Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Communicat (talk | contribs)
1,248 edits
link to aspersions decision
→‎Edward321: removing as declined. See NYB's comments at the bottom on advice on how to procede
Line 35: Line 35:
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ===
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ===
*
*

== Edward321 ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) '''at''' 10:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Communicat}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Edward321}}
*{{admin|Nick-D}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edward321#arbitration_request
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick-D#Party_to_arbitration
;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/45
*+ See statement below re parties 2 & 3, failures/refusals to engage in discussion

=== Statement by Communicat ===
User Edward321 has consistently been hounding and stalking me over a period of several months. This long and consistent pattern of harrassment has had an extremely disruptive and obstructive effect on my attempts to improve articles. He has hounded and/or stalked me from one project to another, reverting and undoing my contributions at article pages which he has never worked on previously or been actively involved with. He has consistently failed/refused for the most part to engage in constructive discussion when I've attempted dispute resolution concerning content. He has failed to make useful contributions of his own in support of the editing process while undermining my own contributions. He ignores the rules of WP:CONS.

One at least one occasion he has "by accident" deleted a posting of mine in a discussion thread, in which discussion thead he otherwise failed to be involved or participate in any way.

He has also attempted unsuccessfully to bring a Conflict of Interest case against me, while again remaining silent during the relevant discussion, which was long-running, and which also had a disruptive effect on my article edits of that time.

It is clear to me that Edward321 is averse any NPOV edit by me, no matter how well sourced, if the edit is construed by him to convey an unfavourable political, ideological or historical image of the West.

His most recent and unwarranted reversion of my editing without engaging in any discussion whatsoever was on 25 Oct 2010, see here at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aftermath_of_World_War_II&action=historysubmit&diff=392698327&oldid=392690408 Aftermath of World War II], and subsequently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aftermath_of_World_War_II&action=history see edit history] For his refusal to engage or participate in appropriate discussion see e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aftermath_of_World_War_II relevant discussion page].

I am not trying to prove my case at this time. If this application is accepted for Arbitration, I shall provide more detail and appropriate links at an evidence page.

'''Response to statements as at 26 October 2010'''

I reject as false and / or misleading the allegations stated below by 2nd party Edward321. I shall be glad to provide a point-by-point, substantiated refutation on an evidence page, if or when this application is admitted.

Administrators might care to note that a bid has been launched by [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_tendentious_editing_by_User:Communicat_despite_warnings_and_blocks Administrators Noticeboard Incident] to block me from editing. The bid is supported by [[User:Edward321|Edward321]], the respondent party in this application. The ANI notice was posted shortly after I lodged this application for arbitration. Given the alleged concerns stated in that notice, I am surprised that no previous action was threatened or taken to permanently block me. The concurrent timing of the present ANI notice and the enthusiastic support for it by [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] leads me to believe its timing is neither coincidental nor without malice. I suggest it is vindictive, disruptive and retaliatory.

Bearing in mind the above, and the direct overlapping and intertwining of issues raised in the ANI notice and those pertaining to this application, I request that the filing party of the ANI notice, one [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] who is understood to be an administrator, be joined as a third party in this application for arbitration.

As regards criticism of my conduct and alleged uncivility: my conduct has been no worse than that of most editors engaged in the military history project. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. However, my conduct is not the central issue here. The issue is hounding, harrassment and lack of collegiality on the part of [[User:Edward321|Edward321]].

[[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]], in his posting below, states that previous ANI complaints have been brought against me. I have no knowledge of any such ANI complaints. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] is invited to support his statement with diffs.

With reference to [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] and [[User:Edward321|Edward321]]'s observation that I this is the second time I've lodged an arbitration request: My first, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=381785143 unsuccessful attempt] against [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] was rightly rejected because it was unfortunately worded by me. I misused the term "cabal building", when in fact I meant "lobbying" or attempting to influence the decisions of other named parties as to whether or not to consent to mediation in an earlier and directly related matter. That matter concerned alleged partisan editing by [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] and a small clique of editors active at the military history project. The mediation request was dismissed by the mediation committee because [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] and a couple of other parties withheld their consent to mediation. Since then, and because there was no decisive and conclusive mediation, the dispute over partisan editing continues to this day. This is at the heart of my ongoing disputes with certain military history editors, and [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] in particular. For example, the [[World War II]] article (not counting related WW2 articles) is supported by nearly 400 individual references, all of them citing supposedly reliable Western sources. There is not a single non-Western source and/or significant-minority position source based on existing, reliable and established lines of research. This is a gross violation of NPOV policies, even or especially if it is done by consensus. Simply because there exists consensus to violate NPOV, it does not mean there is no partisan editing or POV bias taking place. Are editors supposed to shut up in the interests of "consensus" when such a clear and consistent violation of policy continues to take place? If so, then Wiki is not for me, and this abritration request is pointless.

As regards my previous attempts at dispute resolution through discussion, including failed attempts to engage [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] in constructive discussion: these have been many and varied, and they extend over a period of about nine months dating back to around the beginning of this year. My understanding of the consensus building process is that it commences with an editor being bold, making an edit, and if someone disagrees, the edit is then reverted by that someone who is supposed to provide and explanation for the reversion, which is then discussed in a collegial manner, improved, resubmitted, abandoned or whatever. Now, my problem with [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] began about nine months ago, when I uploaded an external link to the site [http:// www.truth-hertz.net, which provides a well-researched alternative history of the war. The link was deleted without explanation by [[User:Edward321|Edward321]]. I uploaded it again, again it was deleted without discussion. I posted a friendly message on his talk page. No response. I continued uploading the link about a dozen times to various other related pages, hoping someone would eventually engage with me in discussion as to why the link was considered inappropriate. Nothing doing. He stalked me from one article to another, always deleting the link without explanation. He himself has provided evidence in his own statement below showing the methodical and persistent manner by which he hounded me without saying a word as to why he was deleting the link. I eventually managed to force a discussion at the World War II talk page, where I finally obtained clarity from other editors as to the unacceptability of the link in terms of Wiki policies, which were all part of a learning curve for me (and they still are).

