Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Inclusion of Paul Siebert in the case
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * As a courtesy, someone can let Paul Siebert know that he's been mentioned here, but I haven't seen any evidence thus far of any conduct by this editor that would warrant bringing him into the case or an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that I don't see evidence of misconduct by this user, as opposed to his happening to have made some edits that others disagree with. But in any event, he seems to be on notice of the case already, and someone can point him to this thread, and if more evidence comes in we will look at it. (Incidentally, arbitrators watchlist the case pages; there is no need to leave us talkback templates.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would like to add this user as a involved party. Involved in the dispute, made several controversial edits/reversions, see and . MikeNicho231 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Those diffs themselves implies that the user is a part in the case. YOu can also look into the WW2 article history, where the user has been doing several aggressive removals and reverts of factual war history. The user has been informed that he has a possible connection to the case, look here. MikeNicho231 (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't see how those edits by Paul were in any way 'controversial'. I reverted the second one, and we're discussing it on the article's talk page per normal practice - it's not actually very 'controversial' as we basically agree with the content but need to work out a way to include it in the article (and I think it needs a stronger reference). Paul has been involved in many discussions concerning this article and if wants to be involved in this case he'd bring a useful perspective, but there seems to be no reason to rope him in, particularly on the basis of the above posts. Nick-D (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Participation of Georgewilliamherbert in this case
2)

My understanding is that parties cannot be added by a filing party beyond the pre-filing phase. I'm therefore asking Arbcom to consider adding as a party, or least canvassing administrator Georgewilliamherbert to make a statement. I did not include Georgewilliamherbert at the pre-filing phase because at that time he was understood to be recovering from illness.

GWH is aware of my application to Arbcom, but so far has not participated. Nor has GWH responded to my posting at his userpage concerning misconduct by party Habap, and other postings  and  concerning matters that have direct relevance to this case.

Arbcom may recall that GWH volunteered several months ago to intervene in the NPOV dispute, which he did, but in a most unsatisfactory manner. The core issue of NPOV was more or less completely ignored by GWH, though he did at one point admit to the possible need for a review to be undertaken of World War II article sources. Beyond that, nothing happened apart from three blockings being imposed on me by GWH for some very minor infringements. The NPOV dispute was allowed, perhaps even unintentionally encouraged, to escalate unchecked by GWH. An Rfc/U that GWH undertook to file never materialised. Communicat (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Anyone may notify Georgewilliamherbert that he has been mentioned here and invite him to make a statement or present evidence by December 17th. I do not currently see a basis for making him a formal party, unless significant new evidence is presented regarding him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * My understanding was that when Communicat filed, he listed Georgewilliamherbert as a formal party and left him a message to that effect. I know Georgewilliamherbert has been sick so he may have missed that. Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled by Communicat's statement that he did not include GWH because he was recovering from an illness. Communicat created the RfAr on 28 November. GWH did not announce his illness until he returned on the 30th., about 12 hours after Communicat's last posting in the pre-filing period. Communicat appears not to have been aware of it until 3 December, though GWH had been added by NuclearWarfare in the interim. In and of itself, this is hardly important as people forget things all the time. However, I think it is demonstrative of a pattern of attempts by Communicat to paint himself in the best light, just as his attempt to state that he'd had no negative interactions with the editors against whom he had requested mediation (see second paragraph of 'Response to Habap' here for the denial). --Habap (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't see any reason to add GWH as a party. He showed up as an uninvolved editor and admin to help sort things out after Communicat's first arb request.  His admin actions (blocking Communicat a couple times for personal attacks and the like) were well within admin discretion.  His advice to Communicat was generally sound and well-spoken, and even supportive of Communicat's professed editing goals of adding non-Western sources to Wikipedia, as long as policy is followed.  It could be helpful to the arbs if GWH were to make a statement though.  I would consider his take on things to be highly credible.  67.117.130.143 (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that I'm not a party; I was not involved in the content disputes per se, but acting as an uninvolved administrator.
 * I could put in both a bit of evidence and a bit of commentary / statement; I'm mulling over the best venue (evidence, evidence talk, main case talk). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Side note - I understand I was asked to get involved with the behavior of Habap and others; I am not willing to take action in this case while arbcom is reviewing. Nothing approaching the level of requiring uninvolved admin actions in the middle of a case is going on.  I can address the prior admin actions and the unfortunately incompleted RFC attempt.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Responding to Georgewilliamherbert's question above about venue) If your input can by any reasonable measure be described as evidence, the evidence page would be the best place for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Si. After the ... umpteen more hours of online training required by work are done tonight, I'll start writing it up for the evidence page.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not directly relevant to putting in a statement, but...
 * I just noticed this issue:
 * I wasn't a named party, last I'd checked before the case was accepted, but I apparently was added by NuclearWarfare prior to acceptance ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=399418587 ). I am somewhat perplexed ...
 * A) Why? (NW?)
 * B) The notification the clerk sent out to my talk page didn't indicate that I was a party, just that the case was open. I routinely get these for things I commented on but am not a party to; the notifications probably should have a big bold "You're a named party" flag if you are.
 * (back to online training. yee haw.)  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure why I added you. Maybe you had been mentioned in the previous request? NW ( Talk ) 01:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I contest GWH's assertion above that he was "not involved in the content disputes per se, but acting as an uninvolved administrator." GWH will recall that he intervened immediately after my request alleging POV-bias was declined by the mediation committee because Nick-D and another party refused consent to mediation. The Primary issues as detailed in my request of 21 August 2010 were:
 * POV bias through omission. Alternative / opposing / controversial non-Western majority and Western revisionist / significant-minority positions which deviate from conservative mainstream paradigm are not incorporated in article. Hence article not NPOV.
 * Double standards in source evaluation. One allegedly dubious, revisionist source/link subjected to intensive scrutiny and rigorous vetting, whereas at least 27 other identifiable, non-revisionist, dubious sources are permitted, perhaps even encouraged. This Mediation request does not concern merits or demerits of allegedly dubious revisionist source as referred to, but concerns specificially the issue of double-standards (i.e. POV bias) in vetting and acceptance of sources.

Given the above principal issues, of which GWH must have been well aware, his intervention was connected directly with a matter of content dispute. To set my mind at rest as to his competency for resolving a military history content/NPOV dispute, GWH even described himself as a "defense analyst" with a personal library of "250 military history books". In the event, however, he failed completely to address the content/NPOV dispute, opting instead to focus singularly on my alleged lack of collegiality, which is not what the dispute was about. Nor did GWH address the general lack of civility displayed by the other involved editors. His approach, IMO, was noticeably biased.

To his credit, however, GWH later conceded in separate discussion with me that: ''There is nothing wrong with non-western sources. Please see our reliable sources policy and our source verification policy ... we write Wikipedia as a neutral reference source]]. WP:NPOV is one of our core community principles in writing the encyclopedia. That means that non-western viewpoints are welcome. But it also means that editorializing in the encyclopedia is inappropriate. If the Russian consensus opinion on aspects of WW II history, among respected Russian historians, is different from "US / Western" consensus on specific points or opinions, that's fine - that's a opinion which is notable and something we can include as alternate interpretations of the history. Specific examples and references of that are fine ... (It is) important to differentiate between including significant opinions, and the opinion of the historians of the nation descended from the "other side" of the cold war and the third of the main Allies in WW II is significant - and adopting an advocacy position in the article. We need to balance the first and avoid the second. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)''

Problem is, GWH's above opinion which I support entirely was expressed at a discussion page quite unrelated to World War II, nor did he convey that opinion to the World War II editors involved. I suggest that, had he done so, this current arbitration case might not have become necessary. Same applies to the continuing dispute over Russian sources, as evidenced at this current RS/N thread.

GWH's comments, as evidence or whatever, would be most welcome. Communicat (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I already filed an initial evidence statement (see the evidence page) - however, I am unclear where you believe I got directly involved in the subject itself as opposed to editing and source issues. I posted my background and info for context - you were arguing that people were unqualified to understand the issues - but I have always maintained that I'm not a historian, only a student of military history.  There's a difference between understanding the results and methods, and doing primary research (and being formally or experientially qualified to do so).  I have never claimed the latter.
 * Which article, and in what time period, do you believe I got involved in the content dispute per se? Commenting on policy, source quality, and behavioral issues in a content dispute is different than engaging in the content dispute itself.  I have repeatedly and publicly called for open mindedness on non-Western sources and viewpoints, as you noted.
 * I could be misremembering something. But I don't recall any specifics, and didn't find it on quick scan of history earlier or rescan now.  Examples please?
 * Regarding bias of civility issues - I warned everyone equally when they got seriously abusive, and blocked for the incidents that repeatedly crossed the line. I believe about 2/3 of the warnings (and all the blocks) went to Communicat.  I believe this is in proportion to the medium and significant incivility incidents we saw over the months.  I called out in my evidence page that there may have been a group behavioral problem with MILHIST members and invite Arbcom to review that, but "in the heat of the moment" I responded proportionally to observed offenses.
 * I called out in my evidence page submission that I believe my interventions here were not ultimately productive. In part this was because I wasn't able to give them enough time.  I note that the interventions were in many cases not timely, and I agree here that the lack of consistent involvement may have had an unbalancing effect, though that was not my intention.  The road to heck will be paved with good intentions, if we can get them delivered.  Arbcom may want to consider that in the overall "community provocations" aspect.
 * I'm not sure what you're seeking to have the committee arbitrate on that point; an observation that poorly focused administrator interventions sometimes spectacularly don't work could go on the record with my concurrence that I did so here and it had that effect. Perhaps I should have tried harder to get more uninvolved admins involved, but this went to ANI repeatedly, so people should have been aware.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * GWH, You have apparently misinterpreted the intended meaning of my words IRO your background as defense analyst. I was not implying any conflict of interest.
 * Separately, the record of blockings that you've submitted as evidence against me is flawed and misleading. The 2nd block, for 48 hours, was not for posting an apparently offenisve comment on my user page, as you and/or the record states incorrectly. (It seems you forgot to block me for that particular incident). In fact, I was blocked the 2nd time (for 48 hours) because I told a disruptive editor that he was "boring". In this regard, and others, I raised specific questions on your talk page some time ago, which to date you have not responded to. The relevant section re blockings is IMO worth repeating:


 * Despite a mediator having earlier pointed out that poor behaviour is general throughout the military history project and is noticeable at ALL milhist articles, (including articles that I've never worked on), you for some reason singled me out for special treatment. I was blocked the first time because I complained of snapping and snarling by some editors and which was reminiscent of a pack of wild dogs -- yet you did nothing about the editors who were persistently snapping, snarling and biting. Then I was blocked again because I told an editor his continual resurrection of a certain WP:DEADHORSE issue was becoming "boring" -- yet you did nothing about the constant revival of that WP:DEADHORSE issue (which consequently still keeps cropping up). I find it hard to believe that all this demonstrates impartiality on your part, and I'd be glad for you can prove me wrong. Communicat (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

World War II analytical working group mooted
3) Stor stark7 makes a very relevant suggestion at evidence talk page. Noting that this current arbitration process is dominated by personal accusations, it is Stor stark7's opinion, which I share, that arbitration will hardly suffice to investigate whether or not there exists inherent and systematic bias at the WWII project.

What is needed, says Stor stark7, is "a working group that provides a proper introspective analysis of the situation." I agree entirely. Because Stor stark7 has not posted his suggestion on this page, which is probably the appropriate page, I am hereby formalising the proposed idea on his behalf and on my own behalf.

I would add that such a working group should be on an inter-project cooperative basis, viz., consisting not simply of the three or four currently active World War II editors, (three of whom are involved parties in this arbcom case). Communicat (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I would further add that the working group as mooted should additionally endeavour to develop a systems approach, bearing in mind the evidence of Fifelfoowho observes quite correctly that: "No systems exist to resolve high order structural, literary, or taxonomic disputes; encouraging bad editor behaviour from all sides of debate." Communicat (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If I'd known earlier about WP:CSB I would probably not have sought arbitration as a last resort. WP:CSB seems a good idea in principle, especially since Arbcom is apparently unsuited to the resolution of content disputes. But, as IP contributor has already noted below, WP:CSB doesn't appear to be very active these days. Though this doesn't necessarily mean that WP:CSB cannot or should not be revived to deal with this particular matter of alleged systemic bias at WW2 and related articles, in which case I would be happy to support or initiate such a move. Perhaps some of the uninvolved parties who have provided evidence or commented so far might care to indicate their willingness to help form a decent "quorum" for reactivation of WP:CSB in this particular regard? Communicat (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * With all due respect towards Fifelfoo's good intentions, Fifelfoo is apparently not very familiar with Wikipedia dispute resolution, to present something like that as evidence in an arb case. That presentation might reasonably be worked into a content RFC after the arbitration ends.  WP:CSB also exists and might be of interest, though I don't know if it's very active these days. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll note that if this proposal is enacted (as there seems to be some merit), I would like to volunteer for it. I am indeed a member of MilHist, but not the WWII force, and have barely edited the subject area, much less the articles in question. I feel I can take a broad and neutral look. I tend to shy away from contentious areas like this, but I think I need to broaden my horizons a bit and do some more collaboration.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With thanks to IP67.117.130.143; I have been through quite a number of articles usually of core importance which have failed because of the lack of application of basic policies to higher order taxonomic or structural problems. In my experience, with the remarkable exception of Anarchism, these articles remain long term Battlegrounds; that mediation is rarely available if requested at all; and, that the usual resolution is for continual battleground until Civility violations increase to the point that individual editors are picked off piecemeal through the civility regulating system.  While I do not expect (though I believe it reasonable to expect) that arbitration will attend to my evidence; a secondary benefit of voicing the concern here is that a highly successful lead project's community may attend systematically to the issue of higher order content dispute resolution.  Thanks for your consideration IP.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo is almost right when he says editors leave the battleground because they are "picked off piecemeal through the civility regulating system." I would suggest a greater number of editors leave of their own volition, simply because they can't stomach all the unpleasantness involved. The exodus of editors from Wikipedia, which peaked a year ago, does not seem to have shown much improvement of late. See data Communicat (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "very active wikpedian" count peaked 4 years ago. One must not forget that incivility chases editors away as well, since most people don't like the battlegrounds that the incivil editors create. I would expect that the incivility drives away more editors than are banned for that incivility. --Habap (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the activity peak of four years ago. I'm talking about the exodus of editors which dipped seriously in Mar-April 2009, then stabilised slightly, and has since continued in what appears to be an unsurprising downward trend. You yourself are not entirely without blemish; your own incivility has not gone unnoticed. Communicat (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: I'm also not talking about "incivility" per se, but about the battlefield conditions that ensue from good-faith edits being continually and disruptively reverted by the same handful of "supervisors" who do no useful editing of their own but still manage somehow to demonstrate WP:OWN. You know precisely what I'm talking about, and so do a significant number of completely disillusioned former editors, whose views have been expressed convincingly at various off-wiki sites. Communicat (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarity re NPOV dispute resolution
4)

Unsigned and apparently experienced senior editor, in the questions to parties section: (question to Communicat), states: "... this arb case is not going to deal with the NPOV dispute at all" ...67.117.130.143 (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I would value urgent clarification from arbcom in this specific regard. Communicat (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'd note that Communicat also asked this question and received an answer at User talk:Newyorkbrad. There's obviously no problem with asking it again though. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Well, I should have been more clear: it's near-inconceivable that arbcom will make a content ruling like "this article doesn't have enough non-western sources" which is what we usually mean by an NPOV dispute. If you're considering it to include behavioral problems like tendentious editing or wikihounding, those count as conduct issues and are within scope of arbitration.  You should read the Arbitration/Guide to arbitration if you haven't yet.  Also, Newyorkbrad's answer addressed the question pretty well, and of course anything the arbs say overrules anything I might say. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for retraction by and recusal of Kirill
5)

The evidence submitted by recused arbitrator Kirill is so biased, one-sided and prejudicial that I request it be retracted. Moreover, Kirill's proximity to Arbcom and his previous involvement in this case as originally declined by Kirill and others as premature, places in doubt Kirill's objective uninvolvement and impartiality, even if he has recused himself from abritrating in this matter. I request he recuse himself entirely from this case.

