/Rcf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Aftermath_of_World_War_II_-_Operation_Dropshot
- Various other
Statement by Communicat
My earlier request for arbitration was declined more than three weeks ago as premature, with the proviso that I could reapply within 10 days if Rfc/community-level involvement failed to resolve the dispute. Uninvolved administrator Georgewilliamherbert undertook to lodge the Rfc. A draft Rfc was opened for comment, resulting in further conflict between parties. To date the Rfc has not been formally opened.
The dispute essentially concerns NPOV and content issues. Editors at military history project consistently obstruct, disrupt, harrass and/or launch personal attacks on me whenever I attempt to introduce military history which they evidently construe as depicting the West in an unfavourable light. The World War II article, for example, relies on nearly 400 references from Western orthodox / conservative sources, to the total exclusion of non-Western and/or Western revisionist or significant-minority Western positions. I believe such bias through ommission violates WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and other Wikipedia policy rules.
Whenever I have attempted to resolve these matters, the essential NPOV/content issues are consistently evaded, deviated from and obscured by the parties concerned. This evasion, obscurantism and deviation from the central issues is invariably in the form of allegations of behavioural misconduct being directed at me, to the extent that the NPOV/content issue becomes buried and forgotten, and remains unaddressed.
I respectfully request the arbitration committee to focus specifically and exclusively on a review of what I contend is the systematic violation NPOV/content at the military history project, and not be sidetracked by diversionary allegations of my misconduct to the extent that sight is lost of the specific NPOV/content dispute at at hand. There has been no user conduct Rfc lodged against me, and my conduct is therefore not directly relevant to this request for arbitration. Questions of my alleged past misconduct have recently and comprehensively been replied to by myself at this thread.
I further request the arbitration committee not to allow separate and prejudical lobbying by involved parties on the respective user pages of individual committee members, as is known to have taken place during the course of my earlier request for arbitration. Communicat (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Statement by {Party 2}
Statement by {Party 3}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/1/0)
- Recuse. I will be presenting evidence if this request is accepted. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Accept. Any case would, as always, include review of the filing party's conduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)