A more recent example of Edward321's persistent avoidance of dispute resolution through reasoned discussion is reflected in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aftermath_of_World_War_II&action=history edit history] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aftermath_of_World_War_II Aftermath of World War II] article, which I have recently been (and still am) editing in an effort to improve it. Edward321 has never worked previously on this long-neglected and very sub-standard article. He hounded me there and disrupted my editing through reversions while refusing/failing to enter into discussion on the relevant talk page where I had earlier proposed changes to the article and invited collegial participation in improving the article. Instead, he indulged in edit warring as defined by [[WP:CONS]], namely, raising disputes across [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aftermath_of_World_War_II&action=history multiple edit summaries], which in terms [[WP:CONS]] should incur sanctions. The relevant sanctions are for Arbcom to decide if or when appropriate. This is just one example of Edward321's modus operandi. He exhibited similar qualities in earlier hounding me to the [[History of South Africa]] article where his behaviour differed only in so far as he did manage to engage in some discussion, essentially to falsely accuse me of dishonesty over a copyright issue. He has unashamedly repeated this serious allegation in his statement below, even though the question of copyright ownership has long since been resolved in my favour.

Even when Edward321 does manage to engage with me in some semblance of discussion aimed at resolving content or sourcing disputes, it is on the basis of false or misleading information, and with the express and willful purpose of trying to undermine my credibility. An good example is provided in this current thread below from the World War II [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II#Arbitrary_section_break_2 discussion page], which I've refactored here for purposes of brevity and continuity:

Thread begins with my proposed text and reference:
''Apart from those killed instantaneously by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, radioactive contamination or "radiation sickness" continued to afflict about 370,000 post-war civilian survivors of the two explosions. (ref: Wilfred Burchett, ''Shadows of Hiroshima'', London: Verso 1983, pp..44-5, 69, quoting Japanese figures. Communicat (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)''

:''You have provided a source for the long-term effects of radioactivity in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese government appears to use significantly lower numbers ... Edward321 (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)''
:''As for numbers, if you'd followed the link I gave to [[hibakusha]] you'd have seen numbers and sources - that article is remarkably well-cited for how short it is. Edward321 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)''

::''Re radioactive fallout. The article to which you've directed me states quite clearly: "The memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki contain lists of the names of the [[hibakusha]] who are known to have died since the bombings. Updated annually on the anniversaries of the bombings, as of August 2010[update] the memorials record the names of more than 420,000 hibakusha; 269,446 in Hiroshima[5] and 152,276 in Nagasaki.[6]" This more than corroborates the allegedly "out of date" figure of 370,000 cited by me from source Wilfred Burchett, which was then reverted by Nick-d with your support, because it was "cherry-picked" (your words) and supposedly an exageration. In fact, as you can see for yourself, Burchett's 370,000 figure is reasonably close, and if anything, it is an understatement. So, what exactly is your problem? You might care to explain it to arbcom. Communicat (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)'' Ends thread.

That then is the nature, and the manner and method of Edward321's contributions towards article improvement and dispute resolution through discussion. So, I've now turned to arbitration as a last resort. I am not trying to prove my case at this time. If this application is accepted for Arbitration, I shall provide more detail and relevant links at an evidence page. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 23:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


'''Response to Nick-D statement'''

This individual claims falsely I've "not gained any support" from other editors. Here below is shortened / refactored for continuity version of thread at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_tendentious_editing_by_User:Communicat_despite_warnings_and_blocks current ANI] concerning Nick-D's so-far unsuccessful effort to have me banned:

''Communicat (talk · contribs) has a long history of tendentious editing which is forming a significant barrier to progressing articles ...Responding to this clearly disruptive editing is wasting a lot of other editors' time and I ask that he be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)''

''Re: "forming a significant barrier to progressing articles". – The article [[Aftermath of World War II]] is or was unsourced crap. It was received absolutely no attention for many years. I have advised Communicat to work on that article instead of trying to tweak the limited space in the WW II article. I cannot see how Communicat's interest in the aftermath article could be a significant barrier to the article's progress! ... The sources seem to support Communicat's wording, but I do not know if the interpretations people are trying to make of this are correct ... The last edit by Comminicat in the WW II article was on October 10 after extensive discussion and preparation on the talk page. This was blindly reverted by Nick-D two hours later. He made one edit in all of September with similar results. If any conclusions can be drawn from the edit history, it is more indicative of edit warring and stonewalling by Nick-D. It seems that the content issues are mingled with some kind personal antipathy against Communicat. These dissenting editors are now extending the dispute to new articles they have never before been involved with. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)''

Moreover, Nick-D (like Edward321) has the peculiar and disruptive habit of reverting within minutes and without explanation material that I have laboriously contributed. He is apparently allergic to the courteous, customary and practical method of simply inserting a tag in submitted text, asking for correction, clarification, verification or whatever, with which I'd be perfectly willing to comply. Instead, he unilaterally deletes, undoes or reverts. I have repeatedly, consistently but unsuccessfuly attempted to engage Nick-D in thoughtful discussion, both on article talk page and on his user page. I repeat my request to have him joined as a third party in this application for arbitration, and I will then provide evidence of numerous previous attempts to resolve content disputes with him.

It is very obvious to me by now the only way to resolve my editorial differences with him and with Edward321 is via the route of arbitration. I'm convinced that no amount of "community involvement" will improve matters in any way. We've already tried that. The problem here is deep rooted and has become firmly entrenched over an extended period of time under Nick-D's administration. Key policy issues are at stake concerning partisan editing and blatant POV bias on the part of the gentlemen in question. If the arbitration panel endorses such flagrant disregard for NPOV, then so be it; but in my view it will reflect poorly on how wiki upholds its purported principles and ideals.

