Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Proposed decision

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the, you should [&section=new post] to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
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.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The basic, standard statement of Wikipedia's mission and rules. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 07:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Conduct and decorum
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.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How Wikipedia SHOULD work. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 07:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

The editorial process
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.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, standard. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 07:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Reliable sources
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.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. I'm not opposed to wordsmithing the final sentence, but I entirely agree with the sentiment and think 4.2 is weaker without something along these lines. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. The sentence reads to me as, "Rather than placing excessive weight on a single disputed source, additional sources should be sought." The second part of the sentence ('rather than...') is key, and I think this echoes both standing policy and common sense. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. - Mailer Diablo 07:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. While I understand the problem perceived with the language, this is an important part of the case. It is also true that sources must be given weight by prominence, so this is supported by policy. At no point does the principle say that WEIGHT is measured by weighing numbers. Cool Hand Luke 15:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Risker (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer 4.2. KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Agree wholeheartedly with the first 3 sentences, however unsure about the last sentence. PhilKnight (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Phil. Solving an academic dispute regarding sources as not best done by weighing numbers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, as worded, raises problems if no sources agree, hence source should be removed or framed as opinion. etc. Anyway, veering well into fine details of content. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Abstain, although I don't really prefer the alternative. Cool Hand Luke 04:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources
4.2) 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.


 * Support:
 * Alternative to 4.1, omitting last sentence. For me, second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Adequate, but could be stronger. I don't think 4.1 is making content decisions, but expressing conduct expectations in the face of disagreements on sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. See my reasoning at 4.1, and per Jclemens at 4.2. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. - Mailer Diablo 07:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Risker (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I think there might be something to the last sentence Brad included; a single dodgy source for a disputed fact should not govern. True, we don't count sources on each side, but there is the concept of placing weight based on prominence. Remember that in some contexts a single source is not meaningful. Cool Hand Luke 04:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of sourcing
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.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Last sentence is important here, as it pertains to later findings. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 07:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a remarkably common problem. Risker (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Though I understand Phil's concern below: ideally, an editor would be representing those things, but this is not always the case. – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, however unsure about the last. PhilKnight (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is taken from a previous case where the last sentence was the essence of the dispute: Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. I think this principle is particularly important. Properly representing sources is paramount to the encyclopedia; an editor who cannot do that in a topic, should not be trusted to edit within that topic. Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, the first sentence is concise and to the point. I'm not sure what the second sentence adds. Also, I'm unclear about the use of 'represents' as opposed to something more mundane such as 'should ensure'. PhilKnight (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The second sentence adds emphasis, and by specifically referring to the editors' responsibility, makes clear that persistent mischaracterization of sources will be treated as a user-conduct as well as a content issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Represents" better indicates that the editor has a duty to accurately convey the source. Active violation of out sourcing policy is a user conduct issue, as NYB says. Cool Hand Luke 15:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think any difference is purely stylistic. In real life I would say "editors shouldn't misrepresent sources", however I probably wouldn't say "editors should represent sources". PhilKnight (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
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.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be entirely clear here: presenting a balanced, worldwide perspective on topics is absolutely a fundamental aim of Wikipedia, but the way to that is through appropriate application of our pillars, not their abrogation. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 07:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Agree wholeheartedly with the first 2 sentences, and the last sentence. Less convinced in regard to the middle sentences. PhilKnight (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This one is from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou. Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer 'scholars' over 'those who have studied the matter', but this a minor point. I'm unsure if the fourth sentence 'belongs' here - I don't necessarily disagree with it, but consider the second sentence to be the correct formulation of the NPOV policy. PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The fourth sentence adapts the principle to this case. The case was filed by an editor who believed that our coverage of the aftermath of World War II is skewed to a particular national/cultural ("Western") point of view and that his efforts to redress the imbalance have been treated unfairly. Obviously, our decision takes a different view of the entire situation than the filing editor presented, on quite a number of issues, but it is fair to acknowledge the kernel of truth in his perception of the relevant principles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Casting aspersions
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.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 07:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We try our hardest to not get into content. Just conduct. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, wherever possible. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 07:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Disruptive or tendentious editing
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.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 07:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Problematic editing
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.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We should AGF, but AGF is not a suicide pact, and good faith actions can still be disruptive. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 07:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Locus of dispute
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 and a number of other editors concerning appropriate content and sourcing for these articles.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Communicat's editing
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)


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Communicat's sourcing
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)


 * Support:
 * I do not find it necessary, to resolve the case, to rely upon what may have been a good-faith misunderstanding by Communicat of our copyright licensing policies. Nor, under all the circumstances, do I think it useful to dwell upon the allegations of plagiarism. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Newyorkbrad is being particularly charitable here in authoring this finding; the sum of the evidence (especially the final bit under "Examples" above, regarding a willful failure to cite correct page numbers) points to editing in a manner obstinately inconsistent with encyclopedia building. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Particularly, almost excessively charitable. but this out of context/misuse of sources is definitely a factor. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many, very clear examples of misusing sources to pursue an agenda; regardless of how appropriate the concern might be, this isn't the way to handle it. Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Explains the 'minimum agreed problem' with Communicat's editing, which is fair, I think. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Communicat's conduct
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.)


 * Support:
 * Although the trend is not to include formal "exoneration" findings in our decisions, as the primary drafter, I will add that I perceive no misconduct by any of the other parties to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment on other parties in the case. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proposed remedies
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
1) 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.


 * Support:
 * Other arbitrators may wish to offer alternative remedy proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Necessary, sadly. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't see another option until the user can effect improvements in their editing behaviors. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Communicat restricted
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.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Enforcement by block
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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, by "uninvolved administrator" we have in mind our standard definition, which would exclude for example administrators who have edited substantively on the article involved in a controversy, or any who have been in significant editorial conflict with Communicat in the past. In the event sanctions are ever needed under this paragraph (which hopefully they will not be), any potential "wikilawyering" about the fine points of involvement, where there is no real basis for a perception of bias, will be unwelcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I expect the occasional hiccup from Communicat, I will be sorely disappointed if the 'year' block has to be enacted. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 15:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Implementation notes
''Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''


 * Proposals which pass
 * Passing principles: 1, 2, 3, 4.1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
 * Passing findings: 1, 2, 3, 4
 * Passing remedies: 1, 2
 * Passing enforcement provisions: 1
 * Proposals which do not pass
 * Failing principles: 4.2
 * Failing findings: None
 * Failing remedies: None
 * Failing enforcement provisions: None


 * Last updated: NW ( Talk ) 23:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By my count P4.1 and P4.2 are both preferred by five arbs. P4.1 is preferred by: Newyorkbrad, Jclemens, SirFozzie, Shell, and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. P4.2 is preferred by: KnightLago, PhilKnight, David Fuchs, Casliber, and Cool Hand Luke. Paul August &#9742; 19:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that Brad, Jclemens, Foz, Shell, and Chase me support 4.1, and Phil, David Fuchs, Cas, and KnightLago support 4.2. CHL abstained from both, so I don't know if we should count him. NW ( Talk ) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. You are correct, Cool Hand Luke, has in fact expressed no preference. Paul August &#9742; 21:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe there may be a couple more arbitrators voting, so no need to close the polls on this yet, anyway. Perhaps the additional votes will make the outcome on this point a bit clearer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks a lot clearer now. NW ( Talk ) 23:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm about to close this case, so noting here that I concur with the implementation notes above, and specifically that I agree that 4.1) passes over 4.2). AGK  [&bull; ] 15:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

''Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.''


 * Support
 * Move to close, but effective in 48 hours rather than the usual 24, so that remaining arbitrators can have the weekend to vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comment