The recused arbitrator, in his evidence, focuses exclusively on my alleged edit-warring, whereas my original statement, the contents of which he is well aware, made it clear I was complaining about edit-warring and wikihounding specifically on the part of Edward321. None of that is referred to by the recused arbitrator in his prejudicial and obviously one-sided evidence. Communicat (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * As you note, Kirill Lokshin has already recused himself from arbitrating in this case, as has arbitrator Roger Davies.
 * A recused arbitrator may present evidence or make a statement the same as any other editor. In this case, Kirill's involvement in the military history wikiproject makes it understandable that he would want to be heard. In evaluating his evidence, we will take his relation to that wikiproject into account, given that you have criticized it, so we would presume that his views on some matters are contrary to yours. That does not disqualify him from giving evidence, however. Also, of course, you may respond to Kirill's evidence the same as to any other evidence.
 * The recused arbitrators will of course not participate in the committee's decision in this case, nor will they participate in any committee discussion leading up to the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * For the accusations against the whole of the military history project, check Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II --Habap (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm obviously not impartial in this matter, which is precisely why I've recused from arbitrating it. Given that you've accused the entire military history project (and, consequently, myself, given my role therein) of various improprieties, it would be quite unreasonable to prohibit me from responding to your unfounded allegations. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop misrepresenting me. I have not accused "the entire military history project". This case makes it clear that I have accused specifically three editors as named.


 * As for your role in the military history project: I am not familiar with that role; but certainly you've not been much in evidence at any of the World War II articles of late -- particularly so at times of dispute when the presence of an active coordinator might have made all the difference in calming things down. Communicat (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: Contrary to your claim at evidence that I've never discussed my grievances with military history project, my grievances were stated several months ago to milhist lead coordinator Parsecboy at his userpage. I never did receive a response.


 * But seeing as I am now in communication with an apparently concerned milhist coordinator, allow me to put these questions to you, since as far I am concerned this entire case hinges on them, which is perhaps why all involved parties and also yourself have thus far ignored this central issue as though it does not exist. Specifically:


 * Why does the WW2 main overview article rely on nearly 400 conservative/orthodox sources reflecting a mainstream Anglo-American historiographic position, to the total exclusion of Western revisionist, non-Western and significant-minority positions? Why does a similar if not identical situation exist at the Cold War article, and the Western Betrayal article and other World War II related articles? Does this not reflect systematic POV-bias in violation of WP:NPOV, and why has this never been addressed by any milhist coordinator already aware of the problem including yourself? Communicat (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't really speak to the substance of the question, as the topic lies rather far outside my area of familiarity; personally, I tend to focus on 15th/16th-century warfare. The question of proper historiographical balance is a legitimate, scholarly dispute—one no different from the many similar ones that are settled quite amicably every day across the military history project's hundred thousand articles.  Were we still at the stage where such could be done, there would be no need for arbitration in the first place; the Committee does not rule on good-faith content disputes.
 * When one party to such a dispute turns to edit-warring, personal attacks, and paranoid accusations of shadowy cabals and conspiracies against them, however, then we move from the realm of scholarly debate to that of disruptive conduct.  That is why we're here, presenting evidence, rather than having a civil discussion; and it is my contention that it is your conduct which is primarily to blame for this unfortunate situation. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Communicat: You say above to Kirill that, "As for your role in the military history project: I am not familiar with that role; but certainly you've not been much in evidence at any of the World War II articles of late." In the first place, such a comment does not help us to achieve the resolve the dispute or complaint at the core of this arbitration case. In the second place, your comment is patently untrue (what with Kirill having been designated on several occasions as a co-ordinator of the MilHist WikiProject)—as I think you know. So please keep your comments constructive in future. And to make it clear, this comment should be taken as a formal caution from the case clerk to mind your behaviour in the course of discussion of the case. Thank you, AGK   21:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You also state "Contrary to your claim at evidence that I've never discussed my grievances with military history project, my grievances were stated several months ago to milhist lead coordinator Parsecboy at his userpage. I never did receive a response." But this is untrue. You have made no edits to User talk:Parsecboy (history). Parsec has only been the lead coordinator since September (result of the most recent election). The previous lead coordinator, TomStar81, also has not recieved any edits from you on his talk page (hist) or its recent archives (hist 1, hist2 spanning back into 2009, before your first edit). I'd like to AGF this as a serious memory oversight, but that would compromise much of your case. In fact, very few of your user talk edits have been made before you filed for arbitration. I also note that speaking to a single person does not constitute discussing your grievances with the project. The proper venue for a wider discussion would have been Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force, neither of which you have ever edited; given your evidence, you're obviously familiar with them.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only just noticed the above by Bahamut. My essentially one-way exchange with Parsecboy was made at the WW2 discussion page. I am not acquainted with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force. Thank you for your interest and for drawing my attention to the foregoing, though I doubt the task force etc will be able to address satisfactorily the deep-rooted problem of systemic bias. I stand to be corrected, but I reasonably assume none the less that at least some members of the task force were/are themselves responsible for the existing bias in the first place. In any event, as members of the WW2 task force etc, they would no doubt have been aware of the long-running POv-bias dispute, but they showed no interest and contributed nothing to help resolve it. Communicat (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for immediate investigation of COPYVIO
6)

I have found multiple places where Communicat has lifted text directly from Stan Winer's Between the Lies and either inserted it into articles or posted it as comments. I've posted it on Copyright problems/2010 December 9, WP:RSN (where two of his comments are nearly verbatim Winer), Talk:World War II and Talk:Aftermath of World War II. Regardless of the outcome of this case or any of the charges or counter-charges, we have a mess on our hands. --Habap (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * If there is a concern about copyright violations, that can be introduced into evidence, but please open a request at WP:CCI if there are several articles that need to be reviewed and cleaned up here. Communicat, if the copyright holder has agreed to release their work under an acceptable license, they need to email OTRS at  to confirm this and have their permission on the record - without that, any material you've added under their copyright will need to be removed immediately. Shell   babelfish 17:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Communicat, your cavalier dismissal of this concern is a serious issue. Regardless of whether or not other sites violate someone's copyright, it's not appropriate to introduce such violations to Wikipedia.  Since violations from other sources have now been found, I'd again suggest that WP:CCI would be appropriate. Shell   babelfish 20:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * You refer above to "multiple" copyright violations. Your noticeboard posting refers to "some" copyright violations. Which is it? Please be more specific.


 * It appears from you posting above that you're requesting Arbcom to investigate the alleged violations. Is that really Arbcom's function? Communicat (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can specify the ones I've found so far. I believe there are many more.
 * For the two nearly verbatim uses of Winer on WP:RSN, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence.
 * For the duplication of Winer in Covert Operations in the Aftermath of World War II article, also refer to Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence.
 * The China section of Aftermath of World War II matches page 110 of the October 2004 edition of Between the Lies.
 * The text on Reinhard Gehlen now in Post-war tensions, Europe of Aftermath of World War II is drawn with minor changes from page 94 of that edition.
 * There are more, but I have to catch a phone call now. Is it your contention that these are coincidences? --Habap (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First change made by you to Aftermath of World War II includes a nearly verbatim quoting from page 100 of the October 2004 edition, where Winer writes"But the armed forces of the Soviet Union, despite their heavy losses sustained during the war against Hitler, were now the world's greatest land power, stronger in men and conventional weapons than the combined forces of the US, Great Britain, Canada and France.26 Stalin had 17 Red Army divisions deployed in Europe, in the Soviet zone of occupation behind the Iron Curtain, whereas the US Army in Germany had been drastically weakened by demobilisation and redeployment since the end of the war. Moreover, neither the British nor the French, heavily committed as they were to colonial wars and policing actions in other parts of the globe, were in a position to contemplate a new ground war in Europe so soon after the last one."
 * Every time I look at something, I seems I can find it in Between the Lies. It's as though, tired of being told Winer wasn't reliable, you just started cutting-and-pasting his stuff into Wikipedia. --Habap (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff when Communicat added Winer's text on Reinhard Gehlen. --Habap (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Found another COPYVIOs in, Communicat copies Efim Cherniak's Ambient Conflicts, (to get the best look at the duplicate text, enter 'in directive 432/D' in the box). --Habap (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The section on Greece is directly from page 103-104 of the October 2004 edition of Winer's Between the Lies. The Propaganda section on Information Research Department (IRD) is from page 127. This is depressing. --Habap (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Controversial Command Decisions article as written by Communicat also contains material lifted directly from 'Between the Lies' by Stan Wiener. For instance, the statement that "A determined counter-offensive at that point would have stopped the invaders in their tracks" is on page 18 of the online version of the book and is cited to the exact same reference used by Wiener. Likewise the statement that "In an angry protest cabled to British prime minister and defence minister Winston Churchill, the Australian government described the surrender of Singapore as "an inexcusable betrayal"" contains only minor changes to what appears on page 19 and also uses the same citation Wiener gave. The statement that "To this day the British Foreign Office refuses to say why official documents in the 1941 Japan files at the Public Record Office remain closed to public scrutiny until the year 2016." is from page 19 of the online version of the book, though it was at least cited to Wiener. The sentences in the statement that "The Germans managed to muster only 319 aircraft against 12,837 of the Western Allies whose military strength soon increased to the point where they had effective superiority of 20 to one in tanks and 25 to one in aircraft. The cross-channel build-up provided the Expeditionary Force with at least twice the number of men, four times the number of tanks, and six times the number of aircraft available to the enemy. Western allies were fielding 91 full-strength divisions against 60 weak German divisions whose overall strength was roughly equal to only 26 complete divisions." were taken from page 70 and one of the two sources cited was also used by Winer. I've got no doubt that more of the material was lifted directly. Given that this material was added in April and Communicat has been adding text lifted from the book in recent weeks, its clear that this is a long-running problem. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming that This is an accurate copy of volume 2 of Stan Winer's Between the Lies (and I see no reason to doubt it), the material Communicat was wanting to insert in the World War II article and later included in the Aftermath of World War II article regarding post-war Korea is essentially what Winer wrote (pages 110-111). Much of the wording also looks similar to comments made by Communicat during the discussions on this topic at Talk:World War II/Archive 42 and Winer also cites two of the sources Communicat was advocating as supporting their views and text. In regards to the material Communicat attempted to add to the World War II article, the figures given for deaths due to the Atomic bombings in were also the same ones Winer gives (p. 98) and uses one of the same citations Winer used (including the note from the book's endnotes that this source used Japanese figures). Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of Communicat's additions to the Strategic bombing during World War II article back in April were also lifted from Stan Winer, with some very minor changes (pp. 36-37 of the first volume of 'Between the lies'). Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Edward321 above, it is unquestionably within Arbcom's jurisdiction to "immediately investigate" copyright violation. To that end, I would suggest to Arbcom that it "immediately" contacts the copyright holder Stan Winer whose email address as provided at his website is stanwiner@gmail.com . I suggest Arbcom inquire specifically of the copyright owner as to whether or not the copyright owner has granted to Communicat any specific permission or ceded copyright for any non-profit purposes of education and information disemination.


 * Edward321 has in the past made repeated allegations of copyright theft and/or copyright violation, including such allegation in a statement made by him in the original, declined application concerning this case. Edward321, as far as I am aware, has never bothered to contact the copyright owner before, after or during the the making of these allegations which amount to reckless personal attacks on my integrity. Nor, as far as I am aware, have the other parties making similar attacks bothered to contact the copyright owner. Communicat (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Communicat, as you yourself acknowledged, permission for non-profit uses is not good enough for Wikipedia. Our content licensing permits for-profit uses as well.  Many Wikipedia articles are republished as printed books by for-profit publishers, and tons of commercial sites (including Amazon and Facebook) host their own versions of Wikipedia articles.  There is an electronic gadget (Wikireader) that lets you carry a copy of Wikipedia in your pocket for convenient reading.  That, too, is sold by a company for profit, as is permitted under our licensing.  Finally, GWH explained to you that the only way for Winer to give us permission to use his stuff would be to contact OTRS himself.  There was reasonable suspicion for a while that you and Winer were the same person.  I don't think anyone is operating under such a presumption now, but I can't help thinking that if it had turned out that you were Winer, this copying issue would have been less troublesome. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Kindly provide some evidence to support your contention "Many Wikipedia articles are republished as printed books by for-profit publishers," in return for which, and time permitting, I shall endeavour to provide you with evidence regarding the extent to which Oxford Companion to World War II has been plagiarised by article editors.


 * In any event, given the recent and continuing plethora of negative public media and academic criticisms concerning Wikipedia as an unreliable source, it surprises me to learn that "many Wikipedia articles" are being republished in book form by profit-motivated commercial publishers. I have in the past provided links to such criticisms and I can see no useful purpose in repeating them here. I will say, however, that it pains me to see a theoretically good idea like wikipedia potentially going down the drain because of negative publicity affecting its reputation.


 * Your observation is totally irrelevant that "the only way for Winer to give us permission to use his stuff would be to contact OTRS himself". Winer, despite being otherwise strongly commited to the free flow of information, has no inclination to give permission to wikipedians at large to just "use his stuff" willy-nilly and any old how. He has expressly given me sole permission to use "his stuff" as I see fit, with the proviso only that I don't profit from it, and that it is for educational and informational purposes only. This includes using it at Wikepedia, if appropriate. What happens to it after that is neither here nor there, nor is it my responsibility to monitor it, as the copyright holder is aware. Communicat (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You claim that "According to Edward321 above, it is unquestionably within Arbcom's jurisdiction to "immediately investigate" copyright violation." Reading the thread will show that not only did I not say that, I had not even posted to this thread at that point. Edward321 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Read your posting at the top of this section, and my response of 19:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC), and then your confirmation "sure" (meaning "sure" it's arbcom's function to investigate copyright violation, viz., has jurisdiction to do so). Communicat (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my response, not Edward's. The complete sentence is Sure, I can specify the ones I've found so far. Please don't mis-quote Edward or quote me out of context. --Habap (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the COPYVIO of Efim Cherniak's Ambient Conflicts, which was not written by Winer and likely has a different copyright holder. --Habap (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Maybe we need a full-blown CCI to google every single one of Communicat's edits, since who knows where else they might be copied from.  I think CorenSearchBot might be able to do such lookups. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As suggested by Shell Kinney, I've posted a request for a CCI at WP:CCI. Please note, however, that I'm going to be out of town for the next day and a bit, so other editors may need to answer any urgent questions which arise during this period. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that back in September there was a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45 about an instance in which Communicat uploaded a photograph as their own work which he or she later stated was owned by Stan Wiener and that Winer had given him or her "express permission to use / distribute his jpg of Vorster as I see fit, provided it's not for purposes of commercial gain. Winer's permission includes stating his name and consent on any relevant GNU/CC licence, which I have done accordingly". It's been demonstrated above that Communicat continued to upload text from Winer's books without attributing it to him after this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At, Communicat plagiarizes and paraphases closely (already added to CCI) --Habap (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is probably better presented to CCI than asked here; I very much doubt the Committee is going to have the resources to conduct an exhaustive comparison of Communicat's edits and sources. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Communicat: Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Winer did indeed give you permission to use the materials in question "for educational and informational purposes only", then you would not have the requisite legal authority to release said materials under the CC-BY-SA license required for all contributions to Wikipedia. Further, even if you did somehow obtain permission to release under a CC-BY-SA license, your actions would not be compliant with the license terms, since you have failed to attribute the material to Winer at the time of its incorporation into Wikipedia.  Unless Winer has made an unrestricted release of his book into the public domain—which, by your assertion above regarding people using it "willy-nilly" is not the case—you are in violation of our copyright policies either way. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your're splitting hairs, but never mind. Since the raise the question, I can assure you that Winer has in fact made an unrestricted release of the book into the public domain at this site. For double indemnity in anticipation of exactly the kind of problem you and others are presenting me with, I also obtained Winer's express permission to use it as a resource, to extract text and references from it either with or without attribution to the author/copyright holder, and to do so at wikipedia articles, inter alia.
 * The fact remains that none of the parties alleging serious copyright violation had the good sense to first contact the copyright holder before crying foul on the basis of flawed assumptions. The email address of the copyright holder was conveyed to the main complainant some time back when he first started alleging copyright violation, and the email address, as already stated, is available at the author's website . Communicat (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite unclear to me how the site you mention constitutes a release of any sort—the version of the book posted there continues to bear copyright notices, and makes no mention of alternative licensing or release terms—but if the material is, indeed, in the public domain, then the primary concern would be plagiarism rather than outright copyright violation. Your actions in copying the material were improper regardless of its precise copyright status, in other words; it's merely a question of which policy you've violated, at this point.
 * As a general point, incidentally: the onus of demonstrating that material is suitable for inclusion is on the person who wants to include it. If you assert that the material in question has been released under a certain license, then you must provide evidence of that; it is not the responsibility of any other editor to contact the author or otherwise assist you in the matter. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Communicat, re Kindly provide some evidence to support your contention "Many Wikipedia articles are republished as printed books by for-profit publishers,", see for example . That company prints basically any and all of the Wikipedia articles on a print-on-demand machine and sells the printouts through Amazon.com.  For example, the book containing Western betrayal appears to be here.  "Evidence regarding the extent to which Oxford Companion to World War II has been plagiarised by article editors" has nothing to do with this arb case (unless one of the case parties has done the plagiarism) but of course would be very welcome elsewhere.  See wp:Plagiarism for what to do about it. Your suggestion that other people contact Winer by email is a non-starter.  Winer himself has to send permission to OTRS before copying is allowed.  If you wanted to email him asking for him to send permission to do that, you could have done so, but it's not anybody else's responsibility, and the other editors of those articles don't appear to have much interest in Winer's stuff, so I doubt anyone else will ask him (they'll just revert your edits instead). I looked at  and don't see anything like a public domain release.  The 5th page of the front matter says "Copyright © Stan Winer / The rights of the author have been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act of 1988 / All rights reserved".  Of course if Winer sends a public domain release to OTRS then that might save us some cleanup effort, but it also means that anyone who wants to do so can legally republish the entire book for profit without crediting any of it to Winer.  Before granting such a wide permission, he should understand those consequences and decide carefully that they're really what he wants.  And of course it still doesn't get you off the hook for copying his stuff before OTRS received the permission, and it's still plagiarism (but no longer a copyvio) for you to copy his stuff without attribution.  It's as if you took a creative writing course in college and tried to pass off a Mark Twain story as your own.  The story is public domain so you won't have infringed copyright, but you'd still be in a hell of a lot of trouble with the college. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As Mark Twain (at least I think it was him) once remarked: "Not all wrongs can be righted, but that doesn't mean some should not." Which is what I might still get around to doing at the evidence page, if ever I'm allowed some breathing space.