Partisan editing and the intolerable absence of collegiality at the military history project under Nick-D's administration have already been noted with concern by at least one mediator in my earlier [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/45 rejected request for mediation (World War II)], which was turned down because Nick-D refused to consent to mediation.

I note and accept Nick-D's explanation that his ANI notice was lodged a few minutes before my own application to Arbcom. I only received the ANI notification a day later, presumably due to a server problem. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 17:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

''' Request for Permission to Refactor'''

I am asking Arbcom's permission to refactor my original application by adding editor /administrator [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] as a third party. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 15:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. I've now discovered this information at Clerk's page: ''What are the rules about adding parties to already filed and voted on requests? Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)''

:''I presume you refer to an open RFAR. If the editor clearly ought to be listed as a party, it is usually fine to add him or her yourself. ... Please note that as this aspect of procedure is not codified anywhere ... AGK 14:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)''

So, please ignore my earlier request for permission. I am now adding Nick-D as a third party in his capacity as an editor, (though he is also an administrator). [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 00:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


''' Prior dispute resolution attempts '''

I've noted arbitrators' comments regarding prematurity and their decisions to decline acceptance of my application because, in their views, I've not attempted prior resolution. In fact, I applied for mediation a while back, but the party referred to in my posting above, whom I wish to add as a third party to this application, refused to consent to mediation. The other party, whom I have named as the second party in my present application to Arbcom, has failed/refused to engage with me in thoughtful discussion, and I mentioned this in my statement, together with a link to the relevant discussion page showing he had failed (and is still failing) to enter into discussion. That constitutes evidence of an attempt on my part at dispute resolution through discussion. There is further proof of same at the current [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II#Arbitrary_section_break_2 World War II discussion page]. In fact, my resorting to arbcom in the first instance is precisely ''because'' this party acts arbitrarily and unilaterally while failing and/or refusing to engage in discussion, (and much the same applies to the party whom I now wish to add). So, I have difficulty in understanding why HIS failure to cooperate should be viewed as a failure on my part and to my detriment in this matter of applying for arbitration.

In any event, it is my understanding that a consistent pattern of alleged hounding, disruptive behaviour, harrassment and / or gross misconduct may be referred directly to Arbcom without prior attempts at dispute resolution. If I have misunderstood this provision, I apologise. (The rules seem to change from time to time, without me noticing).

I've asked in my statement section above for permission to factor my application by adding Nick-D as a third party. This is because this party, whom I wish to add, filed an ANI notice a day after I made application to Arbcom. So, I find myself in the unenviable position of having to fight simultaneously on two separate fronts, which is tending to deplete my capacity. The issues involved at the two fronts are closely overlapped, intertwined and virtually inseparable from each other. It also seems that the two parties mentioned above are working in tandem. This is why I wish to join them together in just one, undivided process with one focus, but so far no response from Arbcom in this regard. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 23:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. I've now discovered this information at Clerk's page: ''What are the rules about adding parties to already filed and voted on requests? Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)''

:''I presume you refer to an open RFAR. If the editor clearly ought to be listed as a party, it is usually fine to add him or her yourself. ... Please note that as this aspect of procedure is not codified anywhere ... AGK 14:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)''

So, please ignore my earlier request for permission. I am now adding Nick-D as a third party in his capacity as an editor, (though he is also an administrator). [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 00:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

;Response to White Shadows comment

I don't know anything about possible comparisons with the Climate Change episode that White Shadows refers to. It seems more likely to me that the subject of my application may have at least some areas of commonality with wiki history project's handling of [http://hnn.us/articles/125437.html IBM and Holocaust]. That is to say, an apparent aversion for anything construed by some misguided individuals as willfully depicting an unfavourable image the West, and America in particular. They can't simply wish away historical fact, otherwise we'd be calling it Wishypedia, not Wikipedia. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 01:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

;Refactor concerning link to failed mediation attempt

I have refactored my application by adding at the appropriate place a link to earlier [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/45 failed mediation request], which was dismissed because party 3 of this present application for arbitration failed to consent to mediation. This present application has also been refactored at the appropriate place in respect of including Nick-D as party 3, of which he has been properly notified. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 11:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

;Summary of facts, as at 30 October 2010

The committee might care to note that prejudicial attempts have been made by Edward321 and another party commenting on this application, who are attempting tendentiously to introduce terms of reference of their own, which deviate substantially from the actual terms of reference motivating this application. It is evident that their intentions are to obscure the real issues at stake, and to muddy the waters to such an extent that it becomes impossible to unravel fact from fiction.

It may be appropriate for me to summarise for the committee the clear facts of this application, more or less in order of importance and occurrence, as follows:

# My application naming Edward321 as the 2nd party was lodged on 25 October 2010
# The terms of reference in my application consist of allegations concerning an established pattern of hounding, stalking, disruption and harassment on the part of Edward321 over an extended period of time.
# Edward321 has not denied the allegation.
# I have provided evidence of previous, failed attempts to engage with Edward321 in dispute resolution through discussion.
# Edward321 has on at least one occasion deleted without authorization a large chunk of text submitted by me at the World War II discussion page. Another party later restored the text.
# Edward321 has in the past attempted without success to bring against me a case of Conflict of Interest.
# About 24 hours after I lodged my Arbcom application against Edward321, Nick-D posted an ANI notice in an attempt to have me blocked.
# Nick-D’s bid to have me blocked (presumably on a permanent basis) has so far proved unsuccessful.
# Nick-D has been added as a 3rd party to this application.
# Nick-D is an administrator, with an administrator’s obligations and responsibilities.
# Proof has been provided of a prior attempt at dispute resolution, in which Nick-D was identified as the 2nd party.
# The terms of reference of the above mediation application were in relation to a consistent and continuing pattern of POV bias through omission, and gross violations of NPOV policy over a long period.
# Nick-D refused to consent to mediation.

