Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Case clerk: AGK (Talk)  Drafting arbitrator: Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case Opened on 13:11, 30 November 2010
Case Closed on 15:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

Party statements[edit]

Statement by Communicat[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Clerk note: Communicat's full statement, including responses made during the request for arbitration phase to the statements of other parties, is viewable on the talk page. AGK 13:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick-D[edit]

In my view this is an editor conduct matter, with Communicat continuing to push his or her POV in articles (backed by faked or miss-represented sources on occasion), not engage with dispute resolution and insult other editors (which recently led to a one week block with an extension for sock puppetry) while claiming that there's some kind of conspiracy which just about every editor involved in articles he or she has worked on is a member of. Communicat has been warned for this conduct and blocked for insulting other editors on several occasions. As such, I'd suggest that sanctions against Communicat would be the simplest solution and ArbCom involvement isn't really needed. I attempted to progress this via a post at WP:ANI, but it didn't go ahead as Georgewilliamherbert offered to start a RfC/U regarding Communicat, which unfortunately he did not complete or certify. I note that this is the third time Communicat has lodged a RfArb with these allegations without first engaging in dispute resolution, despite being advised to do so in the previous cases. ArbCom involvement would be helpful in finally resolving this matter, but I think that it would be overkill. Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Habap[edit]

Let me start by naming others with whom Communicat has had similar negative interactions, as the Committee may wish to either involve them or review the interactions: Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. Those interactions have not been universally negative, though mostly so.

In my opinion, there are four areas of behaviour that Communicat has engaged in that are troubling: WP:NPA, WP:OWN, failures in understanding, and incomplete sourcing.

  • WP:NPA: as noted above, Communicat has been blocked multiple times for personal attacks. The attacks on me for which he was blocked involved him referring to me as incoherent [1] and boring [2], with the further statement that I was among "those who seem to do the least actual editing". None of that is particularly distressing (I am boring, though neither of the other comments is true). On the other hand, he has alleged pro-American/Anti-Soviet bias [3], which does bother me somewhat. I also found his argument of bias through ommission[4] troubling. I tried explaining to him when he made offensive statements or used a condescending tone that it was problematic [5] and [6]. Nonetheless, his behaviour has continued.
  • WP:OWN: Communicat also tends to exhibit ownership issues in articles he edits [7] [8], including in his most recent unblock request when he requested that he be unblocked so that he could delete two sentences in the Aftermath article.
  • Failures in understanding: There have been a number of issues in which it appears that Communicat failed to understand what was written by others. As Edward321 noted above, he mis-identified a compliment from Novickas as coming from Tony Judt, bragging how that endorsement by Professor Judt trumped any comments by anyone in the WPMilHist project. There are a vast array of similar mis-understanding, in which Communicat seems to fail to understand what another editor has written. Diffs can be provided, though most are only minor issues themselves, but which do establish a pattern.
  • Incomplete sourcing: Over the past few months, many books which Communicat has quoted from contradict his cherry-picked quotations in other parts of the book. Sometimes, his quotes do not accurately reflect the wording of the source. He has acknowledged in the past that he did not actually read some of those books (Wigfall Green and, apparent, Stephen Ambrose). Diffs can be provided on request.

So, I think Communicat's poor behaviour is doing far more harm than the alleged anti-Soviet bias. If he can learn to behave in a more collegial manner, remembering WP:TINC, then I think his work can provide some balance to these articles. If he cannot change his behaviour, I think he will return to ArbCom with a different set of editors in a month or a year. --Habap (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little research on Edward321's "past alleged actions that have served to bring wikipedia into disrepute" reveals that the creator of those articles was User:G.-M. Cupertino, who is currently blocked for sock-puppetry and other behavioural problems. More information on the set of incidents can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino. Edward321's actions occurred a week before the Jonathan Goldman's comment was posted to Rich Tehrani's article, leading me to wonder if the comment is part of that dispute. I've not heard of TMCNet.com, but wonder if it is a popular website, since the article was written in 2005 and the flurry of comments started on 7 August 2009. --Habap (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Edward321[edit]

The two previous rejected RfARs Communicat filed [9][10] evidence was provided against Communicat. Communicat repeatedly said that he would provide evidence if the RfAr was accepted. Wikipedia:No personal attacks says that “Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence” are personal attacks. Communicat has now been blocked 4 times for personal attacks.[11] The last block was extended when an IP which admitted to being Communicat [12] edited around the block to accuse the blocking Admin of “authoritarianism and rank buffoonery”.[13]

Looking at Communicat’s actions since the last RfAr was rejected we see:

  • At Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Communicat he makes personal attacks against Nick-D, Habap and myself, such as “Edward321 has a long and well documented history of bringing wiki into disrepute through his actions, omissions and personal agenda.”
  • Made personal attacks bordering on legal threats on my talk page.[14]
  • Blind reverted Habap.[15][16]
  • At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Aftermath of World War II – Operation Dropshot made personal attacks against Habap, Georgewilliamherbert, and myself; called me an “accomplice” and refused to strike the attack when VsevolodKrolikov asked him to; misrepresented my comments on another talk page and when caught on that quoted half a sentence out of context.
  • In edit summaries, dismissed other editors comments as “hot air”, [17] “silly remarks”,[18], and made the insult that got him blocked.[19]
  • Tried to get Habap blocked.[20]
  • Falsely claimed that Tony Judt had endorsed his edits.[21] Edward321 (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So Communicat’s evidence is a couple drive-by comments made 4 years after some guy tossed an anti-Wikipedia rant on the web?[22] Note that User:Corvus cornix, User:Deor, User:Starblind, and User talk:Barneca are also accused at that site. If Arbcom accepts this as proof against me, it is also proof against them and they should be brought into this RfAr. I was one of several editors who spent months dealing with a persistent hoaxer. See User:Barneca/watch/Barbaro – when another batch of Barbaro hoaxer socks are blocked, some more complaints appear on the site Communicat linked. Edward321 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hohum[edit]

I don't see any specific diffs showing POV bias or NPA attributed to me, so I'm not sure what kind of statement to make regarding these vague accusations. If something more solid is presented, I'll respond more solidly - either to involved parties or Arbitrators. Hopefully arbitration can identify and resolve the problem, since nothing else has.

