Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:13, 9 December 2010

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: AGK (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

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—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.

Motions and requests by the parties

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would like to add this user as a involved party. Involved in the dispute, made several controversial edits/reversions, see [1] and [2]. MikeNicho231 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3] and [4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[5], 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[6], though GWH had been added by NuclearWarfare in the interim[7]. 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)[reply]

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.[8] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd note that Communicat also asked this question and received an answer at User talk:Newyorkbrad#WW2 arbcom case. There's obviously no problem with asking it again though. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence#Communicat has plagiarized and violated copyright on materials from Stan Winer.

For the duplication of Winer in Covert Operations in the Aftermath of World War II article, also refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence#Communicat has plagiarized and violated copyright on materials from Stan Winer.

The China section of Aftermath of World War II matches page 110 of the October 2004 edition of Between the Lies.

To Communicat

What is the situation with this? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, 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)[reply]

Thanks for bringing to my attention WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,[9][10] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT 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)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:X

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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}

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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}

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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:

@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 ::It appears from you posting above that you're requesting Arbcom to investigate the alleged violations. Is that really Arbcom's function? [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence#Communicat has plagiarized and violated copyright on materials from Stan Winer]].
+:::For the duplication of Winer in Covert Operations in the [[Aftermath of World War II]] article, also refer to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence#Communicat has plagiarized and violated copyright on materials from Stan Winer]].
+:::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? --[[User:Habap|Habap]] ([[User talk:Habap|talk]]) 20:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 :'''Comment by others:'''