[[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

; Further observations
The committee may care to note that none of the respondents and/or commentators who have expressed their views in this present matter, including the 2nd and 3rd parties to this application, can be described as active editors in the sense of actively contributing concrete text and references to the World War II and related articles. Their apparent role and participation is, at best, that of self-appointed “supervisors” (with the exception of Nick-D, who is a formally appointed administrator, though he doesn’t do much contributing either).

For my part, and modesty aside, I have been very active both in editing and in contributing constructive ideas and suggestions. It stands to reason that the more you contribute, the more you stand to be criticized, and greater the odds against you of fault being found with your contributions. Which is exactly what has happened. I might add that I was the editor responsible for initiating extensive revisions and improvements to the World War II article, sections of which were previously in a parlous and neglected state, despite or because of its GA status. That initiative has apparently not endeared me to certain editors/supervisors, perhaps because the work involved made some unwelcome demands on their time and intellectual faculties.

Edward321, in attempting to prejudice this application, has made reference to my having previously been blocked for alleged incivility. Allow me to place those incidents in perspective. I was blocked for 24 hours by an "uninvolved" intervening administrator for remarking that some particularly disruptive and bellicose discussants were behaving like animals. Later, I was blocked for 48 hours for remarking that a certain editor was "boring" because he kept resurrecting a certain dead-horse issue that had already been terminated. Contrast this then with another incident at the same discussion page, where I was told: “SHUT UP (sic) and find another forum”, or, more recently, a remark by Nick-D to the effect that I’m mentally unbalanced. Needless to say, no administrative action was taken in either of those instances. This is the kind of hypocrisy and double-standard that exists at the military history project. (I can make available the relevant diffs if challenged to do so). [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

; Nick-D as administrator
For those interested parties who might not be familiar with [[WP:NOTPERFECT]] And / or [[WP:ADMINACCT]], administrators are supposed to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors. An administrator is also supposed to remain civil, even toward users exhibiting problematic behaviour, instead of compounding with poor conduct of his own, which is precisely what Nick-D has been doing in his dealings with me over a considerable period of time. If ever an evidence page is opened in this matter I shall provide appropriate diffs to prove my point, such as the abitrary and immediate reversions of edits without the courtesy of any explanation, among various other things.
There is also the small matter of certain postings at the World War II discussion page that have been refactored or otherwise tampered with, but without any record of such actions appearing in any edit summary. As far as I know, only administrators have the necessary tools to accomplish that sort of thing. Naturally, it is very difficult to prove those demoralising instances if and when they take place, but take place they did -- and when I complained to Nick-D, I was told by him that I’m “paranoid”. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

;Edward321 and "self-publishing"

One of Edward321's submissions below is so tedious in its obsessive repetition that I couldn't bring myself to dignify it once again with a thoughtful response. It's as though, through obsessively repeating a falsity, he thinks he can persuade both himself and others that it's true. For the sake of the record, however, if nothing else, I might as well respond here as I've responded elsewhere in trying to correct his obvious misperception.

He refers to a "self-published" book by one Stan Winer, that I provided [http://truth-hertz.net links to], and which he then deleted as usual without bothering to explain why, and which I then upload again to try to get him to say something. This has already been dealt with somewhere above in this statement. In fact, the book in question is not "self-published". It is independently published. The distinction is important. There's an essential difference between "self publishing" (or "vanity publishing") and "independent" publishing. The latter means publishing, usually for a limited, specialist readership, which is outside the ambit of the big-name, commercially minded mainstream publishers and publishing conglomerates, who tend to publish and mass market "books that sell".

Some interested administrator at wiki might possibly care to have codified the distinction between self-publishing and independent publishing, for the purpose of wiki rules and sourcing guidance. There are no less than 20 independently published sources listed among the World War II article references. So there seems to be some confusion (at least in Edward's mind) about what is allowed and what is not. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 22:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, and if anyone's still interested, the book in question explores the dynamics that exist between media and the military-industrial complex in time of war, and it is based on accurate research. There's nothing "fringe" about that, except perhaps in relation to the originality of the theme and subject matter, of which there is no comparable equivalent in the literature. Which is why I considered it notable and worthy of a "Further Reading" link, especially since the work is CC licensed and freely available in the public domain. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 22:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

; Further and final observations
With further reference to the author Stan Winer's book mentioned above: Edward 321, in his ongoing attempts to disparage me as supported by 3rd party Nick-D, has falsely claimed in his statement that I've attempted "against consensus" to reintroduce a link/source to that book. I reject the claim outright, and I can prove beyond doubt Edward321 is manipulating and distorting the facts.

Edward321 has tried to obscure my allegation that he has persistently stalked/hounded me to pages that he had previously not worked on in any way. The record proves that to be a lie. He had never at any time contributed to or worked in any way on the [[History of South Africa]] article nor the [[Aftermath of World War II]] article, among others, prior to aggressively stalking me to those pages and continuing there to disrupt my editing of same.

Edward321 has also claimed that I have provided "no evidence" to support my summary of facts above. The facts in that summary are self-evident and they are indisputable. The record speaks clearly for itself.

I implore the committee to admit this application so that a proper evidence page may be opened. In which event, I shall provide copious and convincing evidence of Edward321 and Nick-D's misconduct in their employment of a disallowed and demoralising form of censorship through clear POV bias and continued violation of NPOV policies, among other things.