 * As regards OTRS, I'll put it to the author/copyright holder and see what he says. It's all a bit academic though, because of all the pirate copies floating around cyberspace, including Italian and Chinese Mandarin translations, which reduce to absurdity the very notion of "copyright protection".


 * As for "cleanup effort": I think the parties will find little to "clean up" in the articles themselves, since the same parties predictably obstructed most of my article contributions, purely for reasons of content and their own POV-bias, long before any zealous concerns arose about copyright violation. The parties might, however, find some of Winer's reworked (not necessarily plagiarised) text and sources in the discussions, of which there were many, and they've now mostly been archived, anyway. Besides, I think it's reasonable to assume that arbcom might want to have some say in the matter before anyone rushes into any "cleanup" operation. Communicat (talk)
 * We routinely indefinitely block editors who have committed serious copyright violation. Your assertion that violating it here is ok because of "many copies elsewhere" does not fly - Wikipedia does respect copyright and author licenses.  Period.  End of story.  Unrepentant violators are banned from the site.  Those who violate the policy out of ignorance are offered a chance to reform and point out their errors, which is being done with you now.
 * Completely independently of what Arbcom decides on the other matters, though, if you fail to cooperate here - both identifying the material, and either helping remove it or getting Winer to properly and legally release it under CC-BY-SA or another acceptable license - this would be a terminal final offense and end your Wikipedia contributions career.
 * I can understand if you want an admin not already involved in interactions with you to make that determination, but I can tell you now that under our standing policy and precedent that's what one of those other copyright enforcement experts will do with you if you fail to cooperate.
 * Please take this seriously and work to identify all of the instances and - if it's to remain, get proper legal release from Stan Winer to the Wikimedia Foundation so that the material can legally remain.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm taking it seriously and intend cooperating / complying fully with the contents of CCI notice sent to me a few hours ago. I have forwarded a copy of that and this thread to the author/copyright holder in anticipation of his requested OTRS consent. He is currently on summer holiday and temporarily out of connectivity range.


 * I have not yet had time to do a full analysis of the charges of plagiarism and/or copyright violation and the texts they relate to. But, on the face of it, and IMO at this time, the allegations seem to have more to do with plagiarism than with copyright as such. In which case, the few alleged verbatim texts complained of can easily be fixed through straight-forward copy editing, viz., paraphrasing etc, to bring it in line with the usual and generally accepted rules. In fact, I was in process of doing just that, when I was suddenly blocked for two weeks. Subsequent to unblocking, I've been trying to focus on this arbcom case, and consequently have not yet had sufficient time to consider recommencing editing from the point where I left off, if practicable. But I shall certainly attend to that within a reasonable period, seasonal and other circumstances permitting. Communicat (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, it might be worth bearing in mind that legally defined editorial copyright rules do not apply to ideas, rationale and meaning. It may well be that what the parties are complaining of are essentially the ideas, rationale and meaning of the texts complained of. All of which is yet to be addressed and assessed in this case. Communicat (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is regretable that, despite there having been no CCI determination or time for me to attend to it myself, Edward321 has already started deleting my disputed contributions to Aftermath article, which could easily have been fixed as I've asserted above. I wonder what else he has in mind for deletion despite or because of my view suggested above that it might not be a good idea at this time to rush into any "clean up" operation before further consideration. Communicat (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Interested parties note: this thread is an ambiguation of the thread at "Questions to Communicat" Communicat (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not the ideas that we're objecting to in this instance. It's that you literally took Winer's work and pasted it into Wikipedia without attribution, as though it were your own writing. You also did the same with some of Efim Cherniak's work from Ambient Conflicts. To say that you were in the midst of copy-editing and paraphrasing is hard to believe, to say the least. In early December, you were still plagiarizing Winer, on the Reliable Sources Noticeboad, as though it were your contributions to the discussion. Cross-posted from Evidence"In the RS/N discussion mentioned here, Communicat appears to have taken his argument directly from Winer's book. Check pages 131 & 132 of Stan Winer's Between the Lies and what Communicat wrote. These three searches show it: 'American readers were unaware', 'cover production costs', and 'unmatched by the impact' . He changed the sentence order and a few words at the beginning of the first sentence, but it is a direct quote. I don't think it's a violation of copyright since it's just on a talk page, but it is disturbing. Note the 'p.12.21' at the end of Communicat's citation for the Saturday Evening Post article. In Winer's book, it is footnote 21 and page 12 falls within the actually article's page numbers."There are not just a few alleged verbatim texts, but rather a flood. Most of what you "contributed" to the Aftermath article was not your work at all, but Winer's. That's why you didn't know that his souces contradicted his quotes, and why it's not odd that you hadn't read the books, since it wasn't your research, it was his. The gross intellectual dishonesty you exhibited in pasting his work amazes me. That you thought the plagiarism could be covered up by re-arranging the sentences or copyediting shouldn't surprise me. You stated once that you don't always supply accuate page numbers: The material as submitted either has page numbers, or no page numbers, or page numbers that are not entirely accurate. This is because I don't want the refs to be plagiarised to the benefit only of college students who trawl these pages in search of reliable refs for their "own" essays. That sounds an awful lot like the pot calling the kettle black. --Habap (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest "intellectual dishonesty" of a far worse kind is that which exists in the form of gross POV-bias at WW2 and related articles. As for your quoting me above about college students, you have tendentiously taken it out of context. Communicat (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's out of context, please explain how the context makes it mean something different. --Habap (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have more important things to do at this time. Communicat (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For information: the OTRS address provided by arbitrator above was incorrect. The correct address, if anyone is interested, is permissions@wikimedia.org Communicat (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for status of informal party Kirill to become formal party
7) Evidence of incivility on the part of recused arbitrator and informal party Kirill is stated by me at evidence page. The evidence is self-explanatory. I request the status of Kirill be changed to that of formal party. Thanks. Communicat (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Based on my current evaluation of the evidence to date, I see no basis for this action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * From memory, Kirill hasn't been involved in the disputes which are the focus of this case. Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I see no evidence that I have had any substantive involvement in this dispute (nor any evidence of incivility, for that matter); as such I don't believe there are any grounds under which I could be considered a party. In any case, the Committee is free to consider my conduct should it choose to do so, regardless of whether I'm listed as a party or not. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I trust committee will take note of your offensive inference at para 5 comments, to the effect that I am "paranoid". Communicat (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Communicat: "Offensive inferences" are intrinsic to the arbitration process—which, amongst other things, examines the conduct and behaviour of editors. AGK   21:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for restraint in efforts to "out" Communicat
As unsigned informal party has mentioned in "Questions to Communicat", a number of past attempts have been made by various parties to "out" me as Stan Winer, author/copyright holder of the book Between the Lies. I do not admit that I am Stan Winer. I'd be obliged if no further such "outing" bids are made. Winer happens to be living in a high-risk, politically sensitive environment where people are known to be targeted by violent reactionary elements if or when something is stated (by someone like Communicat) that might be deemed by such elements to be unacceptable and/or provocative. I do not admit that I am Stan Winer. Thank you. Communicat (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Noted. The parties are asked to refrain from further discussion of Communicat's possible real-world identity. The committee will be able to decide the case without this information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Further discussion here will only call additional attention to the problem or alleged problem. No further posts should be made in this subsection. If there is a need to address this issue further, which I believe there is not, please e-mail the committee in lieu of posting here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Concur. We have no need to know, as in either case, Stan Winer needs to communicate with OTRS. --Habap (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any previous attempts to "out" Communicat, though there have been a few edits where Communicat seemed to be claiming to be someone. I had listed one in my section of the evidence page, as a sign of POV-pushing on Communicat's part, but if any arbiter, other admin, or arbitration clerk wishes, I will remove that line. I do find the research on Communicat's IP address unsettling. Edward321 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Petri Krohn makes a very serious accusation against me. Please read the actual thread at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45 Edward321 (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I would remind all participants in this case that it is the general rule of the clerks' office to enforce any specific directives from the arbitrators regarding what content may be posted onto the case pages, and also to enforce all applicable site policies and standards regarding what content is appropriate for publication on Wikipedia. Enforcement in this respect includes both active removal of inappropriate content, and preventative action (primarily blocking) against the users that release it. AGK   22:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion there was not an outing attempt. The arbs probably know what Communicat is referring to and can make their own judgment. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a very aggressive attempt by user Edward321 to out Communicat based on an image someone had uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I believe it is against Wikipedia WP:OUTING policy to out people based on information they have revealed for copyright reasons on Commons. Wikimedia Commons is a site external to Wikipedia, and its use here to out or smear people is no more legitimate than, say Encyclopædia Dramatica. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it was (apparently) a user unfamiliarity with template usage, what happened was that Communicat literally wrote in a template on the image that he was person X (PD-SELF usage on the image). In the middle of other concerns, an apparent (but now apparently mistaken) self-identification as person X was noticed by multiple persons and responded to.
 * It's not an outing violation to notice that someone self-identifies in some way and respond to that.
 * The end result of all that was Communicat corrected the template and retracted that self-identification, stating that it was not true and had been mistaken use of the template.
 * It's not appropriate to blame Edward321. He was responding to what was literally written down on Wikipedia by a Wikipedian.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for restraint in deleting disliked content
Given that Winer has consented to unrestricted release of his material into the public domain (see Communicat Evidence), it is requested that formal and informal parties restrain themselves from rushing to delete the ostensibly plagiaried content provided by Communicat. The appropriate lisence still has to be uploaded to the relevant site, whose webmaster is currently on vacation and due to return some time after Xmas. I know for a fact that Winer will in the meantime not sue Wikipedia for any perceived copyright violations, so there is no urgent reason to delete the content. The gentleman who prefers blondes has already deleted "plagiaried" content, and so has Edward321. Neither of them, apparently, have the patience to await the Arbitration Committee's own pending determination in that particular regard as in others. Communicat (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Communicat, but that isn't how things usually work and there's no compelling reason to make an exception here. Until such time as material is known to be under a license that can be used on Wikipedia, it must be removed, regardless of whether or not someone is likely to sue.  There is also no urgent reason to keep the content; there are no deadlines.  This has nothing to do with whether or not editors "like" the material.  Shell   babelfish 20:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Refactored comment: I assure you that, while it may give cause for celebration among the POV-biased elements, ONLY wikipedia is going to be any the poorer for deletion/reversion of the material as currently in progress and/or already done.Communicat (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're removing the material pending getting a license from Winer anyway, it might save WP:CCI some work to suggest that they concentrate on possible copying from authors other than Winer. Then if the Winer license comes, CCI won't have to bother investigating Winer-related diffs.  67.117.130.143 (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's probably just coincidental that the very first material to be swiftly deleted was that which sheds light on US policies relative to the topics of torture and nuclear warfare respectively, and that the material was deleted by US-based editors.
 * Deletion of the material will, of course, not change the fact that Wikipedia's prime military article has nearly 400 Western orthodox sources and not even one NPOV source reflecting non-Western, or Western revisionist, or significant-minority positions. That indispensible fact, as you know, was the firm basis upon which this case was brought by me.
 * As for saving WP:CCI "some work", I'm sorry to disappoint, but there are no authors affected other than Winer, who cheerfully consented to his work being plagiarised in any event. Besides, much of my editing was in the form of long outstanding repairs to grammer, syntax and other semi-literate language usage, including in the World War II article, and no "plagiarism" of Winer nor anyone else was necessary for that. Communicat (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the plagiarism of Cherniak. --Habap (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The plagiarism of Cherniak relates to such a very brief extract that it's hardly worth mentioning. But since you do mention it, as of course you would, I've already pointed out that I was in the very process of reworking and paraphrasing summarising the relevant text to bring it in line with the usual standards of non-plagiarism when a blocking was suddenly imposed on me. That blocking ultimately ran into nearly two weeks, during which I requested unblocking for the specific purpose of reworking the text, (including rework of the very brief Cherniak extract). My request was denied. In fact, that particular request has even been used against me in Edward's evidence claiming I have WP:OWN issues, whatever that's supposed to mean. In any event, Cherniak doesn't even matter any more because he's been deleted along with a lot of other NPOV stuff that's now been flushed down the drain. Well done.   Communicat (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, since you and others are so terribly concerned about Cherniak, perhaps I should point out that he was properly cited, and I may add that the sources on Dropshot to which he refers were also checked by me. If you're really interested in the topic, which is doubtful, you can find the original, long and detailed Dropshot primary document online via a dogpile search. It doesn't come up on google. Communicat (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You really ought to go look at the article. The sentence was re-worked by NuclearWarfare and now a reference to Cherniak exists to support this statement, "A number of allied leaders felt that war between the United States and the Soviet Union was likely; in fact, on May 19, 1945, American Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew went so far as to say that it was inevitable." You'd plagiarized Cherniak on 24 September and were not banned until 15 November. Your unblock request was about the section "Political tensions" . So, you didn't request it in regards to Cherniak and the information has been retained. --Habap (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that my source, (the sole Russian source that's ever managed to make it into a WW2-related wiki article), and despite initially strident objections by yourself and others, has actually managed to survive all the deletions that have recently taken place. However, these words: A number of allied leaders felt that war between the United States and the Soviet Union was likely; as mis-attributed to Chernyak apparently by NuclearWarfare (please do note correct spelling of Chernyak), are not what Chernyak says. So, since you have been / still are so terribly concerned about Chernyak, and to finally get it right, please correct sentence and/or specify precisely who were the personalities that constituted the stated "number of allied leaders" as presently mis-sourced to Chernyak, and source the words properly. Thank you. Communicat (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Kindly note also that, if you and Edward321 in tandem had not wikihounded, continually harrassed me successfuly disrupted my editing and organisation of the article, I would no doubt have had the time and opportunity to deal appropriately with the small matter of Chernyak extract, as also other matters requiring further iterations and which are presently well beyond the scope of my interest and motivation. It's all yours now. Communicat (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

