Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Communicat

Pre-filing comments
Please leave any comments about the RFC during its creation phase here below, in this section. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I commend the author for his formatting of this RfC form, which I support. Communicat (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been waiting for George to correct the details of this RfC and complete it as he said he'd do. Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with GWH's proposed words to the effect that I believe "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 Communicat"
 * Communicat comment:

What I am saying in essence is that there exists POV bias through ommission of contrary reliable positions based on established lines of research. The alleged POV bias manifests itself also in disruption of my edits by Nick-d and by Edward321, together with persistent harrassment by the latter. Communicat (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is regretable that some discussion of this proposed Rfc is evidently taking place at certain user talk pages, and not here, which IMO is the proper place for open and transparent discussion of this matter. 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Communicat (talk • contribs)


 * Can you please link to the the talk page where this is happening? Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Communciat has done it here and here. In the latter case he is clearly casting_aspersions against me and possibly violating WP:NLT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward321 (talk • contribs)
 * I can't make sense of this. Nick-d clearly initiated talk by posting direct to GWH's talk page and not to this page. It's not important, forget I even mentioned it. Communicat (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Further Communicat comment: I disagree with 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, and I'm not entertaining any thought of trying to fix the POV bias on my own, in the face of such strident resistance. Communicat (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree also with Nick-d's request to GBH's talk page at 01:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC), claiming that "the main article in question is the World War II article, not the Aftermath of World War II article (which Communicat has only started working on in the last few days ... As such, could you please change this to World War II so it accuratly captures where the disagreements have been occuring?" The disagreements that have been occuring commenced at Western betrayal article nine months ago, reaching a peak during editing and revision of the section "Aftermath of WW2" in WW2 main article. As for the Aftermath of WW2 main and separate article, I've been working on it for a few weeks, not "a few days". Disagreements surfaced there right at the outset, when Edward321 started reverting my edits without justification, which sparked the recent Arbcom application. Edward321 has not recommenced his reversions and disruptions. Problem solved.

Quite frankly, I don't have time for this. Communicat (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Moreover, I see that my signature was deleted from a comment above regarding corruption of process, and a fairly incoherent unsigned comment was added below it. The latter was evidently done by Edward321. I repeat, I don't have time for this. It is disruptive and counter-productive. Nor does it auger well for any possible resolution of the matters at hand, which I am prepared to have resolved by the rules, or not at all. Communicat (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That diff you claim is from Edward321 is clearly one of your own edits which shows no such thing. This is the diff for the only post Edward321 has made here, and it didn't change anything you posted (though he does appear to have not signed - something we all forget to do from time to time). The reason your name didn't appear at the end of your comment is because you didn't include it: . Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about who signed and who didn't. It's odd that the automatic signature BOT did not activate. The fact of the matter remains that Edward321's posting is incoherent and misleading. I have not broken with protocol by posting anything to any users page concerning any pre-filing discussion relating to this proposed Rfc. You have broken with protocol. Edward321 is casting false aspersions to muddy the waters. Please keep your pre-filing comments, suggestions etc to this specific discussion as instructed at the outset by GWH, so that everyone is on the same page and complies with the same rules. Thank you. Communicat (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So again, Communicat claims people are casting "false aspersions" and "broken with protocol" while providing zero evidence. The irony is palpable. Comminucat's claim that "Edward321 started reverting my edits without justification", is just as false now as when he filed the RfAr in response to them. My actual edits were "see talk page" (Meaning the Aftermath section of the WWII article where discussion of Korea had not supported Communicat) "moving section on USSR strength from lead to appropriate section, adding info from Potsdam article", "Cave Brown appear not to mention Grew at all",  "removed or, replaced with the NPOV of the source",   "clarifying and linking to Operation Dropshot". , and "restoring lead - large amount of sourced material was axed without discussion". The complete absence of Grew from the source was linked in my edit summary, and again in the RfAr. Communicat's claim that "Winston Churchill, in his Fulton speech, virtually declared war on the Soviet Union." is show to be incorrect in the link I provided on the Rfar and I added information from Cave Brown's next sentence, which is not about Operation Dropshot, but Stalin's escalating matters, a point Communicat was conspicuously silent on. This leads me to believe that "Broadly speaking, Communicat has introduced a more eastern-oriented point of view and sources." is an unusually polite way of characterizing Communicat's edits. Edward321 (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah... Ok.  You two sniping at each other is pretty much the exact opposite of the point of having a RFC.
 * I am going to attempt to move the real RFC forwards with changes recommended here taken into account. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does appear that this started with the Western Betrayal article, after Communicat renamed it to Controversial command decisions, World War II which was AFD'd by Nick-D (Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II). I thought it was all more recent, but it appears at first glance that he's been in running fights with a number of users since February. --Habap (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that does seem to be the case. That article was essentially an exercise in POV-pushing built around a questionable use of sources to present a selective view of history, which in my view remains the key characteristics of Communicat's editing (the version of the article discussed in the AfD is still viewable in the Western Betrayal article's history. It illustrates how long this has been an issue and that Communicat has not (in my view) responded to the serious concerns which have been raised about his or her editing. Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with GWH's observation that what is currently taking place here is "the exact opposite of the point of having a RFC." We now even have Nick-d arguing against himself. With Edward321 all the while continuing to make claims and allegations that should properly be reserved for his statement, if any, in the approved format if or when it is formally posted. I shall then reply accordingly.


 * I have been waiting patiently for this Rfc (which was not my idea) to be formally opened, and I'm now on the point of embarking on summer holiday, without reliable internet access. So don't be surprised if you fail to hear from me promptly, if at all, once the Rfc has been formally opened, if at all. I have my own life to get on with.


 * In the meantime, Edward321 and Nick-D can continue to provide as many diffs as they want to, in striving to make their claims look like credible "evidence". Once subjected to proper analyis, however, that "evidence" will be shown for what it is: hot air. (I can think of a less polite word). Edward321 has a long and well documented history of bringing wiki into disrepute through his actions, omissions and personal agenda. Communicat (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur with Habap. Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II should definitely be discussed in this RfC. Edward321 (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Time expired, presumably
A week has passed since my Arbcom request was, in a split vote, declined as "premature". The request was declined with the proviso that I may re-apply to the committee if community involvement via an Rfc failed to resolve the dispute within one week. To date, there has been no formal lodging of any Rfc, which GWH volunteered to undertake. Consequently, I'm free apparently to re-submit my request to Arbcom, which request might also take into account some of the above pre-filing comments, facts and matters.

My re-submitted request to Arbcom, should I decide to do so, may also add user Habap as a 4th party if he continues, on the basis of tendentious reasoning and persistent politically motivated personal opinion, to disrupt my current editing of the Aftermath of World War II article. Habap has hounded me there in place of Edward321 who has at least temporarily ceased harassing me.

It is difficult for me to assume good faith on Habap's part. He has never worked previously on the long-neglected Aftermath article. His belated presence there at this time appears to be essentially for the purpose of harassment and disruption while not engaging in constructive discussion, or providing input by contributing concrete text or reference. Communicat (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)