I am happy to report, however, that Edward321 has at least temporarily discontinued his disruptive activities since the lodging of this application for arbitration. Despite the distractions imposed by Nick-D's current ANI notice, as also by the effort involved in stating my grievances and responding to nefarious comments here, I have been and am still working collegially on editing and improving another [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II article].

In the likely event of Arbcom deciding not to accept my request for arbitration, and should Edward321 then recommence his customary interference and disruption, I shall not hesitate to report him directly to Jimbo Wales. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

;Apology and retraction

There is no evidence that administrator Nick-D used admininstrators' tools to refactor certain text under discussion at the World War II article. I withdraw unreservedly any inference to that effect, and apologize to Nick-D for any distress or embarrassment that may have been caused. There is only evidence that certain text then under discussion was refactored without notice. I have not been able to establish who did it, or when it was done, or why. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 14:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

; Update as requested
The 2nd and 3rd parties to this application have failed within the time limit to endorse a separate and concurrent[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Communicat#Response Rfc lodged by GWH]. The other, also concurent and unresolved ANI discussion has ground to a halt, with that ANI notice having now been archived (for the second time).

In view of the parties' failure to endorse the above RFC within 48 hours as specified, it is reasonable to conclude they are unable to justify their allegations against me in respect of my conduct, and I consider those allegations now to be resolved and they should be formally dismissed forthwith.

There remains, however, a need to codify policy with regard to alleged systemic violations of NPOV policy at milhist project, as alleged by me in this request for arbitration. Specifically, I suggest the need for creating a rule that prevents NPOV policy being violated through consensus, (especially the consensus of only two or three other active or semi-active editors involved). Simply because there exists the "consensus" of a small informal clique, allowing them to violate NPOV, does not necessarily mean that what they are doing is editorially and ethically proper. IMO, the absence of codification in this regard can be considered a symptom of systemic failure, and it should be addressed. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 14:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

;Miscellaneous
I was under the impression that GWH's posted referral for comment about a week ago was the actual RFC, and not a refererral for comment on a proposed referral for comment. After 48 hours elapsed, I assumed that was the end of the story and not the beginning, as I now understand it to be, in the light of NewYorkBrad's most recent comments. Thank you for enlightening me.

I am not acquainted with any conversations concerning this matter that might have taken place at NewYorkBrad's talk page and/or any other talkpages, nor was I informed of such talk. So I am unable to comment on NewYorkBrad's reference to talk on his usertalk page.

Edward321 continues in his statement to make slanderous claims to the effect that I've broken copyright laws. The copyright question was amicably clarified and resolved with the help of a senior editor months ago. The burden of proof is on Edward321 to provide proof that I have acted dishonestly in respect of the copyright issue; he has not provided evidence or proof. Instead, he has provided unsubstantiated argument in a clear effort to undermine my credibility. Edward321 has not bothered to contact or otherwise raise his alleged concerns by email with the photographer/copyright holder in question, nor has he contacted a separate organisation that published the same picture a while ago without accreditation. The contact details of both the copyright holder and the previous publisher of the photgraph are clearly available at their respective websites. Edward321, as far as I know, has to date failed to contact them for clarity about copyright, as I have taken the trouble to do. If parties to this Arbcom request make serious, mischevious and damaging allegations that are without substance, and if they are permitted by Arbcom to use this as a forum to do so, then so be it.

Edward321 bewails what he describes as my lack of evidence to support my statement. I have repeatedly urged Arbcom to open an evidence page, so that all the evidence at my disposal may be presented cohesively and according to process, as I understand it. Or maybe I've misunderstood that process as well. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 14:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

;PS practically resolved
For practical purposes, as far as I'm concerned, my complaint has been at least temporarily resolved. Edward321, since the lodging of this request a while ago, has not been edit warring, nor has he otherwise harrassed me or disrupted my editing. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 18:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

;...except for this aspersion

With further reference to the 2nd party's false claim of copyright theft on my part, I would appraise him of Arbcom's separate, March, 2010 decision concerning [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting_aspersions casting of aspersions], namely:
''It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make false or unsupported accusations against others. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.
Passed 10 to 0, 03:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)'' [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 21:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


=== Statement by Edward321 ===
Communicat has provided no evidence for his accusations against me. This not the first time Communicat has done something like this - he previously accused user Nick-D of forming a cabal against him, an accusation rejected by the arbiters. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=381785143] In both cases, Communicat also failed to provide evidence of earlier attempts at resolution because there are none. In fact, Communicat is often less than civil.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/September#Communicat] He has been blocked twice for lack of civility [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ACommunicat] and the statement that earned him his first block was left on his user page for 59 days[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Communicat&action=history], finally removing it 56 days after getting off the block he received for making the statement.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ACommunicat] and three days after I reported it here.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&action=historysubmit&diff=392921902&oldid=392909575] Communicat has never apologized for his personal attacks.

Communicat has also been trying against consensus to introduce a self-published fringe source, Stan Winer, into several articles for an extended period of time [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_betrayal&action=historysubmit&diff=345964816&oldid=344374005] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_and_Eastern_Europe&action=historysubmit&diff=346859197&oldid=344229727] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disinformation&diff=prev&oldid=349041561] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex&diff=prev&oldid=349688331] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_War&diff=prev&oldid=349825213] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_War&diff=prev&oldid=350286634] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=352823702] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=353530975] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_influence&diff=prev&oldid=353799960] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_media&diff=prev&oldid=353801855] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II_in_contemporary_culture&diff=prev&oldid=353814667] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=354151145] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=354154666] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=354170141] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disinformation&diff=prev&oldid=354195776] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore&diff=prev&oldid=354205326] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_manipulation&diff=prev&oldid=357011589] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indoctrination&diff=prev&oldid=357698644] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=357701869] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_torture&diff=prev&oldid=374493523] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_South_Africa&diff=prev&oldid=374536402] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Africa&diff=prev&oldid=380194492] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Africa&diff=prev&oldid=381689413] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_South_Africa&diff=prev&oldid=382170984] as well as repeatedly advocating Winer on several talk pages.[ [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=www.truth-hertz.net] Communiucat is the only editor to think this source is reliable. That's not why I listed Communicat on the [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_45#User:_Communicat|Conflict of Interest Noticeboard]]. I listed Communicat because he posted a (now deleted) file claiming to be to be the copyright holder, Stan Winer. The picture has since been reposted without Communicat making that claim. (Information provided by Petri Krohn leaves me with strong doubts that Winer is the actual copyright holder for the picture.)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=383990156]) Even after all of this, Communicat continues to try to use Winer as a source.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_South_Africa&action=historysubmit&diff=391486322&oldid=390841850][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_South_Africa&action=historysubmit&diff=392042114&oldid=391940534]