When NuclearWarfare changed the line, he added another citation for that line, which I cannot check because I do not have Jstor access. I assume it must be what justified the expansion to include "A number of allied leaders". I was never involved in the discussion on the Chernyak quote (apologies for my mis-spelling), so to say that I stidently objected is a gross mis-statement. If you'd not plagiarized the quote in the first place, but referenced it instead, this problem would have been avoided. --Habap (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fix it. Communicat (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't know what you want me to fix. I am assuming good faith by NuclearWarfare, so believe that the second source must have indicated that it was more than just Joseph Grew who felt that way. --Habap (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Habap. The expanded quote from this article is below:
 * "Joseph Grew himself had no illusions. (...) World War II could never be a "war to end wars" since its effect had merely been to transfer the center of totalitarian power from the Axis to Russia—a nation which would be an even graver menace in the future. (...) The spread of Russian control throughout Europe and Asia was inevitable, and "a future war with Soviet Russia is as certain as anything in this world can be certain" (though in 1950 Mr. Grew softened this last blow with the comment that if his memorandum had been a public and not a private document he would have appended the phrase, "unless we recognize the danger and take steps to meet it in time")."
 * Re permission from Winer. Let me point out that, unfortunately, even if such a permission would be granted, that hardly would be solution of the problem, because the material will be still non-free, and WP:NFCC (especially ##1 and 8) will remain applicable to this text. The only solution would be if Winer released his book in PD (or, at least, under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned in one of the sections somewhere, consent has been given by the copyright holder for unrestricted release into the public domain under the appropriate lisence still to be uploaded. Just a small matter of waiting for the webmaster with password access to return from vacation and replace on-line version's existing copyright line with unrestricted release notice/lisence. No big deal. Communicat (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarity re specific deadline, evidence
The extended deadline as granted by Newyorkbrad is "by 17th December". Does that mean midnight UCT 16 December? Communicat (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it includes all of December 17 (today) as well. (Also, please note that this does not mean that anything posted on December 18th will be reverted, or anything like that; just that it is not guaranteed that the drafters will see it before we begin writing the decision.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for note to be taken of unrestricted copyright release
Arbitrators and parties may care to note unrestricted release into public domain of the online version of Winer's book Between the Lies. The relevant release notice is posted here. This may mitigate my earlier, inadvertant breaches of wiki rules regarding copyright. Communicat (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Teeny quibble - while that is permission compatible with Wikipedia, it's released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL - that's not actually the same thing as release into the public domain (the copyright statement would be different and it releases all rights to the material). In any case, with the new release, editors can discuss whether or not to include said content in any appropriate articles (but this case isn't the place for that). Shell   babelfish 23:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have followed closely the advice given me by permissions@wikimedia, which you yourself directed me to, and which instructed me to use CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GNU license, which I have done accordingly. I agree, this isn't the place for editors to discuss undoing the recent, numerous reversions of my "copyright violation" contributions. Communicat (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting the release is incorrect, simply pointing out that releasing under those licenses and releasing into the public domain are two different things that we wouldn't want to confuse here. Shell  babelfish 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice of withdrawal
My application for arbitration was made in the belief that the dispute represented essentially a content dispute concerning systemic and systematic POV-bias, as corroborated by the words and meaning of my initial applications and of my pre-filing statement and evidence statement.

This case was referred to Arbcom on the basis of Arbitration Committee's own stated Method, cases "can and have ranged from user misconduct to large-scale disagreements over article content." However, Arbcom has since reneged and/or contradicted its own publicly stated Method by now saying: "It is not the Arbitration Committee's role to settle good-faith content disputes among editors." Moreover, the drafting arbitrator has made clear his view that there is no need to invoke any extraordinary dispute resolution mechanism to resolve what IMO is an intractible editing dispute.

Given the above facts and matters, the filing party hereby withdraws unreservedly the case filed. Communicat (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work like that.
 * I think I and others warned you about this, before you got started here. Either Arbcom or the community (in the sense of a ban proposal at ANI) were likely to do something drastic to you if you kept pushing.
 * I am sad that we weren't able to get a RFC or mediation of some sort done to avoid this. But, that did not work, and you insisted, and here you are.  Retraction isn't in the rules.  Case was accepted; it plays out, arbcom makes the decision.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The case that was accepted is IMO not the same case that is now being arbitrated. Kindly direct me to the codification that says a case cannot be withdrawn. It might save me the tedium of having to appeal.


 * As regards your own involvement: your intervention consisted simply of waving and wielding the big stick, without any real attempt to address the central issue of systemic bias. I am sad that YOU were unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to address the systemic POV-bias problem. Simply waving the big stick solves nothing. Getting rid of the complainant solves nothing. There remains no functional Wikipedia mechanism for countering systemic bias. Administrators like you, continually waving the big stick, are a poor substitute for such a mechanism. Waving the big stick might or might not work in certain areas of American foreign policy, but it is ill-suited to solving problems of high-order taxonomy, basic historiography, and flagrant disregard for generally accepted principles of NPOV, which was what this case was supposed to be about. It has turned into a charade. Communicat (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cases are rarely withdrawn, usually before they are opened, when the participants decide to handle the dispute by another method and ArbCom agrees that intervention isn't currently needed. Cases cannot be withdrawn because you don't agree with the outcome.  As described at Arbitration/Guide to arbitration all aspects of a dispute, not just those mentioned by the initial filing party, will be considered. Shell   babelfish 13:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If "all aspects of a dispute" are supposed to be considered, why then has the systemic bias content issue not been considered by Arbcom, beyond contradicting its own earlier job description by now suddenly saying "oh, we don't handle content issues"?


 * You might care to note that, three weeks after the closing of evidence, there has still been no outcome. So I don't understand what you mean by "Cases cannot be withdrawn because you don't agree with the outcome."


 * Would be much appreciated if you could direct me to the codification that says a filing party may not withdraw a case he has filed, prior to its conclusion. Communicat (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We did consider it and don't believe that you showed any coordinated effort to introduce systemic bias or prevent it from being removed, instead, your evidence (and that of others) showed what appear to be appropriate responses by a variety of editors to your behavior. Arbs have also individually noted that bias is a known problem throughout the encyclopedia, but that you need to stay within Wikipedia's policies while fixing it.  Rather than other editors being recalcitrant, I believe that relying almost exclusively on a single, questionable source may have had a great deal to do with why your proposals never gained any traction - you may also wish to note other points in the proposed decision where we describe specific problems with your behavior.  So in short, there may be a problem in WWII articles, but behaving poorly and attempting to force people to make the changes you personally think are correct isn't the way to go about resolving the problem. By outcome I was referring to the proposed decision which now has enough votes to close as-is.  You posted your request to withdraw shortly after said proposed decision was posted in which we found that the major problem here was your behavior rather than a cabal of editors striving to keep the topic area biased.  This may have been purely coincidental, but certainly appears to be an attempt to avoid sanctions. We did discuss this briefly on the mailing list after you posted this notice and the general feeling was the you may not withdraw at this point, especially on the verge of being sanctioned. Shell   babelfish 04:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Cross-posted from a response to Communicat on my talkpage:)
 * I acknowledge that you have sought to withdraw the case. However, it would be unreasonable to allow the case to be withdrawn at this stage, after the parties and arbitrators have spent a very significant amount of effort preparing and reviewing the evidence and working on the decision. We might allow a case to be withdrawn at this stage if the parties had resolved their disputes, but that is not what is happening here.
 * I am sure you are disappointed by the findings in the decision and the fact that things have not turned out as you have liked. The fact is, however, that a dozen arbitrators have concluded, so far unanimously, that the focus of the case should be where we have placed it. It may be that Wikipedia is not a suitable place for your writings on World War II and related topics, and that you should post them elsewhere instead. Please understand and accept, though, that we have independently evaluated the issues presented, without preconceived notions, and our conclusions are what they are.
 * With regard to whether cases should be allowed to be withdrawn, at this stage, even if we were to allow you to withdraw the case, it would inevitably be re-filed right away by someone else. We would wind up exactly where we are now, except after a few more days of delay and a little more arbitration-process "paperwork." I cannot see how that would help anyone, including yourself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already stated clearly my rationale for withdrawing the case. I was the filing party, and as such I have withdrawn my case. As far as I am concerned, there is no longer a case because I have withdrawn the case, whether you accept it or not. It is not my fault if Arbcom, in codifying its rules, has failed to anticipate the possibility of such an eventuality. There is no rule that states the filing party may not withdraw a case before its conclusion. Nor is it my fault that Arbcom has inaccurately and misleadingly stated its job description as including the resolution of content disputes, which led to the filing by me of this case.


 * I would also point out that the case was filed by me under case name "Military history POV-bias", which as you know is a content issue. The case, after much difficulty, was accepted on that basis. Incidentally, at no point did I name the case "Military history project POV-bias", as misrepresented by you in the proposed decision, together with other serious misrepresentations that will potentially form the basis for my appeal, requiring lots more paper work on all sides. The nightmare is not yet over.


 * I have invested a huge amount of wasted time, effort, and expense (we pay heavily for online time in my neck of the woods) in attempting to counter systemic bias at the WW2 and some related articles. Having already invested so much time, effort and expense, I assure you I will not abandon my campaign simply because I am blocked or banned by wiki. If you don't want me inside the tent pissing out, then I'll position myself outside the tent pissing in. Things might get messy.


 * I can also assure you that, contrary to your suggestion, I certainly do not need Wikipedia as a medium for publishing my work. I have my own website and my own position in the publishing industry, not to mention regular contributor access to a substantial number of off-wiki sites). My life does not depend on Wiki. My highly regretable involvement with Wikipedia arose purely from matters of principle and a commitment to historical accuracy and freedom of information. I did not anticipate the depth of resistance to change, and the continuing aversion to NPOV as demonstrated convincingly by Wiki's American-dominated editors, administrators and arbitrators, in their own conscious or unconcious commitment to maintaining the American-dominated status quo. By this I mean the curious phenomenon whereby a particular demographic group manifests an imbalanced coverage of modern military history, thereby discriminating against the less represented but no less important demographic groups. My time and effort was intended to help possibly eliminate the cultural perspective gaps made by the systemic bias. I shall continue energetically with that effort, regardless of whether or not Wikipedia considers me to be a pain in the arse.


 * At the same time, it is gratifying to know that at least some editors (both American and non-American) have in their statements (and postings elsewhere) conveyed views about systemic bias that are not entirely disimilar from my own. I thank them for their implicit support. Communicat (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, your claim is absurd that I've not shown any coordinated effort to introduce issue of systemic bias or tried to have bias removed. There is no evidence whatsoever that you and/or arbcom have considered the facts submitted by me that of several hundred sources relied upon by the WW2 article, there is not even ONE revisionist source nor any source reflecting a significant-minority position (which is a majority position outside the Western orbit). Even conceding the possibility that there may be a handful of apparently non-Western sources or sources authored by non-Western sounding names, these account for less than two percent of the overall sources. If that is not evidence of bias, then you don't know what is. Communicat (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I in no way implicitly support Communicat. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not specifically refering to you, although I was perhaps under the mistaken impression that you explicitly supported the removal of systemic bias through the introduction or modification of an appropriate system or processes.

I repeat: it is gratifying to know that at least some editors (both American and non-American) have in their statements (and postings elsewhere) conveyed views about systemic bias that are not entirely disimilar from my own. I thank them for their implicit support. Communicat (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Communicat, if you see a systemic bias and want to work towards eliminating it, you should do it within the conduct rules and regulations of wikipedia. If you continue on the same path as before, your efforts will not achieve anything and may even be counter-productive. - BorisG (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

To Communicat
What is the situation with this? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion, though interesting, has become somewhat disrupted through WP:SOAPBOX on the part of apparently anti-communist elements who've completely missed the point. The point being that publication of questionable matter by dubious sources is not confined exclusively to "authoritarian" regimes. Communicat (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The question I was asking was why you cited a date and page number from the Saturday Evening Post that didn't support your quotation. But I think I figured out what happened and I wrote it up at /Evidence.  67.117.130.143 (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood your question above, and also missed your posting at evidence page, which I've now read and understood. For your part, you seem to have missed my posting three days earlier at RS/N thread which states: Correction: Ignore citation Saturday Evening Post, 22 May 1967. It was included in error. The Sorensen attribution is correct. Communicat (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC) I invariably correct my mistakes asap after they're brought to my attention, as was the case with this one which you've referred to. Communicat (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't notice your correction earlier. That still doesn't explain how the error was made in the first place, which seems to be that you copied an incorrect citation from Winer without attributing it to Winer.  Per WP:CITE, if you cite any source for something, you are supposed to have looked at the source yourself, unless you attribute where you got the citation. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing to my attention WP:CITE. I'll keep it in mind. But what are your thoughts about what was/is essentially being discussed in the thread refered to: namely, the proposition that not only "authoritarian" regimes publish works of questionable validity? I think that's really the key issue here. Communicat (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't pay any attention to the content of the RSN thread. Edward321 linked it from /Evidence saying there was a problem with one of your citations, I noticed that, and checked it out.  67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I respectfully suggest you do pay more attention to the content of the RSN thread. It encapsulates the essence of this current NPOV dispute as a whole. Should more attention be paid to the content, you'll notice that Edward321 who complained about a problem with one of my discussion citations, which I promptly corrected, then himself made a major mistake concerning another citation that I'd provided. He had the good grace to retract and apologise.


 * Does it not occur to you that, by focusing exclusively on my mistake and even submitting it as evidence, you are displaying bias? Evidence in this case is supposed to focus on the actions and ommissions of all the parties involved, and not just on my own. Communicat (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I will look at the RSN thread but it occurs to me that you have a total misconception about what Arbcom does, in complaining that this case is focusing too much on conduct issues instead of the NPOV dispute. In fact (see WP:Arbitration) Arbcom deals exclusively with conduct issues, on the (not always successful) theory that if everyone conducts themselves properly, then content issues can be handled by editorial consensus. So this arb case is not going to deal with the NPOV dispute at all. Arb cases are completely about conduct and if you expected otherwise, then you made a big mistake in filing three of them. Note also that I evaluated Edward321's diff in what I thought was a neutral manner. I checked the Saturday Evening Post date and page number you gave because I thought maybe Edward321 had identified the wrong article. Then I checked other issues of the magazine because I thought you might have simply made a slip with the date. Then I reported what I found and went on to check the Sorensen quote, and found by accident that your Saturday Evening Post citation was actually a misappropriation of a wrong cite by Winer, so I reported that too. Same thing happened at History of South Africa, where other editors disputed your citations to the Del Boca/Giovana book and I got the book from the library to see who was right. I found your cites to that book were mostly valid so that's what I reported. Look, you have to get this conduct stuff right (including getting citations right) before anyone will take your NPOV issues (which are much more subtle) seriously. An analogy: you don't have to be the sharpest dresser in the world to succeed in business, but there are some minimal standards you are expected to meet. If you come to the office without wearing pants and then complain that the boss is showing favoritism by giving the best assignments to his nephew, people will laugh at you even if your complaint about favoritism actually has merit. GWH, myself, and probably others have given you simple advice about how to succeed here, and you've ignored us. I stopped paying attention to your dispute for a while, then saw this arbitration and was astounded to find you were trying to insert citations to Stan Winer into Wikipedia again. That's like coming to the office without pants, with the obvious consequences. Anyway, you asked for an arb case and you got one. As somebody once said, "wherever you go, there you are". 67.117.130.143 (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC) OK, I looked at the RSN thread. Edward321 confused one edition of a book with another, quite a bit different than pasting a reference from another source without checking it or attributing it. I do understand the issue you're facing in dealing with Edward and I think he's hounding you to a certain extent. I'll post that to /Evidence if I can find an illustrative diff or two, otherwise I'll say something about it in the comment section. But you're in a much worse DR position for the reasons I explained above, and it's mostly a self-inflicted injury. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just checked, and I can assure you I'm definitely wearing my pants. A more apt metaphor might be the Emperor's clothes. Everybody can see what's going on at WW2 project, but nobody (or hardly anybody) wants to say anything about it.