As Communicat appears to impugn the entire military history project, perhaps its coordinators, or lead coordinator should be involved. (Hohum @) 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Communicat statement
So it seems I was listed, not because of specific actions, but because of a position I was incorrectly thought to hold. Incredible. I think I'll be commenting on the case, when active, whether I'm listed or not. For Communicats information, the coordinators and their responsibilities are listed at the bottom right of the main WP:MILHIST page. (Hohum @) 01:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/0/2/0)[edit]

  • Recuse. I will be presenting evidence if this request is accepted. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept (unless this is resolved through other means in the next few days). Any case would, as always, include review of the filing party's conduct. I think this is a case that, if accepted, could do well with a reasonably short schedule, since the scope is relatively narrow and much of the evidence seems to have been compiled already. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept since the attempts by the community to resolve seem to have stalled. Shell babelfish 03:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept; there are behavioral problems, there, and the community didn't manage to resolve them. — Coren (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept; We waited to see if things will get better, and they didn't. SirFozzie (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse  Roger talk 04:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Would normally wait for some statement about why the community processes broke down here, but that can be made as part of the case if needed. No need to send this one back a second time, so accept now, with the standard proviso that the conduct of all will be examined in light of the evidence presented. Not sure if the rapid accepts here and the prior request warrant waiving the various minimum times for a request. Would suggest that a minimum of 24 hours is given for all arbitrators to see the request and comment if they want to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - KnightLago (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Conduct and decorum[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

The editorial process[edit]

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Reliable sources[edit]

4.1) Statements in articles should be supported by citation to reliable sources and may not constitute original research. Appropriate sourcing is particularly important where the contents of an article are controversial or their accuracy is disputed. With limited exceptions, reliance upon self-published sources is discouraged. Where the reliability of a particular source is challenged, its proponent should seek to buttress his or her proposed article content with additional sources, rather than place excessive weight on a single source whose reliability has been challenged.

Passed 9 to 1, with 3 abstentions, at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Accuracy of sourcing[edit]

5) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Passed 12 to 0, with 1 abstention, at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Neutral point of view[edit]

6) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. They must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject, in accordance with their prevalence as reflected in the best and most reputable sources, and without giving undue weight to minority views. Where an article concerns a theory that does not have majority support in the relevant scholarly community, the article must fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have studied the matter. Where appropriate given the subject-matter of an article, such as a historical subject with worldwide reach, the presentation should seek to include perspectives reflecting multiple national and cultural views on a topic. Good-faith disputes concerning article neutrality and sourcing, like other content disputes, should be resolved by a consensus of involved editors on the article, or if necessary through dispute resolution procedures.

Passed 12 to 0, with 1 abstention, at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Casting aspersions[edit]

7) An editor should not make accusations, such as that another editor or a group of editors is biased or habitually violates site policies or norms, unless the accusations are supported by evidence. A persistent pattern of false or unsupported accusations is particularly damaging to the collaborative editing environment. Significant concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be addressed through the appropriate dispute resolution procedures.

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

8) It is not the Arbitration Committee's role to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Disruptive or tendentious editing[edit]

9) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing of articles, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or editing against consensus, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Problematic editing[edit]

10) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be directed to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith.

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The case primarily concerns editing on World War II, Aftermath of World War II, and related articles, and in particular, a series of disputes between Communicat (talk · contribs) and a number of other editors concerning appropriate content and sourcing for these articles.

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Communicat's editing[edit]

2) In his editing on World War II, Aftermath of World War II, and related articles, Communicat has edited disruptively by repeatedly and stridently insisting that a particular historical point of view, supported by the works of a particular author, be included in the articles. Communicat has argued that this material is needed to balance other views already included. However, he has persisted in aggressively demanding that this material be incorporated in the articles long after it became clear that there was a strong consensus against including it. (Examples, more examples)

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Communicat's sourcing[edit]

3) Communicat has relied excessively on a single source whose reliability was, at a minimum, legitimately disputed under the reliable sources policy. He has also, in multiple instances, cited other sources out of context or as support for statements that they do not, in fact, support. (Examples, more examples)

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Communicat's conduct[edit]

4) Communicat has made a series of increasingly uncivil comments and unsupported allegations of bias and wrongdoing against fellow editors with whom he was in editorial disagreement, as well as against the members of an entire Wikiproject. (Examples, more examples.)

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Remedies[edit]

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.

Communicat topic-banned[edit]

1) Communicat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II. This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Communicat may request that it be terminated or modified after at least six months have elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Communicat has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Communicat restricted[edit]

2) Communicat is placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, any personal attacks, or any assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked as provided in the enforcement provision below.

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should Communicat violate the topic-ban or restriction imposed in this decision, he may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for a period of up to one week. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Passed 13 to 0 at 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II&oldid=1137490084"