Communicat has a record of making edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources he cites.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_South_Africa&action=historysubmit&diff=382282649&oldid=382171866][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWorld_War_II&action=historysubmit&diff=382621366&oldid=382514529][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=387304795][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=388365526][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=388381596][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=388509765][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=388941145][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=388975708][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=389166380][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=389317689][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=389335112][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=389338757][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=389341843][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWorld_War_II&action=historysubmit&diff=389552835&oldid=389550444] Communicat's most recent attempt to argue against this was to dismiss the sources that contradicted him as the product of McCarthy Era censorship.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWorld_War_II&action=historysubmit&diff=391898853&oldid=391864326] This is in spite of Communicat previously arguing that some of these sources were reliable [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=388372709][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=388380979] and ignores the actual publication dates of most of the sources.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=391901525]

Communicat's most recent edits to [[Aftermath of World War II]] involved him deleting a large section of sourced material as well as adding material that is not supported by the source he lists.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aftermath_of_World_War_II&action=historysubmit&diff=392681570&oldid=391789068] The source does not mention Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew [http://books.google.com/books?ei=SczETK74OoH-8AaC6ZDqCQ&ct=result&id=9MwdAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22Cave+Brown%22+Churchill+Fulston&q=Grew#search_anchor] and does not say Churchill "virtually declared war" on the USSR in 1946.[http://books.google.com/books?ei=SczETK74OoH-8AaC6ZDqCQ&ct=result&id=9MwdAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22Cave+Brown%22+Churchill+Fulston&q=Churchill+Fulton#search_anchor] Commincat's edits were also vague, so I clarified that [[Operation Dropshot]] was a contingency plan developed to counter of future attacks by the USSR if they occurred.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aftermath_of_World_War_II&action=historysubmit&diff=392696454&oldid=392695426] As the differences show, I clearly explained this in the edit summaries. Communicat blind reverted this and the rest of my edits.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aftermath_of_World_War_II&action=historysubmit&diff=392783280&oldid=392698327]

I did once accidentally delete one of Communicat's talk page edits, mistakenly thinking he was refactoring another editor's comments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWorld_War_II&action=historysubmit&diff=384882897&oldid=384879426] Both editors who informed me of the problem accept it as an honest error.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paul_Siebert#WWII_Talk][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/September#Talk_WWII] Obviously Communicat does not. Simple observation of that talk page will show I have made several edits, contrary to Communicat’s claim that I ”otherwise failed to be involved or participate in any way”.[[User:Edward321|Edward321]] ([[User talk:Edward321|talk]]) 03:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
:Communicats' behavior is being discussed at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_tendentious_editing_by_User:Communicat_despite_warnings_and_blocks]]. My contribution there is a copy-paste of sections of my statement here. [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] ([[User talk:Edward321|talk]]) 13:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
::My impression is Communicat has summarized his previous posts today without providing any evidence for any of his accusations. Do any members of members of Arbcom see any points in Communicat's posts that you feel I have not addressed properly? Are there any points in my RfAr post that are unclear? Thank you. [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] ([[User talk:Edward321|talk]]) 00:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
{{od}} (Posting since Newyorkbrad has requested an update.) The Incident Board discussion was archived without anything being resolved. Georgewilliamherbert has started preparing a RfC/U, but I do not know when he will post it. Communicat is insisting that it be closed and that he has been exonerated, even though the RfC hasn’t been opened yet.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FCommunicat&action=historysubmit&diff=395161204&oldid=394664566][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&action=historysubmit&diff=395170461&oldid=395067365] [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive647#Continued_tendentious_editing_by_User:Communicat_despite_warnings_and_blocks]] shows that I and Nick-D are willing to participate, though the latter does not believe it the best venue.(07:05, 3 November) Communicat accused Georgewilliamherbert of "bias and prejudgement" (09:19, 1 November), then said "I would support an Rfc that confines itself essentially to a review of alleged systematic bias at milhist project" (19:15, 3 November) then refused to participate in any RfC where his conduct would come under scrutiny (19:25, 3 November) I have considered posting about author Stan Winer on the reliable sources noticeboard and possibly the copyright violation board, since I have doubts about the ownership of the Vorster picture, but felt that would merely inflame matters at this time. [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] ([[User talk:Edward321|talk]]) 04:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by content-uninvolved-admin-actions-involved Georgewilliamherbert ===
You will recall from about... 6 weeks? 2 months? ago, some similar issues, though this is related (I think) to more recent events.

The specific thing that caused the last blowup died and went away; I do know that bad blood and sniping has continued since, and has risen to ANI complaints and a couple on my talk page (I think, don't have diffs convenient). It looked as if was stabilizing out and would benefit from the parties engaging rather than admin-club-over-someone's-head resolution, so I've given it mostly benign neglect for a while. Apparently wasn't good enough...