 * As regards sources lifted from book Between the Lies by Stan Winer, both you and Edward321 (who have submitted evidence against me in this regard) are making a mountain out of a molehill, while the real mountain grows so big as to become invisible. The RS/N thread in question raised what IMO is such a trite, tedious, long-running and endlessly unresolved RS issue, on which I was not prepared to spend time searching for the most appropriate sources (and there are many, very many of them) to support the contention that both authoritarian and non-authoritarian regimes publish disinformation. So I simply lifted the quickest (it took me all of two minutes) and most conveniently available sources from Between the Lies, which is CC licensed in the public domain, and to which copright rules are in any event arguably inapplicable because numerous pirated online versions of the book are in circulation around the globe.


 * The reliable sources (after correction) and reworked brief text were used on a talk page simply to illustrate a point. The sources were not used in an article as such, so the applicability of WP:CITE seems doubtful, in any event. The sources cited, after deletion of one source that was in error, are perfectly reliable and were checked against my own hardcopies of the books. I suggest the disproportionate objections raised in reaction to the sources is simply a consequence Edward321's consistent pro-Western bias, which objects automatically to anything construed as placing the West in an unfavourable light, and which is a core issue of this arbcom case, which almost every one concerned seems to be studiously evading. Communicat (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not as bad a problem in project space, but given the extensive copying Habap is finding in article space, it doesn't matter. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Habap's claim of a "flood" of plagiarisms is a gross exaggeration. Why not await CCI investigation results before rushing to judgment? As regards what needs "cleaning up", that's already been done in the form of swift deletion by Edward321. Communicat (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so, are you going to contend that your contributions to Western Betrayal were your own work? That contains 7 discrete instances of plagiarism. Your only contribution to Psychological Torture was plagiarism. You plagiarized Winer twice on WP:RSN. There seem to be more than a dozen in the Aftermath article. You know you didn't write any of that. How can you contend that 20 or 30 instances of plagiarism is only a few? Seriously, how is that not a flood? --Habap (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I await the outcome of CCI investigation. Communicat (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. Looks like nearly 10% of your Article space edits are plagiarism (27 of 320, or over 8%). --Habap (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The article from 1967 in the Saturday Evening Post IP 67.117.130.143 refers to is used as a reference in the article Operation Mockingbird. That article pretty much validates Communicat's POV in the discussion at WP:RS/N. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? The reason it was included in the wrong place is that he copied and pasted his argument, word-for-word, from Between the Lies, which had the Saturday Evening Post reference in the wrong place. Communicat's reference didn't match his statement because he didn't read it until someone pointed out that it didn't support the statement. Of course, the flaw was in Winer's book, but Communicat was just copying-and-pasting. Sounds like someone who doesn't concern himself with WP:VERIFY, despite being concerned that others might not. --Habap (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:VERIFY is about the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia" i.e. article space. It does not cover opinions expressed on talk pages, least of all notice boards. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So, failing to fulfill WP:BURDEN in a discussion is OK? Like many of Communicat's cut-and-paste efforts on talk pages, his comments contained a reference intended to support his argument which did not support his argument. As stated in evidence, many of cut-and-paste-from-Winer efforts contained references that contradicted Winer's arguments he was copying. If failing to use sources that support your arguments is not a failure of the letter of WP:VERIFY, it is at least a failure of the spirit of it. --Habap (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Every argument rises or falls by its own merits. Communicat's argument was strong enough as it stood. He could have made an even stronger argument by linking to on-line versions of reliable sources – or better yet, simply linked to Operation Mockingbird. Besides, in this case, he did not really need to prove anything. The reliability of American sources was not under discussion.
 * All of this is however totally besides the point. Making a weak argument at WP:RS/N is not against policy. It is not a matter for the Arbitration Committee to consider. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, it's not against policy, but it does demonstrate Communicat's continual failure to investigate the sources for verbiage he cuts-and-pastes into Wikipedia. If the works he was cutting-and-pasting didn't quote from sources that contradicted themselves or failed to support their arguments, we might not even be here, as much of the acrimony was that Winer's works are so unreliable. Cutting-and-pasting the contents of Between the Lies didn't make them any more reliable. --Habap (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To informal party unsigned editor
I don't understand the implication of your evidence marked "Communicat's online access" mentioning connectivity, IP addresses etc. From what I can gather, it seems you're implying that I'd tried to mislead you, or something along those lines (?). To explain: I was indeed having connectivity problems through an old-tech service provider using a unreliable and unsatisfactory landline connection, which was the only service provider available at that time. Subsequently and very recently, an alternative service became available through a new service provider, and I'm now using wireless/microware connection which, needless to say is far superior. Except for a slight technical glitch in the beginning when, unbeknown to me, a large number of other users were sharing the same IP address. For what it's worth, below is copy of my message posted on Georgewilliamherbert's user page a short while back, which is self explanatory. It may or may not be of relevance to the online access issue which you raise in evidence, and to which I don't know how otherwise to respond, if at all, because I don't understand the purport of that particular evidence. Message reads:

''Communicat -- recent block for block "evasion" & IP address

''GWH, something quite useful has come out of the recent and now expired block imposed on me and endorsed by you for block "evasion". I have established that, previously unknown to me, a total of 36 people were sharing the same IP address as mine. (Apparently, this also accounts for a loophole through which one of the address-sharers has been stealing bandwith, which I'd not been earlier aware of).

The service provider is in the process of sorting out the mess, and I have been allocated a new IP address, which I trust nobody else is using. ''I reiterate that it was not I who was responsible for posting at the Rfc/NPOV discussion an unsolicited item accusing you of "authoritarianism and rank buffoonery" -- though I agree with his other observations which seem quite valid. Communicat (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)'' ''In case you or anyone else is interested, this is Communicat's new IP address. Please let me know if any a-hole decides to disparage you in my name. 41.135.78.117 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Struck as irrelevant.''
 * The point of that evidence submission is to show a pattern of apparent uncooperativeness on your part when asked for diffs ("I have all the relevant diffs"), page numbers of citations ("The material as submitted either has page numbers, or no page numbers, or page numbers that are not entirely accurate. This is because I don't want the refs to be plagiarised..."), concrete proposed edits that implement the changes you ask for in the article, exact quotes to back up your citations when you do give page numbers, ("I'm not going to be drawn into all this mudslinging"), etc. No matter what it is, you're handy with a dodge or excuse way too much of the time, imposing unnecessary inconvenience on other editors who try to verify your edits.  Your refusal to enter exact text from the Del Boca book meant I had to make two trips to the library to check it, which I don't appreciate even if the result was that the cites held up (to an extent).  AGF wears thin after so much of that, and the Winer copying nonsense is not even addressed.  Note that your uploads of the Vorster photo were months earlier than your IP edit that I linked.  I haven't bothered checking the dates and info of your other IP edits but maybe I'll do that.  Obviously the stuff in this response was intended to go into the evidence submission as soon as I got around to it along with the ISP stuff, but I hadn't gotten around to looking up the diffs.  Regarding your IP addresses shared with other people editing Wikipedia: we have a page about that phenomenon, WP:BROTHER. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Re your reference to my remark: The material as submitted either has page numbers, or no page numbers, or page numbers that are not entirely accurate. This is because I don't want the refs to be plagiarised... Some context might be helpful. The material at issue was posted at talk pages only, and it was done only to gauge reaction to certain ideas that were being suggested. I suspected strongly that what I was suggesting would almost certainly not be accepted, but I suggested the ideas anyway, and of course they were rejected, though not for any reason of missing page numbers etc. Why waste accurate references on something that's going to be strangled at birth? In the highly unlikely event that the ideas were accepted, which they were not, I would have been happy to spend time and effort cleaning up the refs. Take it or leave it, but that is the context in which the remark was made, and the context was made clear at the time the remark was made. As I said at the time I did not want the refs to be plagiarised to the benefit only of "college students who trawl these pages in search of reliable refs for their 'own' essays."

Thanks for visiting the library on my behalf. Much appreciated. As for the rest of your posting, I still don't see the relevance of IP addresses and jpeg image; but never mind, it's not important. Communicat (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

=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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Concur Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur Habap (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from Eastern European disputes. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts
2) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This implies a finding that one or more parties to the case (here, Communicat) is an SPA, which may not be the case based upon his editing of History of South Africa as well as the World War II related articles, unless the South Africa edits tie directly into the World War II issues. If we frame the case as involving issues about Communicat's conduct but do not find he's an SPA, we could presumably substitute more general principles about NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and/or respecting local consensus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * It appears that Communicat is essentially a SPA to push the views of Stan Wiener, who has also written about South African History (Communicat's changes to this article included adding text cited to Winer). As such, I think that the proposed wording is suitable. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Kirill Lokshin and Nick-D. Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * From Transcendental Meditation movement. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User conduct
3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Concur Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur Habap (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from Eastern European disputes. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Casting aspersions
4) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * If we find this to be a relevant principle, I think the wording in the ChildofMidnight case is slightly preferable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree that the wording in the ChildofMidnight case (convenience link) is preferable. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think the ChildofMidnight case wording is better. Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Prefer ChildofMidnight case wording. Habap (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from Climate change. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Editorial process
5) 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 is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Concur Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur Habap (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from Asgardian. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of sourcing
6) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think that this may need to be tweaked in light of the above, but will hold off on posting an alternative until the weekend in case there are further developments. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I support Kirill Lokshin's wording, but reserve the right to change my opinion should I find Nick-D's alternative superior. Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some suggestions below. The key issue not covered by the above is that Communicat was seeking to include the arguments of an unreliable source (including text literally copied and pasted from it) by falsely attributing it to reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * From Stevertigo 2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, citing source X indicates that the contributor has actually referred to source X. It might be helpful to mention that in the finding.  If a citation comes from a secondary source like Y, the contributor is supposed to attribute the citation.  Note to Communicat: SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is not some Wikipedia idiosyncracy, it's a standard practice in writing from sources.   See for example "Work Discussed in a Secondary Source". 67.117.130.143 (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
7) Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks or bans—and especially to make personal attacks—is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Has Communicat edited through another registered account, or is this a reference to IP edits? If the latter, I take it we are being asked to infer that there was an attempt to mislead (through references by the IP to Communicat in the third person) rather than just inadvertent instances of being logged out? Note that "A registered user's editing the same article from the user's registered account and from IP addresses has the same ill-effects as editing from a main and a sockpuppet account, and therefore is also prohibited" (from the International Churches of Christ case). If necessary, for "article" read "page". Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Yes, Communicat used IP accounts to refer to him or herself in the third person and continue disputes on two different occasions: and  in September and  while blocked in November. This appears to have been confirmed at Sockpuppet investigations/Communicat/Archive. (diffs from Edward321's evidence). Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Kirill Lokshin. Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there was third instance of sock-puppetry by Communicat, expressly to advance his own views, intending to seem like a separate user (only edit ever made by that IP). So, I do think the concern is more than just block evasion. --Habap (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about. Even though I'm still trying to get my head around such wikispeak concepts as "sockpuppets" and "meatpuppets", it's certainly clear to me that it's unacceptable for people like you to make allegations on the basis of "appears" and "I think". Communicat (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from Giovanni33. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Brad: In this case, the primary concern is block evasion rather than deception per se. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of Communicat using other accounts. He apparently made some edits from IP addresses while his main account was blocked though. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Definitely (and as a general comment it may be helpful for ArbCom to more forcefully point this out to editors who attempt to use it as an alternative to dispute resolution) Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Kirill Lokshin. Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As already pointed out, this is no ordinary good-faith content dispute. It is an intractible bad-faith content dispute, it falls within Arbcom's ambit, and it was on that understanding that this case was launched. Communicat (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * From Climate change. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While I do not believe this to be a principle which will assist the encyclopaedia's current issues; I understand it and understand the reasons for the limits of the Arbitration Committee's functions; and, thank the arbitrators for considering my submission of evidence relating to the current ineffective settlement of high order content disputes in the humanities in the encyclopaedic project. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The dispute centers on the appropriate weight to be given to minority historiographical viewpoints in "World War II" and related articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Well, the dispute as framed by Communicat when he filed the case centered upon that, but if we decide the case based on the framework of your (Kirill's) proposals, we really won't be dealing with that much at all. So, need to see what the final decision looks like before writing the locus finding (if any). Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * No, the dispute as framed by the filing party did not centre upon "minority historiographical viewpoints". Explication will be in forthcoming evidence. Communicat (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that "World War II and related articles" may be a bit broad, though it's not a big deal. The disputes have been limited to the World War II article and a handful of others. I'd suggest naming the specific articles. Nick-D (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Brad: my idea with this was merely to provide some context for the topic ban proposal (since WWII is otherwise not mentioned explicitly in the findings), not to frame the decision as a whole. Perhaps this would be better presented as a "Background" finding rather than a "Locus of dispute" one. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Communicat has engaged in disruptive behavior
2) has engaged in a wide range of disruptive behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith, sustained edit-warring  misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground , single-purpose advocacy , sockpuppetry , plagiarism , and misuse of sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I concur with all of the above. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Collected into one finding; I expect this would be split for voting if the Committee wishes to use it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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 indefinitely prohibited from (i) editing articles about World War II, broadly construed, and their talk pages; (ii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iii) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As Kirill Lokshin has shown on the Evidence page, the majority of Communicat's edits are to Aftermath of World War II. It is not clear to me if that article would fall under the proposed topic ban and would certainly expect Communicat to argue that it did not. Edward321 (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering Stan Winer (and thus Communicat's) focus, I suggest "related to World War II or Cold War, broadly construed". Edward321 (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds sensible to me. Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur, as long as Cold War is construed to be included. Habap (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Adapted from Climate change. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Edward321: I don't think any reasonable administrator would accept the argument that "Aftermath of World War II" is not an article "about World War II, broadly construed"; but I suppose the wording could be changed to "related to World War II, broadly construed" if that's a concern. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Appropriate. My original thought was to propose something similar, but saying the prohibition could be reviewed in 3 months, and lifted at that time if Communicat had been editing productively in other areas.  The other parties should also be asked to stop following Communicat to other areas.  67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: about 20% of Communicat's edits are to History of South Africa and he's dabbled in a few other topics as well. I have put a complete breakdown at /Evidence.  I would say he is not a single purpose WW2 editor.  That of course doesn't stop him from possibly being a single purpose advocate of a particular POV. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Inadequate to stop Communicat from plagiarizing, which he could do anywhere. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Communicat banned
2) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The fact that Communicat is still throwing personal abuse around and can't see anything wrong with their conduct (as demonstrated by posts such as this abuse of editors involved in routine copyright cleanup work today as being "POV-biased elements") indicates that he or she isn't about to conduct themselves within the normal behavioural norms. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of comments such as this and this which strongly suggest that Communicat doesn't intend to change his or her behavior and engage in good faith or civil editing, I support the ban as proposed here in addition to the permanent topic ban on World War II and Cold War-related articles as proposed above. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Instead of or in addition to the topic ban proposed above. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I would have suggested Communicat seek a mentor instead of this, but Habap's finding of extensive verbatim copying from Winer's book into Wikipedia strengthens the case for a ban.  Maybe one of the CCI bots can crawl Communicat's edits and check them all against the book.  67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please site ban him. Communicat caused massive damage through his plagiarism campaign, and won't assist in cleanup. He could create more copyright violations on any subject. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of military history articles relating to World War II
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create and organise a comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere free of bigotry and untainted by wikihounding, mobbing, flamebaiting and general unpleasantness. Use of the site for furtherance of biased personal political or ideological beliefs through partisan editing, including the deliberate omission of historically relevant and important material, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Kirill Lokshin's point #1 is significantly clearer and more concise, but I wholeheartedly concur with most of this. Deliberate omission of anything important is impossible to prove so I do not endore that part of the statement. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Deliberate omission of anything important is very easy to prove. The proof is, as I've already stated ad infinitum, that of nearly 400 reference sources at the WW2 article, there is not a single reference signifying any non-Western, Western revisionist, or significant-minority position, and this reflects POV-bias in breach of fundamental NPOV rules, and it is central to my filing of this case. Don't you get it? Communicat (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By your own somewhat immodest admission, you (as well as other involved parties in this case) were one of the editors who brought the WW2 article to GA status, so you were clearly involved in the stated POV-bias even long before you started wikihounding me. How that article, given its obvious POV-bias, ever achieved GA status in the first place is beyond me. Perhaps it was because GA status was bestowed by parties with no appropriate knowledge or understanding of WW2 history, and it also raises concern as to the criteria used for assessing GA status. Communicat (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never claimed to have gotten the WWII article or any other article to GA status. WP:HA clearly shows that "tracking a user's contributions for policy violations" is not Wikihounding and "reference to self-disclosed information is not outing." Proving omission (which you have not) does not prove deliberate omission. Edward321 (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of this dispute revolves around conflictual normative determinations and prescriptive tendencies, and misinterpretions of NPOV policy issues as defined by the respondent parties in terms of misperceptions based on popularly endorsed but partisan Western, particularly American, values and beliefs that deviate from and are often incompatible with international values and beliefs elsewhere in the world.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The wording of this proposal is difficult to follow. Paraphrasing, I believe it means something like "some articles on World War II are based too much on a Western, and American, point of view, and violate NPOV by failing to include other viewpoints." (Communicat, please tell me if I have that right.) If that is the intended meaning, the appropriate response to such an NPOV violation would be to work to improve articles by introducing additional perspectives in well-written prose backed by reliable sources. I am not sure that this has been well-tried; instead, Communicat's approach has been to introduce material based primarily on a single, problematic source and then to escalate with harsh rhetoric when his changes are deemed to be against consensus. That is not the collaborative method by which we improve articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not "some" articles, but "all" "most" articles. Have a look at largely original researched i.e. unsourced, Western betrayal for instance, which is blatantly POV-biased, has been that way for a long time, and will no doubt remain so for the forseeable future.


