User:Arthur Rubin/Nuclear dispute

Possible loci of dispute:


 * Nuclear
 * disruptive editing of 911 articles, including:
 * Attempted repurposing of 911tm and 911ct without concensus (including both Bov's and Lovelight's repurposings of 911ct; I cannot imagine someone supporting both in good faith)
 * Moving 911cd from User:Lovelight's directory before it was ready
 * Deleting the ct template from articles where it clearly appropriate, and adding to those where it was clearly not appropriate, such as the main 9/11 article.
 * claims that I have not been assuming good faith (referring to statements that I found it difficult to assume good faith considering
 * claims that I agreed to a "concensus", when it should have been clear to all concerned that there was neither concensus nor that I had agreed to it
 * replying to requests for Arbcom enforcement against him (4, so far this month) in a disruptive and tendenatious manner, to the point where 2 requests were allowed to go to the archives without yes/no decisions being made.


 * me
 * edit warring on 911 articles (I dispute that, but it should be on the table), including
 * reverting Nuclear's, Bov's, Lovelight's, and Webucation's edits without comment
 * or should we leave Webucation out of this?
 * claiming I was reverting vandalism when I believed it was merely a bad faith edit
 * failures of WP:AGF; (I still say that the policy allows me to conclude bad faith if it's clear from the edits)
 * use of Nuclear's RfAr ruling that he had engaged in tendenatious editing to assume that that is bad faith
 * WP:POINT violations in putting words into his "mouth" that he agreed that 9/11 conspiracy theories were a scam, when he clearly meant the NESARA conspiracy theories. (Tit for tat in regard point Nuclear:2.)