If Arbcom think that community reengagement will help, either alongside or before Arbcom takes a closer look, I and others can step back in. No active solutions in play at the moment. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 06:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

:Status info / update: The ANI discussion has gone into an uncomfortable corner; I am going to start a RFC/U later today. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 21:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Habap ===
I have also been involved in the [[Talk:World War II]] discussions and my impression of the reversions there and other places conducted by Edward321 is that it is the reversion of identically sourced material by the same editor, Communicat. I don't feel that Edward321 has done anything wrong in reverting the edits, especially since it appears that only Communicat believes them to be true. --[[User:Habap|Habap]] ([[User talk:Habap|talk]]) 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I think you have the dates of the launch of the two cases incorrect. I believe that Communicat filed his on the 25th, while yours was started on the 26th, though the time of day is similar. --[[User:Habap|Habap]] ([[User talk:Habap|talk]]) 14:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In light of some of the "premature" comments below, I have suggested some specific next steps that come from [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Communicat#Suggested_next_step_instead_of_Arbcom] --[[User:Habap|Habap]] ([[User talk:Habap|talk]]) 15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:Since White Shadows has mentioned alternate options for dispute resolutions, let me re-post what I placed on Communicat's talk page that I mention above...
:{| class="wikitable"
|-
| When I was looking at the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case|Request for Arbitration]], I followed the suggested link to [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] and saw some steps that might be useful in resolving things (or at least in fulfilling the ArbCom requirement of attempts at dispute resolution).

The avenues recommended on the dispute resolution page and how they might apply:

'''Ask about the subject''' You could ask for help at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history]]. You'll find that none of the editors involved in the current editing serves as coordinators of that project, so the coordinators may be good sources for disinterested assistance.

'''Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard''' Since your concern is a lack of neutrality, check [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard]]

'''Request a comment''' To draw in editors from the whole of Wikipedia, try [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment]]

'''Informal mediation''' You can ask the [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal|Mediation Cabal]] to join in.

'''Formal mediation''' Or you could move it to [[Wikipedia:Mediation|formal mediation]]

That [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] page identifies Arbitration as a tool of '''last''' resort, not first, second or third.

Hopefully, this can help. --[[User:Habap|Habap]] ([[User talk:Habap|talk]]) 20:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
|}
:I've not yet heard Communicat's thoughts on this yet, though he has posted extensively here in the interim. --[[User:Habap|Habap]] ([[User talk:Habap|talk]]) 13:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
::Got my response from Communicat [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=393501450&oldid=393501182], which was posted on the 28th. I just didn't see it, as it was on the ANI case.
::{| class="wikitable"
|-
| [[User:Habap|Habap]], I have no intention of withdrawing or otherwise backing down from my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration by the committee.
|}
::I'm a little disappointed. --[[User:Habap|Habap]] ([[User talk:Habap|talk]]) 10:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Not sure why you're trying to advocate Winer's book here. The conclusions he makes are decidedly fringe, his writing style represents the worst in conspiracy theory[http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jan/15/featuresreviews.guardianreview3] and the "publisher" openly admits to not really being a publisher. Also, note that no other books have been published by Southern Universities Press. Sounds like self-publishing to me. --[[User:Habap|Habap]] ([[User talk:Habap|talk]]) 16:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
::::I also take exception to Communicat's characterization of everyone but himself as 'not editors, but supervisors'. He specifically targeted me on my talk page as one of "those who seem to do the least actual editing", while calling me a bore. While I am, in fact, quite boring, I have done extensive writing and editing on Wikipedia (most of it in 2005-2006) and find it troublesome that the value of one's points in the discussion could be determined by whether one changes the article directly, proposes specific changes or only comments on proposed changes. Shouldn't it be the value of the argument rather than the length of someone's e-peen? --[[User:Habap|Habap]] ([[User talk:Habap|talk]]) 16:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Nick-D===

This case seems to provide a good example of Communicat's continued highly disruptive behavior and I don't see any particular need to respond to his baseless claims other than to endorse the above statements by Edward321 and Habap. <s>However, I would like to point out that Communicat's statement that "The ANI notice was posted shortly after I lodged this application for arbitration" is patently false. I started the ANI case [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=392966630 at 10:06 on 25 October] and Communicat started this case at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&action=historysubmit&diff=392763924&oldid=391870770 10:42 on 25 October]. The fact that, dispute his statement being clearly wrong, he goes on to claim that the ANI case indicates a conspiracy against him ("The concurrent timing of the present ANI notice and the enthusiastic support for it by Edward321 leads me to believe its timing is neither coincidental nor without malice. I suggest it is vindictive, disruptive and retaliatory.") is sadly typical of his editing.</s> I'd note that there has been ''very'' long running discussions of Communicat's proposed changes to the World War II article over the last couple of months (the discussions take up most of two or three achieved pages at [[Talk:World War II]]) and he has not gained any support for most of his proposed changes and continues to assert things which are proven wrong by the sources he provides, even after this is pointed out. I think that this all illustrates that Communicat is not interested in consenssus-based editing. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 03:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

:<s>I posted an ANI notification on Communicat's talk page at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACommunicat&action=historysubmit&diff=392966679&oldid=392618527 10:06 on 25 October] (eg, the very same minute as I started the ANI thread). Again, this is another good example of his habit of claiming things which are demonstratably untrue. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 21:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)</s>

::Oops; as pointed out by Habap I've gotten my dates wrong - I started the ANI case on 26 October while Communicat started this on 25 October - my mistake, and it serves me right for editing in a hurry during my lunch break. I've struck the above comments and am sorry for any confusion they caused (I especially appologise to Communicat). I was unaware that this case had been started at the time I started the ANI post, however (Communicat had not notified me of it or posted other notifications on the relevant articles) - if I was aware of it I would have added it as another example of their disprutive behavior and failure to learn from previous warnings to the ANI post. I suspect that Communicat is going to add this mistake as evidence for conspiracy they claims exists against him or her though. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 02:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