 * My contributions have certainly not been based on a "single, problematic source". They have been based on multiple, extensively researched and very reliable sources --- not that it matters, because the vast majority my NPOV contributions have in any event almost immediately been rejected, reverted, and swiftly and predictably undone, simply because they attempted to inject some NPOV into heavily POV-biased-through-omission articles. Which, of course, is precisely what this case is supposed to be about.


 * What exactly is the problem with my prose, if you don't mind me asking?


 * I stand by the wording of my Locus above. Communicat (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to read because it is only a sentence fragment, not a sentence. While there are verbs in the sentence, they do not affect the subject. The subject appears to be the determinations, tendencies and misinterpretations. Everything after the word issues is part of the as defined by phrase.


 * It also seems to use excessively complicated terminolgy to state what is happening.
 * As best I can tell, in this context, "conflictual" means "conflicting by habit", "normative" means "the assumed normal behaviour" and "determinations" are "the act of deciding", so that you're complaining that, in the act of deciding, the editors involved assume that they should have conflict. I assume that is in contrast to harmony, or at least, pleasant discussions.
 * I think that by "prescriptive tendencies" that you're saying someone has a prevailing disposition to give directions.
 * "Misinterpretations of NPOV policy" is pretty clear in meaning.
 * Did I characterize that part of the sentence properly? --Habap (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My question was directed to arbitrator Newyorkbrad. How come you're assuming authority to answer (oh so pedantically) on his behalf? In any event, you and everyone else know perfectly well what I'm saying. Communicat (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC).
 * But just in case you're more intellectually challenged than I thought, let me put it this way: Not everyone in the world appreciates a Pax Americana of the mind being imposed on them. I'll be accused of personal attacks on the basis of nationality if I put it any more bluntly than that. Communicat (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not being pedantic. I really wanted to know if that was what you meant, since the first term is so unusual (conflictual was in only a psych dictionary) and the second is not what's happening (you're the only one who has issued orders, such as "fix it"). There is still no verb for the determinations, tendencies and misinterpretations, so it is unclear what the sentence fragment means. --Habap (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to Communicat - when the arbiters are having difficulty understanding your statement, it is probably in your best interest to rewrite your comment. Edward321 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Completely incomprehensible sentence. Impossible to agree or disagree. - BorisG (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I follow most arbitration cases, and can generally understand them. I'm not sure what this 'locus of dispute' statement means, if anything.  Could the author rephrase it in much simpler English please. Murray Langton (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The author has already rephrased and simplified the wording. You might have missed the rephrasing above. It says in simple English: "Not everyone in the world appreciates a Pax Americana of the mind being imposed on them." 41.135.78.237 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite all their talk about "civility", recused arbitrator Kirill as condoned by AGK, and together with at least one involved party, have stated that I am mentally unbalanced, i.e. "paranoid". So I would have assumed these amateur psychiatrists know a thing or two about behavioural psychology. So why baulk when I use psychological terms such as "conflictual", "normative" or "prescriptive tendencies"? In any event, and as everyone knows, my "locus" wouldn't stand a snowball's chance even if it was worded in the most simple of terms. Communicat (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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 blocked
1) Communicat should be blocked from editing for a period of one month for his inadvertent plagiarism and/or violations of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * If the only flaw in Communicat's behavior were determined to be inadvertent overquotation or inadequate attribution of sources, based on lack of awareness of community norms and licensing requirements, I do not believe this block would be needed if Communicat promised to improve his behavior. The more complex decision is whether Communicat's conduct is aggravated by the other misconduct alleged by the other parties. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Decisions as to whether Communicat's numerous acts of plagiarism were inadvertent and the appropriate response should be made by neutral parties. Edward321 (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how copying and pasting text from books verbatim and then attributing it to different sources on many occasions (27 by one count) over a roughly six-month long period could possibly be in inadvertent, and it's a bit insulting to other editors to suggest that this could possibly be the case. This is particularly so given that when the actual source was proposed to be used it has consistently been judged unreliable (and hence not acceptable for use in any form). This proposal indicates that Communicat still doesn't understand what's wrong with his or her conduct. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT warns against quoting references sight unseen. That wasn't the problem here - Communicat was copying and paraphrasing text from Stan Winer's books and attributing it to other references. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not attributing it to "other" references. I was attributing it to the self-same references used by Winer. With very few exceptions, due to some minor electronic file corruptions of the original, the references were accurate and reliable, and they were also checked voluntarily by experienced editor Paul Siebert who reported on 18 August 2010, at at this thread are: "...although Winer's major hypothesis has not been confirmed so far, the facts and sources he cites are correct and reliable". (Note: I'm Sorry, but have still been unable to get to grips with workings of Wikiblame, finding diffs etc).
 * In fact, however, and for what it's worth, the book does not attempt any "hypothesis" at all. As its introduction states, the purpose of the work is not to tell people what to think, but rather what to think about, and to freely make of use the copious bibliography and source references to further their own independent lines of inquiry, and so reach their own conclusions. Communicat (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarifying note: re "electronic file corruptions" mentioned above. This has to do with serious and fundamental Microsoft software incompatibilities between some versions of Internet Explorer, particularly versions 7 & 8. Interested parties might want to bear that in mind if they're ever tempted to go into website design or whatever. And no, I'm not hoping to shift blame entirely onto Microsoft. The proofreader was also at fault. Communicat (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The (fixable) citation errors taken by themselves are no big deal; it's the context of wikilawyering, WP:IDHT, tendetious editing, and attempting to slip content into Wikipedia from a source (Winer) that had already been declared fringe, plus Communicat's continued apparent unrepentance, that makes a site ban seem necessary. A year may be longer than needed but 1 month doesn't sound like enough. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban on respondent parties complained of
2) Permanent or temporary interaction ban to be placed on respondent parties complained of preventing them from interacting with Communicat if or when Communicat decides to return to editing after his one-month blocking.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The "respondent parties" are principal editors on the same articles that are the primary focus of Communicat's editing, so I am not sure that this would be workable. (As a sidenote, terminology such as "respondent parties" is excessively legalistic for Wikipedia arbitration and is not necessary.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Re "legalistic": you might note I've not used the term "reckless endangerment" relative to Edward321's and others' "outing" efforts as already noted. But I do take your point. Communicat (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Re below: It was not Edward321 who requested source check. You acted voluntarily and helpfully of your own motivation alone. I've already thanked you. Communicat (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Further re below: Note that Edward321 subsequently wikihounded me to Aftermath of World War II article, which resulted ultimately in this current case. Communicat (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with seeing where else editors are active and pointing out the recurrence of problems there. Your conduct in the History of South Africa article was similar to the World War II articles in that you were seeking to add material attributed to Stan Winer. Your conduct in the Aftermath of World War II article was directly relevant to the World War II article as you were seeking to add material which had been rejected in discussions in the World War II article to the Aftermath of World War II article. It's good practice for editors to follow up on this kind of conduct and not take a 'not my problem' type attitude. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's good practice for editors, especially administrators like yourself, to follow up on attempts to engage with you on your talk page, aimed at trying to sort out problems in an amicable fashion. You, and other involved parties, failed to acknowledge such attempts at discussion, or to respond in any way whatsover, and you know that. You also know that you refused to consent to mediation concerning POV-bias issues. That is why we are here, because of your 'not my problem' type attitude. Well, it's your problem now, like it or not. Communicat (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your only comments which weren't notifications of various arbitration cases on my talk page have been these three rude messages (which start with "What is the matter with you?") on 6 August and this rude notification that you'd taken me to ANI over the Controversial Command Decisions, World War II article. I and the other parties to this case have posted thousands of kilobytes worth of comments during discussions with you in various article talk pages so your claim that "You, and other involved parties, failed to acknowledge such attempts at discussion, or to respond in any way whatsover" is obviously completely false. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 67.117.130.143 is misremembering. I followed Communicat from History of South Africa to World War II based on 67.117.130.143s evidence that Communicat was adding unsupported information there as well. Edward321 (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than willing to accept an interaction ban if Communicat is topic-banned from World War II articles. --Habap (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I felt there was some level of hounding and ABF in Edward321's following Communicat from WW2 to History of South Africa. I investigated the Del Boca reference to clear the matter up, partly at Edward321's request.  (It's to Edward321's credit that he asked for this, I think).  If Communicat is topic-banned from WW2, it might be enough to informally advise the other parties to not follow him to other areas.    67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Content review and bad-faith content dispute resolution mechanism
3) A full review of alleged endemic and systematic POV-bias at the World War II and related articles should be conducted by knowledgeable and impartial independent parties. Further or alternatively, an appropriate and extraordinary bad-faith content dispute resolution mechanism should be formulated and implemented.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * An article-content RfC can be requested on any content issue as to which there is a persistent and genuine lack of consensus. I do not presently perceive any issues with the World War II related articles that require extraordinary content-dispute-resolution methods under the auspices of this Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I supported fully an article-content Rfc as earlier proposed by Georgewilliamherbert, discussion of which became intractible, and Rfc idea proved abortive, nor was I responsible for its abortion. The iniator, GWH, appeared to have simply walked away, due IMO to the intractible nature of the dispute. A mediator similarly and earlier walked away from a separate mediation process, because of intractibility and persistent lack of consensus concerning the start date of WW2, which never was resolved. This makes evident the uselessness of ordinary dispute resolution processes relative to intractible goings-on at WW2 article, certainly not all of which concern Communicat alone. There have however been other referrals concerning Communicat, (COI, AN/I, RS/I etc), all of which subsequently died a natural death after protracted and time-wasting argument, and without any conclusive outcome. Communicat (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Re Fifelfoo comment below regarding systemic failure to resolve content-dispute issues, which do require community response, and his valid question as to "where (that) community response should occur, here or elsewhere." It may well be that the community response will come, as it has done previously, from the off-wiki community. A quick look at History News Network archives, for instance, under search keyword Wikipedia, will show the level of ridicule directed at Wikipedia projects, and the low level of esteem attached to Wikipedia by reputable academics and professional historians, among others. Communicat (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * GWH's RfC was a Request for Comment on User:Communicat. It was never actually filed as you stated above. There has not yet been an RfC on WWII or WWII articles in general and it might be helpful to establish one. --Habap (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a proper look at the Rfc draft discussion and you will see exactly what I supported. What I supported was specifically in terms of a review being undertaken of WW2 and related content. What you and your close colleagues subsequently did with the draft is not my concern, nor do I blame GWH for eventually walking away. For your edification, here is what I said: ...Communicat comment: I disagree with (GWH's) proposed words: "Broadly speaking, Communicat has introduced a more eastern-oriented point of view and sources." No, I've only introduced previously absented reliable sources, both Western and non-Western. I don't discriminate. I've pointed out at ww2 talk page and elsewhere that of nearly 400 individual references supporting ww2 article, there is not one non-Western source or significant minority source listed. I suggested months ago that something ought to be done collegially to address this obvious disparity of sources. Nothing was done, neither collegially nor otherwise. The disparity remains ... Communicat (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I trust that refreshes your memory. Communicat (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Per Brad. This dispute isn't anywhere near the scale where extraordinary remedies come into play.  It only became an arb case at all because the there was too much apathy from uninvolved editors at lower levels to have sorted it out there.  I'll comment on that a little more at "general discussion". 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This dispute is typical of poor systems response; it doesn't change the valid analyses of poor individual editor behaviour. But, the dispute does indicate deeper systemic failures in terms of capacity to handle content issues.  That deeper failure does require community response.  The question is where the community response should occur, here or elsewhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Appointment of appropriate coordinator
4) A military history coordinator familiar with historiography and the principles/methodology of military history relative to modern warfare should be appointed and participate actively in NPOV improvement of the World War II and related articles. Communicat (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by arbitrators:
 * Not really an Arbitration Committee responsibility. This is an important topic area, and participation by more editors with expertise along the lines of what you suggest would always be welcome, but we have no way of forcing editors to get involved. The best way of getting new people involved in an area is to post on the appropriate noticeboards&mdash;and to maintain a friendly, collegial atmosphere so that new editors on the articles don't as if they are stepping into a (no pun intended) war zone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Wikipedia doesn't operate through single 'expert' editors leading projects and passing judgement - it's community based and editors are judged on the basis of their contributions rather than whatever qualifications they claim to have. The coordinators of the military history project have a largely administrative role related to keeping the project itself ticking over and have no special authority whatsoever in relation to the content of articles and only play a limited and informal role in dispute resolution (see WikiProject Military history/Coordinators). I suppose I should note here that I was one of the coordinators of the military history project for two years. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Valid suggestion; issues of validity of this forum to cause it to occur; issues of drawing from the pool "military history coordinator[s]" rather than pool of editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a variety of mechanisms for consensus building and content dispute resolution. No evidence has been provided that some extraordinary measures need to be adopted in this particular case. Not to mention that this is not a function of ArbCom to institute mechanisms to resolve content disputes. - BorisG (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Demotion of WW2 article from GA to B-class status
5)The WW2 article, given its POV-bias as stated, and taking into consideration the supporting views of three uninvolved parties participating at Workshop, should be demoted from GA to B-class status. A review of criteria employed in bestowing GA status on the WW2 article would also be appropriate. Communicat (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not an Arbitration Committee responsibility. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * If you believe the WWII should be downgraded, then you need to list it at Good article reassessment. Edward321 (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed principles
I'd suggest the following principles in addition to those proposed by Kirill Lokshin above.

