Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Communicat

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
Generally; is Communicat editing disruptively and/or unable to get along with the wider community, and separately, are elements of the community unreasonably excluding alternate non-western viewpoints or sources from World War II related history articles.

Desired outcome
It is desired that the community review the two major issues (behavior, and content) and that a community consensus be developed for ways to proceed forwards along those two

Description
Communicat is active in Wikipedia generally in two major and one minor area related to modern history - World War II, and the History of South Africa, with a lesser focus on Cold War studies. Broadly speaking, Communicat has introduced a more eastern-oriented point of view and sources.

The current dispute is focused on behavioral and content issues related to Aftermath of World War II.

There are two general competing and not necessarily exclusive claims made.
 * That Communicat continues to insert unsourced or poorly sourced materials, promote fringe points of view, and disrupt the article; advanced by and
 * That there exists a cabal of editors working to keep the standard western history viewpoint exclusively in the articles to the exclusion of other viewpoints; advanced by - or alternately, that personal conflicts with Communicat are causing this alternate viewpoint to be needlessly excluded or not fairly considered; advanced by

My apologies if the above do not adequately summarize or are somewhat biased; the editors can of course expound further below.

There has been considerable prior dispute history:
 * Talk:World War II/Archive 41
 * Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II
 * Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II
 * Talk:World War II/Archive 39
 * Talk:World War II/Archive 39
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45
 * Talk:History of South Africa

And Communicat has been warned or sanctioned for various activity (disclaimer: both the warning and blocks by myself):
 * warning
 * block log

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:DISRUPT
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:RS
 * WP:FRINGE
 * WP:UNDUE

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}



Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Communicat response: No endorsements after 48 hours. Allegations against me are thus considered dismissed forthwith. I trust they will not be resurrected again without justification. Communicat (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please disregard my posting above. I was under the wrong impression that this was the Rfc proper, and not simply a proposed Rfc. My further comments are at the discussion page hereof. Communicat (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.