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

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, [ edit this template] and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

remedies
I think if there's no site ban, there should be a probation regarding accurate use of sources. Communicat's contributions are going to have to be checked against their sources for a while, and finding too many sourcing problems can get old awfully fast. Mentorship à la PHG or Mattisse might also be a useful approach. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. It's important to note that the problems with Communicat's editing range across most of the article's he or she has been involved with, and this has included adding dodgy claims actually sourced from Stan Winer's website to articles on South Africa and torture. I'm a bit worried that the fairly limited nature of the restrictions may mean that Communicat attempts the same behavior in other topic areas and the intervening admins may lack guidance. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. We'll discuss the possibility of an additional remedy. If we don't formally add one, a request for amendment of the decision may be filed if problems persist in other areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns
It is the first ArbCom case I have watched and I am a little surpsised how it has unfolded. Communicat has raised some concern about one-sidedness of a series of articles. A small number of other editors agreed that some minority viewpoints are perhaps underrepresented. There is an overwhelming feelings that regardless of whether these concerns are valid, communicat has addressed them in a wrong way. ArbCom has addressed the latter problem (and I agree with its findings 100%) but did not as much as acknowledge a possible existence of systemic bias (stemming perhaps from well known demographics of the bulk of Wikipedia editors). I am concerned that rather than to advise and mentor communicat to address his concerns in a different way, ArbCom has just banned him from the entire subject area. Problem solved, for now, but is it good for the project at large? Isn't the whole approach just a bit too narrow? Yeh, I know, ArbCom is not for solving content disputes and all that, but could we be a bit more constructive rather than just banning people? I know this is way too late and may be the wrong place but I just want to raise my concern that ArbCom's approach looks a bit too narrow. At least a note for the future. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for raising your concern. As you have observed, we deal primarily with user-conduct issues rather than content disputes. That being said, if I had observed a glaring problem with inappropriate article content, we would have found a way of saying so. The evidence before us did not, at least in my view, reflect any issues with content rising to the level that we would point them out in the decision and urge the community to resolve them.
 * That being said, every article and group of articles in the encyclopedia is freely editable and can be improved. If you or any other editors perceive bias, it can be addressed, typically by adding additional information and citations. The principles in the decision, which are restatements or in a few cases amplification of relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies, outline some basics that should be borne in mind. Note, for example, that proposed principle 6 states that "where appropriate given the subject-matter of an article, such as a historical subject with worldwide reach, the presentation should seek to include perspectives reflecting multiple national and cultural views on a topic."
 * I am always reluctant to ban any editor, either from his or her area of interest and expertise as I have proposed here, or from the site as a whole. The committee takes this action only when it believes that no lesser sanction will be effective to resolve a problem. Unfortunately, after a lengthy review of the statements, evidence, and editing history, that was my judgment as drafter in this instance, and so far it has unanimously been endorsed by the other arbitrators. Unfortunately, Communicat's latest comments about the case (on the workshop page) may reflect that a still stronger remedy is necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have significantly different concerns. Based on the level of wikilawyering shown by Communicat I expect him to argue at length that the proposed topic ban applies only to the two articles specifically listed. That same post of his also seems to indicate Communicat has no intention of modifying his behaviour in any way, saying "I assure you I will not abandon my campaign simply because I am blocked or banned by wiki." If anything, he seems to intend to escalate his behavior when he says "I shall continue energetically with that effort, regardless of whether or not Wikipedia considers me to be a pain in the arse." Edward321 (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BorisG, Communicat has been advised ad infinitum over several months to raise his concerns in a more appropriate way. He has repeatedly refused to, and his latest comments show that he still doesn't intend to take advice, even with the (so far) unanimous findings of the arbitrators, mentoring seems very unlikely to succeed. He clearly isn't the person to help address the issue; his behaviour is the opposite of helping the project.