{{od}}I note that Communicat has now named me as a party in this case. I see no need for this matter to be handled by ArbCom - in my view it's simply an example of Communicat's long-running disruptive conduct. With all respect to White Shadows, I don't agree that "this issue boils down to mostly Communicat and Nick-D" - I'm but one of several editors who have been involved in the World War II article who have disagreed with Communicat's proposed changes, and I'm not even sure if I've posted the most comments in response to them. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 07:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

:I reject completely Communicat's claims that I've abused my admin tools in relation to [[Talk:World War II]] - the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk:World+War+II page's log] shows that the last time admin tools were used on it was in November 2007. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 22:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that it's pretty clear that this RFArb has been rejected and a RfC/U is being prepared, can this case now be officially closed? [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 22:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by White Shadows===
I'm making this statement as a call for cooler heads to prevail. I am one of the many editors who worked together in the past year to get the [[World War II]] article to GA status. Communicat began editing the article's talk page several months ago and has repeatedly claimed that there is a cabal of WWII editors out there to keep the article looking the way they want it to be. <s>While this issue boils down to mostly Communicat and Nick-D</s>, there is nothing in the WWII talk page archives, not any past ANI threads that suggest to me that an Arbcom case of all things is required here. I ask the members of Arbcom to please decline this request and suggest to Communicat alternate options for dispute resolution regarding this article and the major editors of it. This should not be another Climate Case. Thank you.--[[user:White Shadows|<font style="color:#191970">'''White Shadows'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:White Shadows|<font style="color:#DC143C">'''Your guess is as good as mine'''</font>]]</sup> 21:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:In response to Nick-D, I was talking about just general disagreements between you two. Whether they be related to WWII articles or not. I understand that the issue with the articles themselves involve you, Communicat, and even myself, along with several other editors.--[[user:White Shadows|<font style="color:#191970">'''White Shadows'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:White Shadows|<font style="color:#DC143C">'''Your guess is as good as mine'''</font>]]</sup> 00:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:Note to Clerk: Given ongoing arbitrator consideration below, please don't archive the request as yet. Thanks, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
::I'm requesting (below) an update from the parties on status of discussion and potential resolution. This will hopefully bring this request to a final accept or decline within the next couple of days. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Could this be archived now? '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Yes, at least as far as I am concerned. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/7/0/0) ===
* '''Decline''' as premature. Please follow the preliminary steps in the dispute resolution process before bringing this here. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[prof]]]</sup> 23:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
* Awaiting statements. Communicat, please explain why you believe that we should take this case even though you have not referred to any of the prior steps in our usual dispute resolution process. Beyond that, I note that this is not the first request involving Communicat that we have seen. Editors should bear in mind that if we take a case, we can review the behavior of all concerned, including the filing party. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
**'''Decline''' at this time in the hopes that the issues can be addressed through other means, per other arbitrators' comments. If necessary, a request can be re-filed later if other means do not resolve the issues. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
**I've noted SirFozzie's change of vote. I think the best thing to do at this point may be to '''hold''' this request open for one week and see where the discussion goes. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
**At this point, we need an update from the parties and others as to whether this issue is headed to a resolution absent our intervention. Succinct responses to this question should please be posted within 48 hours. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
**All right, having reviewed the new input above and on my talkpage, I will continue my vote as '''decline''' in favor of allowing the impending RfC on Communicat to proceed. ''Communicat is directed to participate in the RfC in good faith and in a civil fashion''; should he fail to do so, I anticipate that either he will wind up blocked or we will accept a renewed case primarily to examine his conduct. ''Communicat's conclusions as to what should be inferred from the fact that some editors were delayed in commenting for a couple of days are specifically rejected.'' If problems continue and cannot be resolved by other means, I would be open to considering a new request for arbitration in 10 days. I perceive no basis for a case primarily directed toward Edward321 or other MilHist editors. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
*Also awaiting more statements. At first glance, though, I'm inclined to think that the conduct of the filing party would need looking at here, as well as the allegations made by Communicat. If those who have made statements, and others, could comment on whether a case is needed or whether dispute resolution can deal with this, that would help. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 04:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
**'''Decline''' per Newyorkbrad. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
*<s>'''Decline'''</s> as premature (prefer RfC/Mediation), but I would like to caution the filer that if we were accepting this case, that we'd look at all sides, and that he would be well advised to remember that. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
::After further review of the ANI thread and the party's statements, I'm beginning to think that the Arbitration Committee can have a voice in normalizing this area. Switching to '''Accept'''. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 22:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
::After seeing the response to the proposed RfC, I'm stronger in my decision to accept this. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 04:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

*'''Decline''', and concur with SirFozzie. GWH, I would think this can probably be handled at the community level, if the participants are willing to try to do so. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 00:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
:*After further review, I concur with Newyorkbrad's most recent comments. At this point, other dispute resolution takes precedence. Dependent on the results of an RFC, a different case may be in order. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' as premature. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 01:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
:*I think we should hold on this a bit longer, there do seem to be issues here and as of yet the community discussion hasn't come to any conclusions. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 09:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' - I think this can best be handled by the community in the interim. Failing that, I would accept to look at the conduct of all of the parties involved. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 10:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per all the above. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="1px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold">''Wiki me up''® </font>]]</small> 15:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:35, 7 November 2010

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
<Insert the case name>   7 November 2010 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing Motion (orig. case) 27 February 2024
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 Motion (orig. case) 18 April 2024
Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing Motion (orig. case) 16 April 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


<Insert the case name>

Initiated by Campoftheamericas (talk) at 21:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Diff. 1
  • Diff. 2
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Link 1
  • Link 2

Statement by {Party 1}

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 (0/0/0/0)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=395442265"