Use of copyrighted material
1) Wikipedia places very strong emphasis on its copyright policy. This policy requires that editors who wish to add material taken from other sources ensure that the material either meets the non-free content policy and guideline (and is referenced accordingly) or has been released into the public domain under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license before the material is added to any Wikipedia page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is adapted from Copyrights. I think that my above wording could be much improved and would appreciate suggestions for this. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur Habap (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Concurr. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Accurate sourcing
2) Editors are expected to provide accurate references to reliable, published sources for quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged so that it can be verified. Arguments and quotations from sources which are not reliable should not be inaccurately attributed to reliable sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Adapted from WP:V. Again, I think that the wording could be improved. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just tweaked the wording a bit - I think that its meaning is essentially unchanged. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. Edward321 (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur Habap (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Concurr. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want to connect that up to WP:SYNTH? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's certainly relevant, but it's a bit of second-order issue here in my view - the main (though not only) problem appears to have been taking text and arguments from one source and then attributing them to several different sources and WP:SYNTH-type issues have turned out to be a lesser problem as a result. Could you please suggest how the wording could be altered? (or should there be an additional principle?). Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Conduct on arbitration pages
3) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Sadly (for those of us who spend a fair amount of our wikitime on these pages), the tone of the comments in this case is actually fairly mild compared to some of what we see. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I've taken this from Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty and feel that it's justified by uncivil and aggressive comments such as, and  and the blatant inaccuracies in Communicat's evidence concerning other editors' conduct - these inaccurate claims constitute unfounded attacks on editors and have made it more difficult to resolve the issues here (for example see the responses to these attacks at: , ,  , , ,  and Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence as well as at various other points in the above discussions and on the evidence page). I'm not experienced with ArbCom cases and agree that there needs to be some leeway given to editors participating in cases here to engage in robust discussion, but this kind of conduct wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere on Wikipedia, including the various dispute resolution boards. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response Brad. I think that I'll leave this proposal in place though - the kinds of comments Communicat has been making as part of this case would lead to a lengthy block in isolation from any other issues if they had been made in forums such as WP:ANI. I don't see why standards here should be lower, even if ArbCom is willing to put up with having to read through this kind of material (which I suppose is part of the price to pay for trying to resolve the most difficult categories of user conduct issues). Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * @NYB your comment, taken litterally, means that you regret that the tone here is mild. I don't think you meant this. :) - BorisG (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if, when MILHIST blows up, it is a relative tea-party for arbitrators, that doesn't excuse parties or others spooning jam into the sugar bowl. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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 indefinitely prohibited from (i) editing articles about World War II and the Cold War, broadly construed, and their talk pages; (ii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iii) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is an expansion of the proposal made by Kirill Lokshin above to include the Cold War (this is to largely formalise the responses to Kirill's proposal). I'm not sure if South Africa should also be added here. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think the discussion is reaching the point of diminishing returns. Further back-and-forth here is probably unnecessary unless there are significant new points to be made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree wholeheartedly with above by Newyorkbrad, which I've only just noticed. Will comply accordingly. If anyone feels compelled to add anything further, please don't interpret my failure to respond as signifying concurrence. Thanks. Communicat (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with 67.117.130.143's comments below. GWH did seek out additional neutral admins, who did not choose to be involved (as is their right). GWH's work on the RfC was delayed due to illness, but I, and I believe most of the other editors involved were willing to wait. Attempts were made by Nick-D, Habap, and myself to get neutral editors involved by posting on the various noticeboards. Only my post at Reliable Sources seems to have gotten any editors willing to post their views anywhere but that specific noticeboard. Edward321 (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The dispute ended up at Arbcom because Nick-D refused to consent to mediation four months ago, and a subsequent Rfc proposal was aborted, not by me. It's as simple as that. Communicat (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unsigned editor remarks below about "apathy". I concur, on basis of my own experience, as to indisputable existence of editor apathy at WW2 article as evidenced by their patterned avoidance of, aversion / reluctance to be editorially engaged in higher-order content issues. But I'm not entirely clear as to what unsigned editor is himself specifically referring to with regard to "apathy", since he provides no examples of his own. What I do know for a fact is that unsigned editor has in the past made some appropriate and very valid content suggestions at WW2 discussion that received only my support and were otherwise studiously ignored / disregarded / not responded to by the few other active editors, including especially involved party Habap. That IMO represents apathy, and it has an extremely negative effect on what is supposed to be encyclopaedic content.


 * While the focus of this case, as also the focus elsewhere, has been shifted effectively by the parties from content issues to near exclusivity on my "behaviour problems", this does not change the fact that the public relies on and refers to Wikipedia essentially for information contained in what is trusted to be accurate and comprehensive content. They do not rely on Wikipedia to gain insight as to which of the editors are behaving nicely and which are not. Wikipedia's and especially Arbcom's prioritising, if any, might or might not care to take this into account: content takes priority over behaviour. Content should therefor be prioritised as demanding keen attention, instead of obfuscating and sidestepping that main issue into far less cogent issues of individual "incivility" which, in any event stems from sheer frustration over the intractibility of the content problem, and the small clique of POV-biased editors responsible for causing the problem.


 * I know that evidence phase has been closed and this posting will therefor probably not be taken into account. But I place this posting on record none the less, for the benefit of future researchers and also for future content-issue complainants, of which there will almost certainly be more if Arbcom does not address realistically the core POV-bias complaint that was meant to be at issue in this case presently in arbitration. Communicat (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In sum, Wikipedia's prime responsibility is to the public, not to a small clique of prejudiced editors who misuse WP:CON and the rules of so-called "civility" to purvey unfettered POV-bias through omission. Communicat (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I ask when these content suggestions that I am egregiously at fault for ignoring occurred? I was out of the country for a few weeks. No one needs my approval to add things to the article. If you provide diffs, perhaps I can figure out why I wasn't involved in that discussion, but since I'm not paid to edit Wikipedia, I will defend my right to do things other than read and edit. --Habap (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Revisionist historians lists A. J. P. Taylor as a revisionist historian.
 * World War II cites his works – The Origins of the Second World War (1961) and How Wars Begin (1979).
 * Masaya Shiraishi is Japanese – "Japanese Relations with Vietnam, 1951–1987" (1990) is cited.
 * Jussi M. Hanhimäki is Finnish – "Containing Coexistence: America, Russia, and the Finnish Solution" is cited.
 * James Hsiung is Chinese - "China's Bitter Victory: The War with Japan, 1937–1945" (1992) is cited twice.
 * Akira Iriye is Japanese – "Power and culture: the Japanese-American war, 1941–1945" (1981) is cited.
 * Alexander Chubarov is Russian – "Russia's Bitter Path to Modernity: A History of the Soviet and Post-Soviet Eras" (2001) is cited.
 * Himeta Mitsuyoshi is Japanese – "(姫田光義) (日本軍による『三光政策・三光作戦をめぐって』) " "Concerning the Three Alls Strategy/Three Alls Policy By the Japanese Forces" (1996) is cited.
 * V. N. Zemskov is Russian – his "On repatriation of Soviet citizens" (1990) is cited.
 * Tanaka Yuki is Japanese - "Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II" (1996) is cited.
 * Ju Zhifen is Chinese - "Japan's atrocities of conscripting and abusing north China draughtees after the outbreak of the Pacific war"
 * Bela Tarczai is Hungarian - "HUNGARIAN PRISONERS-0F-WAR IN FRENCH CAPTIVITY 1945 – 1947" is cited.
 * Ikeo Aiko is Japanese - "Economic Development in Twentieth Century East Asia: The International Context" is cited. Edward321 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Carcharoth asked why community processes broke down, since this type of dispute normally would have been resolved before arbitration. I think it was because the dispute was localized enough that not enough uninvolved editors tried to sort it out.  GWH and I were the only ones who put much effort into it that I remember.  GWH took the right approach of starting an RFC, but unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because he became ill.   And I was away from WP in Oct-Nov for external reasons, and I mostly stopped paying attention to the dispute til after arbitration opened.   I think the RFC discussion would have been similar to this arb case though, leading to administrative sanctions against Communicat.  I do think there is some merit to Communicat's content complaints, but Communicat's approach to editing and DR have been so unacceptable that dealing with the content issues will have to be left to other editors (unless Communicat changes his ways drastically).  67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I should add, IMO, the reason few outside editors were willing to get involved was that they could see that the dispute was quite complex. Communicat was a fairly new editor having typical new-editor problems, his content proposals weren't crazy on their face, but he was obviously acting inappropriately in ways that could only be addressed by wading in and grappling with a lot of detail.  GWH said he spent 4 hours reading talkpages before intervening.  I certainly spent at least as long, trying to advise Communicat in various ways, against a wall of IDHT.  The other involved parties must have spent even longer, before deciding they were dealing with a TURNIP.  I think the amount of patience shown puts everyone in a good light. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Communicat, the focus of this case has not "shifted" to behaviour problems. You have already been advised that every arbitration case, this one included, is exclusively about behaviour from the very beginning.  You don't get to participate in content decisions if you're under (certain types of) behavioural sanctions.   Arbitration sorts out the behavioural issues so that editors not under behavioural sanctions can go make the content decisions through discussion.  If you don't want to be under behavioural sanctions, then don't misbehave.  It's really not complicated, in either theory or practice. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unsigned editor, you have apparently neglected to read this part of my evidence. You have apparently also failed to notice that my request was filed under case tile Military history POV-bias. It was not I who arbitarily changed the case title following acceptance of the case. As for the Turnip part of your earlier posting, I can guarantee that if I'd used that term, I'd be reprimanded/blocked or whatever.


 * And as for the "apathy" that you also mentioned above, I think you yourself should have offered at least some semblance of resistance to the offhanded, even contemptous, manner in which your own various, very valid content suggestions at WW2 discussion were simply ignored by low-level "consensus". Communicat (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is apathy of that kind which has IMO allowed, encouraged even, the tri-partite "consensus" clique to get away with their POV-biased actions and omissions for such a long period of time. Communicat (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unsigned editor, who complains of having to spend all of four hours counselling me, might care to consider that I spent hundreds of hours compiling text and refs, making proposals and participating in protracted discussions, all of which came to naught as a result of what may aptly be described as editorial xenophobia, viz., POV-bias and resistance to new ideas, as exhibited consistently by the involved parties. Communicat (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, if you hadn't been rude from the opening of the door on all this, and alienated almost every new person who joined the discussion, we would far more likely have made progress on the articles in question instead of spending hundreds of hours in arbitration. You sole goal, from the initial link-spamming of Winer's website through the last attempts you made to edit articles seems to have been to insert his writing into Wikipedia, rather than improve the articles. --Habap (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly? That's rich. Hundreds of hours spent in arbitration? That's even richer. My sole goal from the outset of my acquaintance with Wikipedia has been to balance all the POV-bias with at least some NPOV. As for having "alienated almost every new person who joined the discussion", you've evidently missed the succinct posting of Fifeloo at Evidence page, and the separate postings of three additional individual editors at Evidence talk, where they've expressed views not entirely dissimilar to my own. The cause of recent exodus of editors from the WW2 article itself, is not my doing. Go figure.


 * Meanwhile, instead of endlessly carping, why don't you and the other parties try to come up with some reasonable explanation as to why, (and I'll ask this yet again), of nearly 400 individual references at WW2 article, there is not even one non-Western, Western revisionist, or significant-minority reference. You and the other parties complained of, by your and their own admissions, have been predominantly active in bringing that article to "GA" status over a considerable period of time, so you must know the answer. The answer IMO, which the three of you are understandably reluctant to impart, is that there exists endemic, systematic, and longstanding POV-bias at that article, and the three of you are largely responsible for it, at least in my own experience. If deliberate editorial bias, bigotry and prejudice are not clear and incontrovertible evidence of gross editorial misconduct, then I am at a complete loss as to what the word "misconduct" is supposed to mean, even in wikispeak. Communicat (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And I will defend my right to expose historical malfeasance. Communicat (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely no evidence provided that these 400 references contain no Western revisionist, or significant-minority references. You need to read all of them to say something like that. I think the article represents a broad consensus of Wikipedia editors, not a small clique (as shown by the GA process) and the fact that you disagree with it does not make it POV. If you think some POVs are not represented, you can add that information, but you must do this using reliable sources as per Wikipedia definition of reliable sources. Apathy of other editors is not a problem; you can do it yourself. Wholesale accusations of POV, bais and cabals are not helpful and won't get us anywhere. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was also not involved in the "GA" status effort. I've made precisely two changes to World War II and both were only to the infobox. I did spend some time on the talk page in 2006 & 2007, mostly manually archiving old talk sections. So, I have had nothing to do with the article getting or maintaining "GA" status. I stopped in on 13 August when someone commented on articles about decorated WWII veterans, then saw the truth-hertz craziness and soon got chastised for "libel/defamation" by you. I think many editors could describe similar experiences with their first encounter with you. --Habap (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well, Habap, I retract and apologise for associating you with the compilation of what I consider to a significantly sub-standard World War II article. The fact remains, however, you failed to participate in discussion proposals re extensive revision of Aftermath of World War II article, then wikihounded me there, harrassed me, significantly disrupted my editing, and later "reorganised" completely the structure and content of the article without consulting other editors including myself, and then belatedly invited comment only after you'd already accomplished a fait accompli. Communicat (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My post about my reorg was 4 hours after the changes. Check WP:BRD for justification. You were in the midst of a re-block for having evaded your block, so waiting for you made little sense when the article was that messy. Feel free to compare the "before" to the "after" . The fact that the article retains that basic structure from my re-org leads me to believe that you were the only one who found it "without any noticeable rationale".  --Habap (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Re BorisG comment: I see absolutely no evidence provided that these 400 references contain no Western revisionist, or significant-minority references. I assure you I've studied the references diligently, and I know what I'm talking about. You will find some relevant Western revisionist histories in the list of rejected / reverted / obstructed sources, which I've already provided above. Further or alternatively, you are invited to read one of the various sections at World War II discussion page, e.g. this one section conveying my suggestion of a judicious NPOV balanced mix of Western, non-Western and Western revisionist sources, all of which were rejected out of hand, along with the topic idea suggested (viz., mentioning significant partisans' support for Allied war effort, which is/was absent from article). You might also care to acquaint yourself with my tedious, tooth-and-nail struggle to have just one longstanding and blatantly POV-biased source removed from the source references, after which I gave up trying to get consensus on having more removed. It just wasn't worth the time, trouble and unpleasantness involved. Communicat (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realize that your "tedious, tooth-and-nail struggle to have just one longstanding and blatantly POV-biased source removed from the source references" lasted just over 22 hours, right? You mentioned the problem on 25 August and made no comment at all until after I brought it back up to be removed on 30 August at 19:04. Moxy and Hohum concurred within the first half-hour. The next day, you went on a rant, complaining that I was mis-quoting you, then attempted to order me to make the change that everyone had already agreed on. No one at all had disagreed with removing it. So, it really doesn't seem like  "tooth-and-nail struggle", despite the incivility displayed by you in that discussion. --Habap (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In reviewing the communist-led resistance section, I see no one disparaging the sources. The only concrete text proposed was near the end of the discussion and that was in regards to inserted a sentence into the lede about partisans when there was nothing in the article about them. If there is something elsewhere in the archives that shows people rejecting your sources, please point to that, since the link you've supplied does not. --Habap (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have read your example, and now I know what you are talking about. This looks like a normal content discussion. No one was disparaging your sources (BTW they are also western sources, so any complaint about the domination of western sources is kind of empty). You proposed very little actual content, and when you did, other editors engaged in patient and constructive discussion, presenting arguments, suggesting modifications etc. Yes it is hard and painstaking to attempt to significantly modify a long and well established article. Hard but not impossible. You gave up? That's certainly your choice. I see no evidence that it was impossible. It just takes a long and painstaking effort. That's how it is, and that's how it should be. It would be sad if the hard work of so many editors over years could be easily changed because someone thinks it's POV. You need to formulate your own NPOV and verifyable statements, and introduce content into the article before suggesting changes in the lede, not the other way round. May I suggest your desist from accusing everyone of POV and bias, and resume hard work to improve articles. By bringing this issue to ArbCom you run a very real risk of being banned, in which case you won't be able to follow my advice. But alas it seems it is too late... BTW your contrasting content vs conduct is a false dichotomy. Wikipedia has its processes, and good content is achieved through good conduct. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I know people don't like walls of text but I feel obliged to clarify what I mean when I say content vs conduct is a false dichotomy (quoting someone in a recent policy debate). Communicat has said above that readers care about accuracy of the content, not who called whom in debates. I agree with this. Yes, although civility is essential for contructive debates, it does not affect content directly. But conduct is not only about civility. Communicat has been accused here of 1) copyright violations, 2) using sources not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards and 3) misrepresenting sources. I am not saying these allegations are true; that is for ArbCom to examine. But these are examples of conduct issues which directly impact content. Thus contirbutions to articles that do not adhere to conduct rules will not result in good content. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will give you a barnstar for every non-Western, Western-revisionist, or significant-minority position reference source cited in the references list of WW2 article. It is clear from your comments about sources that you're experiencing some conceptual confusion as to what is meant by Western-revisionist or revisionism generally, the latter being a valid and legitimate historiographic concept that most serious amateur and professional historians are very familiar with, and which some POV-biased milhist editors have a marked aversion to, as complained of by me. To help dispel your apparent conceptual confusion, I refer you to definition of revisionism and further useful info here.