 * If you feel there is a bias in a Military History article, please point it out on the article talk page. If you feel that there is a systemic bias in the project, try voicing your concerns directly on the project talk page, with suggestions on how to remedy it. I don't get the sense that you think the Military History Project, or a group of editors in that arena are actively quashing properly supported edits, but if you do, you should gather diffs to show the behaviour, which, if they exist, would likely be taken very seriously by administrators - unlike the collection of accusations without supporting diffs presented by Communicat in this case. ( Hohum   @ ) 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If Communicat thinks he or she can dodge either the spirit or letter of restrictions imposed by ArbCom then they will find that these kind of restrictions are fairly remorselessly applied. It's also possible to ask for restrictions to be expanded if necessary. Communicat should also note that the restrictions which seem likely to be imposed are actually relatively light; if this had gone through channels such as ANI it's likely that an indefinite block would have been imposed (though it's easier to appeal against this than it is to have an ArbCom-imposed restriction lifted). Boris; I'd agree with the above comments that if you have concerns about articles you'd find a welcoming reception if you'd like to raise them at WT:MILHIST or similar. No-one is arguing that the articles Communicat had focused on can't be improved; the issue was Communicat's conduct (which was, in essence, to push a fringe, and often factually incorrect, POV and attack anyone who tried to stop him or her from doing this). Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think all of this makes sense and actually very much consistent with my own thinking. I cannot say I share Communicat's concerns about the bias, and I certainly disagree with his view that there is some concious effort to maintain such bias. I thought though that he raised some issues which looked plausible, and then approached them in a wrong way, and that perhaps there was a way to channel his knowledge and energy in a more constructive way. However I understand from comments here and elsewhere that this has been tried numerous times before without any traction. So maybe that's the end of it. Thank you for your comments. - BorisG (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re Nick-d's "If Communicat thinks he or she can dodge either the spirit or letter of restrictions imposed by ArbCom then they will find that these kind of restrictions are fairly remorselessly applied." Please explain exactly how restrictions imposed by Arbcom are to be "remorselessly applied" to my future contributions, if any, at off-wiki sites and in international print media? Does the American Wikipedia have jurisdiction over the entire world of knowledge and information? I think not. Definitely not. Communicat (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain Nick would have only been referring to the English Wikipedia. Shell  babelfish 12:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind what Nick-d was referring to, what I'm referring to is the fact that this arbitration case is a farce, and the arbitration committee is a farce. It has "simplified" this case beyond all recognition. It has dodged entirely the solid basis upon which this case was filed and accepted, and Arbcom can't even abide by its own stated job description which is supposed to include content issues. The main content issue in this case being that Wikipedia has a serious systemic bias problem, and Arbcom has neither the will nor the ability to solve it. Systemic "POV-bias" is a polite way of describing the phenomenon. A blunter and more accurate way of putting it would be to say that some if not all Wikipedia modern military history articles are flagrantly one-sided, they reflect official British and American propaganda, and they are certainly not encyclopedic.
 * Also never mind topic-banning me from World War II and Aftermath articles. I left the WW2 article of my own volition a long time ago and never returned. I was then hounded to the Aftermath article where I was similarly harrassed, and I also walked away from that. So, topic banning me now from those two articles is belated and laughable.
 * Should I try to fix or counter POV-bias at other articles from which I'm not topic banned, I can guarantee that I will be hounded and harassed by those very same POV-biased individuals whom Newyorkbrad has arbitrarily exonerated from any wrongdoing. That exoneration will simply encourage them to recommence their political vendetta against me, while Wikipedia's modern military history articles continue to earn the ridicule and scorn of serious scholars, historians, and enlightened war buffs. Now that I have regretably been outed, I don't want to be tainted by Wikipedia's deserved and increasingly poor reputation among the cognoscenti. Life is too short for all that crap. So long cowboys. Communicat (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: I have tried to formally cancel my user page and withdraw my contributorship completely, but am still trying to figure out how to do it. Communicat (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've deleted your userpage. If I've misunderstood, then let me know, and I'll restore. PhilKnight (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Phil, you/ve understood me correctly. For the record before I leave for good, regarding Dick-D's assertion above that my article edits were "factually incorrect", I state the following: CCI investigation revealed 27 contributions by me that were rapidly and gleefully undone by the involved parties because the contributions "violated copyright". The edits were not undone because they were "factually incorrect". The copyright issue has since been resolved, and copyright no longer comes into the argument. CCI also revealed a number of other edits by me that did not "violate copyright". All the aforementioned edits were vetted for accuracy and were factually correct, together with numerous other edits. The problems between me and the involved parties were essentially of a political nature and had nothing to do with my edits being "factually incorrect". The record of this bizarre episode is now closed as far as I'm concerned. Signed: ex-Communicat. Pse note my IP, in case someone decides to mimic. Thanks.