 * As regards your views on content, I think they might usefully be incorporated at current work-in-progress essay Arbitration and content at AGK's user page which invites relevant contributions. Communicat (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are not getting it. You can include any reliable sources you like. You cannot force others to introduce them. As for AGK's essay, not only I know it, but I even asked questions about it on candidates' question pages. Yes, it highlights a valid problem that it is possible to violate content principles without violating conduct rules. Wikipedia needs to develop better processes to deal with this important issue. However, the opposite is definitely untrue: it is impossible to create good content without following conduct rules. I gave you good examples above; here I give up. - BorisG (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely, It is impossible to create good content without following conduct rules. Reliance on and production of POV-biased content is IMO misconduct of the worst kind, and that is precisely why this case was filed by me, even if I don't deny that I too have infringed some rules to a far lesser degree and purely as a result of frustration with the manner and method whereby the content rules are/were being breached by others with impunity and apparent indemnity. Communicat (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We're still waiting on those pages of diffs you've been talking about for months that provide evidence of your allegations. --Habap (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm still waiting for Habap's or anyone else's explanations as to why, of nearly 400 individual WW2 references, there is not even one non-Western, Western revisionist, or significant-minority position ref reflecting NPOV parity of sourcing as required by the rules.

Separately, Habap above reduces a protracted dispute about communist-resistance groups to the reductive remark that I'd "inserted a sentence into the lede about partisans when there was nothing in the article about them." In fact, it was rather more complicated than that. I was arguing at the same time that mention should be be made in the article itself to the role of partisans, and that they should also be in the infobox list of belligerents supporting the Allies. The "Communist resistance" thread refered to by Habap and BorisG was in fact ambiguated and continued unabated in two other threads titled respectively "Editing dispute" and Anti-communist prejudice, where I also clarified my use of the term "communist-led".

To put things in proper context and perspective, and to counter Habap's reductive approach, I shall explain that this particular saga first commenced when I revised and improved paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lead section of WW2 Article. In respect of partisans in particular I wrote: The Allies were supported militarily by communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe (reference Melissa Bokovoy, Peasants and Communists: Politics and Ideology in the Yugoslav Countryside, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998; Jorgen Haestrup, European Resistance Movements, 1939-1945: A Complete History'', London: Meckler Publishing, 1981) and the Far East. (reference Spenser Chapman, The Jungle is Neutral, London: Chatto and Windus, 1948; Ian Trenowden, Operations Most Secret: SOE, the Malayan Theatre, London: Wm Kimber, 1978; Association of Asian Studies, Anti-Japanese Movements in Southeast Asia during World War II 1996) ''

That particular item, along with the rest, was deleted swiftly and without comment by Nick-D who remained silent for the next four days, before he was eventually cajoled into on commenting 8 August 2010, when he identified what were alleged "problems" with the material as follows:

... the claim that "The Allies were supported militarily by communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe" is simply wrong - while communist groups played the key role in the resistance in several countries, the Communists didn't 'lead' the resistance in western Europe which was coordinated by the various governments in exile located in Britain.

I responded thus to Nick-D's posting: ''Greek resistance had no contact with monarchist government in exile which they intended to overthrow anyway. Italian resistance had no govt in exile. Italian communist-led partisans ... actually managed liberate enemy-occupied territory ...''

In his "identification" of the "problems" with my contribution, Nick-D further claimed: The armed resistance movements in most of Japanese-occupied Asia were fairly small and unimportant (and) ... The Philippino resistance movement was probably the most significant of them, but it was not 'communist led' as it was coordinated out of General MacArthur's headquarters.To which I replied: '''Korean / Vietnamese / Chinese (Mao's) resistance "small and unimportant"? ... Filipino resistance was conducted on the ground by groups operating in enemy occupied territory and completely cut off from communication with McArthur.'' (Interested parties might care to note the spelling of Nick-D's word "Philippino", which should correctly be "Filipino").

A further item in my revision and improvement of the lead had stated accurately: Russian historians contend that the Eastern Front was the principal and decisive front of the war, (reference: Y Larionov, N Yeronin, B Solovyov, V. Timokhovich, World War II Decisive Battles of the Soviet Army, Moscow: Progress 1984) That, contended Nick-D, was out of place in this high-level article and ignores the fact that most western historians now agree with this view in relation to the war in Europe, To which I replied: ''If there's East-West consensus on the decisive front, then surely this merits some acknowledgment, not for the sake of knowlegeable historians but for the benefit of less informed mortals who rely on wiki for enlightenment, ... ''

A loud silence ensued. Nick-D never did respond further nor did he ever did deal with the issues raised. The contribution remained undone, my comments were ignored, and to this day the entire partisan topic remains conspicuously absent from the POV-biased article. Communicat (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is much more like what I had hoped to see in Evidence. The link you provided before only showed that last part of the discussion. This is better, because you're providing more information on what was said and what the problem is with it. However, it is better to provide links to the diffs showing who exactly said what and when instead of just quoting, since it may not give proper context.


 * However, in none of what you've quoted does anyone reject your sources. They only argue about your conclusion "The Allies were supported militarily by communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe and the Far East". There may be parts of the discussion in which someone does deride your sources, but you haven't produced that diff yet. --Habap (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See, without the diffs, it's just like Senator McCarthy standing in the Senate waving his list of 200 names. --Habap (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My "conclusion", as you describe it, was based on sources cited. If the "conclusion" was dismissed, which you acknowledge, then it follows that the sources were similarly and simultaneously rejected. Communicat (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: If I'd been allowed a month to prepare evidence and rebuttals, I might then have managed to get around to providing more diffs to keep you happy. Communicat (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides, and on the basis of my few diffs already provided, I reckon the arbitrators are sufficiently astute to figure out for themselves what's been going on at WW2 and related articles, regardless of whether or not Hapab happens to approve or disapprove of the number of diffs I've managed to provide in the time allowed. Communicat (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagreeing with your conclusion because Western European resistance movements were not communist-led and because the Chinese nationalists were not led by the Chinese communists, is not the same as rejecting your sources as invalid.


 * If you recall, you initiated this RfArb nearly a month ago, after having previously tried 2 months ago and 4 months ago. Complaining of lack of time to at least compile diffs for evidence of at least your initial allegations seems odd. You spent a lot of time investigating Nick-D's prior actions and public comment on Edward321, while writing something over 6000 words in your Evidence, yet had no time to research diffs of editors actually showing POV-bias, let alone other improper actions. You likely will get no sympathy for your choice in how to allocate your time.


 * You are correct, you don't have to satisfy me with diffs. My opinion is unimportant here, but the folks who run this provided instructions to the process at Arbitration/Guide to arbitration:"The parties and other interested editors are encouraged to place evidence on the case's Evidence subpage, in the form of diffs demonstrating contested behavior along with explanations and context. Be clear and concise. Generally, presentations should be kept under 1000 words and 100 diffs, although some flexibility is tolerated.  The parties should be aware that argument is not evidence, and that five well-chosen diffs may speak more eloquently than a 500-word diatribe."
 * You needn't follow my advice or theirs, but I think you do so at your own peril. --Habap (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Communicat on 2 September 2010: "don't worry, I have all the relevant diffs."
 * Communicat on 21 December 2010: "If I'd been allowed a month to prepare evidence and rebuttals, I might then have managed to get around to providing more diffs to keep you happy."
 * Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion of the above change to the World War II article is at Talk:World War II/Archive 40 and I responded to comments made by Communicat on this topic in his or her evidence in the first dot point at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence. Communicat leaves out the fact that also provided detailed comments on Communicat's proposed text which supported keeping them out of the article as written, though he suggested some changes to some of the material to remove problems with it. Communicat's response to my comments on this material were uncivil, and after accusing me of making a "rude and defamatory comment" ended with "So what's the point in discusing it further, I wonder. (User Paul Siebert Phd excepted)"  so it's a bit odd that he or she is now complaining that I didn't engage in further detailed discussion of this change. Communicat's post starting the thread  was highly uncivil and my post asking that he or she reformat the above response so it wasn't in the middle of my post prompted this abusive response:  The final post in the discussion on this edit was by Paul which stated (in part) to Communicat that "I believe the problem will be resolved if you post (or re-post) concrete proposals, namely, which concrete pieces of text should be modified, how concretely should they be modified, and what sources support the changes you propose" to which there was no response. All up, this is a pretty good example of Communicat's aggressive and grossly uncivil responses to comments on his or her edits and the differences between how  Communicat portrayed the discussion and what actually eventuated illustrates the unreliability of his or her evidence. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Re unsigned editor's remark above: Communicat on 2 September 2010: "don't worry, I have all the relevant diffs." Unsigned editor will note that 2 September 2010 was five months ago and, in case you've not noticed, a lot of water flowed under the bridge since then. Unsigned editor will also note that he's selectively chosen not to state the specific context in which the words were written. So I'll remind him: Unsigned editor: "... please supply diffs of your edits with the citations, and of the responses that you're taking issue with. Communicat:  Okay, the archives are full of examples, but here's a recent example submitted 23 August 2010 relative to denazification and improvement WW2 Aftermath section and still on the current talk page above, so diff isn't necessary: TEXT AS SUBMITTED (and rejected): Secret arrangements were concluded between American military intelligence and former key figures in the anti-communist section of German military intelligence or Abwher, headed by General Reinhard Gehlen, to advise the Americans on how to go about establishing their own anti-Soviet networks in Europe. REFS: Christopher Simpson, Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1988, pp.42, 44 ISBN 1555841066; Richard Harris Smith, OSS: Secret history of the CIA, Berkeley: University of California Press 1972, p.240 ISBN 0440567351 OUTCOME: Quietly dropped from New Aftermath section. Finished. Kaput. Even though there was no consensual agreement to do so. In fact, consensus seemed to support inclusion of this topic. Discussion is still on this current page at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II#Restructuring_Aftermath_section. Restructuring aftermath section].''

I also remind unsigned editor that the above exchange was part of a potentially constructive dialogue with him at WW2 article section SIGINT, where unsigned editor himself made some very valid, higher-level, content suggestions that were subsequently ignored by Habap in particular, who consistently disrupted and diverted the discussion to suit his own irrelevant agenda. The end result was that your suggestions, together with my support for them, just disappeared into the archives and were never revived, along with other very relevant high-level content suggested by you and others, which has similarly and inexcusably been omitted from the article through the combined efforts of a small, low-level, "consensus-decision" clique, without any spirited resistance from you or anybody else except Communicat. I suggest the codification of WP:CONS be revised and reformed to take into account the manner and method whereby the rules of "consent" are applied to the obvious detriment of article content, as exemplified by the foregoing. Communicat (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Re Edward321 posting above, which provides list of only 12 'non-Western' sources from among the 356 sources relied upon in WW2 article. He fails to provide details of place of publication, so it's debatable as to whether or not those supposedly reliable "non-Western" sources are truly non-Western, or whether they're the works of emigre authors assimilated into the Western cultural and political orbit. It is also not clear how many, if any, of those sources were added subsequent to the commencement of this long-running dispute, or whether or not they are self-published sources. But never mind the 'non-Western' part for the moment. Allow me instead to observe there is not even one REVISIONIST source cited, nor any source reflecting a significant-minority position (which in the non-Western and/or non-aligned world is in fact a majority position). Communicat (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Before I go, just a quick response to Habap's reductive remark above with reference to my "conclusion" (whatever that's supposed to imply) regarding partisan resistance: He claims the relevant contribution was rejected because "Western European resistance movements were not communist-led ...(etc)". His remark is mischeivous and misleading. Interested parties should read the entire, protracted and ambiguated discussion as already referred to above, and form their own conclusions.


 * If Habap and others put as much effort into dedicated editing instead of undermining my credibility, the WW2 article might be in far better shape than it is. The article, for a start, would not be far in excess of the WP:LIMIT rule, which urges that articles must not exceed 400kb; whereas the WW2 article, at 759kb and mounting, is and has for a long time been nearly twice that length, which can cause server and rendering problems for wiki readers in the public arena. Just another example of the don't-give-a-damn attitude displayed by the article's principal and problematic consensus "supervisors" who contribute very little real editing of their own, and who now are now the involved parties in this arbitration case. Communicat (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Reiteration: re Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think the discussion is reaching the point of diminishing returns. Further back-and-forth here is probably unnecessary unless there are significant new points to be made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly with above by Newyorkbrad, which I've only just noticed. Will comply accordingly. If anyone feels compelled to add anything further, please don't interpret my failure to respond as signifying concurrence. Thanks. Communicat (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to get hold of me, don't bother. I'll be enjoying a delayed summer holiday, without internet access, until further notice, if any. Communicat (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason the sentence on Gehlen was removed is that you cut-and-pasted it from Winer. It was removed on 11 December because it was plagiarized. If that issue is ever resolved, we could paste it back in.
 * I'm confused. On 20 December, you wrote "I assure you I've studies the references diligently, and I know what I'm talking about." and now, you don't know whether "they're truly non-Western"? Which is it? Have you studied the list diligently or not?
 * The canard about you being a true contributor while everyone else is but a supervisor can be tossed aside when the 27 instances of cutting-and-pasting Winer's work are reviewed. You didn't write nearly as much as we thought you had - you cut-and-pasted it from his work. You often complained whenever I wrote anything, or reorganized anything. This points back to a tendency toward WP:OWN - that you wanted your edits in the article and that no one else should insert anything without your personal approval. --Habap (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, you are confused. You're also not paying attention, again. Gehlen sentence was removed by Nick-D from "Aftermath" section of WW2 article on 23 August 2010, not 11 December 2010 as wrongly stated by you. Since you're so keen on diffs, here's the relevant diff: and also read properly the date on this diff, (as already provided above), and you might see it is dated 2 September 2010.


 * Allow Arbcom to draw its own conclusions as to the nature of Communicat's association with Winer, and any mitigating circumstances arising therefrom.


 * I'm pulling the plug now. Carry on without me. Communicat (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was looking at the wrong article. You cut-and-pasted Winer's efforts on Gehlen into the Aftermath article on 25 October and it was removed late on 10 December, not 11 December. I should have included those diffs earlier to avoid problems. My mistake. I thought we were both talking about the Aftermath article, not the Aftermath section of the WWII article. It was easy to be confused, since Winer's words were inserted in both. --Habap (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)