Quite a few of the reversions were for incorrectness or poor sourcing. The copyright issues only came up in the course of the arb case (many thanks to Communicat for getting Stan Winer to release the book under CC-BY-SA/GFDL). IMHO, Communicat's editing had problems so severe as to be unacceptable as-is, but not so severe as to be unfixable (by Communicat) with some effort. E.g.: use more careful source selection, cite page numbers accurately, interact with other editors more politely; all fairly simple stuff, but that's what good editing is about. I believe that if Communicat showed any real effort to become a good editor in this sense, he would gain acceptance and support, even in the face of inevitable mistakes here and there. I don't believe there is a political agenda agaist him. Just against any attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let the record show that the reversions I was specifically referring to were the 27 NPOV contributions of texts and sources which were rapidly and gleefully reverted by the involved parties, because of perceived "copyright violation". The issue was subsequently remedied and resolved with the courteous help and advice of permissions@wikimedia. Prior to that, I requested the committee to ask for restraint in deletion of the relevant texts and sources, because the copyright issue was about to be resolved. My request was rejected. I subsequently made it clear that the issue had been resolved. The relevant, reverted NPOV texts and sources remain reverted, and I am not going to all the trouble of undoing the reversions. The people who undertook the reversions, if those people are as committed to NPOV as they claim to be, which I doubt, can undo the reversions themselves. I am not prepared to waste any more of my time and effort on trying to improve the articles or in engaging in endless discussions with individuals who are the willing victims and purveyors of one-sided political values, beliefs, and indoctrination.


 * I have contributed a total of around 75 reliable individual NPOV source references during the course of discussions and in article content over the past nine months or so. A few of those contributions contained unintentional errors, and I fixed promptly the errors when they were brought to my attention. A few unintentional errors among 75 individual references is not a bad average. Nobody is perfect; the collaborative editing process is meant to recognises that, but the above IP contributor evidently does not. That's his problem, not mine.


 * The fact remains that the WW2 and some related articles suffer clearly from systemic POV-bias, and nobody wants to admit it. This arbitration is a good case in point. It has evaded the central POV issue, and everybody knows it. To keep things simple, I've not even mentioned the shambolic heavily POV-biased B-Class Cold War article. If I did, then the proverbial $h1t would really hit the fan, and we don't want that to happen, do we?


 * I've withdrawn my case filed, I've withdrawn from the case, I've withdrawn my user page, and I've withdrawn completely from wiki contributorship because I refuse to legitimise an abritration process that is so obviously a sham. Yet still I'm having the usual big stick waved at me, this time in the form of a notice from AGF, informing me that I am "banned" from commenting on the case for the next 32 hours. Jeez, is there no way I can get away from you stick-waving people? Signed: ex-communicat who hereby breaks banning order. Ban me, block me, sue me, do whatever you like. Just get the record straight. That's all I ask. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Communicat (talk • contribs)
 * Although copyvio issue appears to be resolved, seperately - that source has been repeatedly and widely rejected as unreliable anyway. ( Hohum  @ ) 12:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above, I don't see much value to continued discussion here. The case will be formally closed later today when the Clerk is available.

As discussed above, efforts to improve our articles to live up to the principles set forth in our policies and in this decision, including by adding underrepresented perspectives, are always welcome. It is regrettable that one user, by his behavior, has disqualified himself from participating, but that should not deter anyone else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)