Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: AGK (Talk)  Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Evidence Length

Just wanted to double-check that the 1000 words and 100 diffs is a maximum for the contribution by a single user, not for each assertion by each user. That is, in the Evidence presented by Habap section, there should be only 1000 words, 100 diffs, regardless of how many assertions I wish to make. --Habap (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also appreciate clarification of this. If Habap is correct, that limitation would affect Communicat far more than anyone else. Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Habap's interpretation is correct; it's 1000 words/100 diffs for each person submitting evidence. (A thousand word for each assertion would be far more than even arbitrators could stomach!) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Main Case Page

I provided evidence there, both of Communicat's actions and refuting his charge against me. Do I need to repost that again at the Evidence page or will it be considered without reposting? Edward321 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was curious about the same issue and, also, if after I initially write my assertions and evidence, can I change them? That is, I would bring over each of my four points and begin modifying them, adding diffs to make the statements more specific. --Habap (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no prohibition against copying points over from the request stage to the evidence stagse, and it is not good practice to assume arbitrators re-read the initial presentation of the case (though they should). If you want more room to say things in the evidence stage you can refer back to the request stage with a diff, or you can use the time and space afforded by an evidence page to (within the limits provided) give a better presentation of what was said at the request stage. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I would remind the parties that, when cases are opened, the preliminary statements made at the case request stage are often redacted or shortened before being posted to the case decision page at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. If you wish to refer to your preliminary statement at any point, you should do so by linking to the full copy, which is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II#Request phase statements, or even to the most recent oldid of the initial request, which is at [2]. AGK 12:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. In some cases a link to a specific section talk or noticeboard page would be better at providing context for previous discussions and easier to read than linking individual differences. Is that allowed? Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, the context can help, but please give us a brief explanation of what we're looking for in the discussion(s) to help us understand why you feel the link was important. Shell ^babelfish 09:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Since Nick-D has already linked to the appropriate sections, I think I will leave the specific differences I have already posted. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

filing party's queries

I have three queries/requests for guidance relative to evidence I intend presenting:

• Is it possible to retrieve article text, discussion and edit histories of an article that was AFD'd, and if so, how is retrieval done?
• Is it possible to perform a keyword search of archived edit history pages, and if so, how is that done?
• Am I correct in surmising that the number of assertions by each party is limited to just two assertions as reflected on the evidence form?

Thanks. Communicat (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(1) If necessary for purposes of the case, a deleted article can be undeleted temporarily (as long as it's not a BLP with defamatory information or the like) so that a party can consult it to present evidence. If you need this done, please let one of the arbitrators know and we can consider it.

(2) If the page has actually been archived (to an archive page), it should show up in a word search the same as any other page. If the page has been "arhived to history," i.e. a given thread is no longer on a live page, then I don't know how one would search for it, although perhaps someone else does.

(3) No, there is no such limit. Each party should limit himself or herself to a reasonable number of assertions, or the case will never finish, but there is no limit of two.

I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

With regards to point 2, wikiblame is able to run keyword searches in page histories. This sounds like what you are looking for. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Communicat (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That article was not deleted. The result of the Afd was reversion to the name and contents it had before Communicat edited it. Looking at the Western Betrayal article's edit history, Communicat's version seems to be here.[3] Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Communicat (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence phase timing

When this case was opened, the drafters set a target date for presentation of evidence within one week, that is, by Tuesday, December 7th. We want to keep the case moving, so parties and others are requested to submit their evidence by that time. If anyone needs more time, please post here briefly explaining why and how much more time you would like. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The scope of this case has broadened very considerably since the time of drafting and lodging my statement. The original application concerned essentially NPOV, partisan editing. The current scope has become dominated by the single issue of user behaviour. It seems I now have to spend an inordinate amount of time responding to the multiple stated allegations of misconduct and miscellaneous personal attacks through innuendo.

An extra week might be sufficient, if not longer, for me to prepare individual rebuttals of all the allegations. An extention will also allow georgewilliamherbert time to recover and perhaps make a statement here, since he was involved in some of the goings-on. What might be the maximum permissable time extention period if request for extention is granted on the above grounds? Communicat (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The evidence provided by Habap, Edward321 and myself is in line with the statements we made when you lodged a request to open this case (which were focused on your conduct), and several members of ArbCom noted that all parties' conduct would be considered, so I don't see a case to grant an extension because you didn't anticipate this. I'd like this to be over as soon as possible, and if the case is delayed now it's likely to run into even longer delays as a result of the Christmas and New Year period. Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D states that he'd like this to be over "as soon as possible". Curiously, however, when I requested mediation several months back, Nick-D prevented a decisive outcome by refusing to consent to mediation. Mediation would at that time probably have resolved the dispute satisfactorily, long before it was allowed or encouraged to escalate to currently unmanageable proportions (viz., unmanageable for me, considering the vast number of individual and largely unfounded allegations made by the respondent parties, and which in any event tend to obscure the core issue of NPOV raised by this case).

An extention might also be in order to allow time for an outcome, if any, to emerge from community participation in a current Rfc thread at WP:RS/N relating directly to issues of partisan editing and NPOV sources, which were expected by me to form the substance of this Arbcom case. Communicat (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if that were somehow to resolve the NPOV dispute, that would not affect the assertions in regard to your behaviour. --Habap (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I will consult with the other arbitrators about the timing. Since this is the first request for an extension and the length requested is not unreasonable, a short extension will likely be granted. However, the case will not be allowed to drag out unduly, either, so everyone should please proceed with compiling your evidence and any workshop proposals as soon as possible. I'll post by tonight regarding any revised deadline. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I started the thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard at 13:45 November 28[4] On October 26, Communicat claimed “I shall be glad to provide a point-by-point, substantiated refutation on an evidence page, if or when this application is admitted.”.[5] Now Communicat is expecting the bulk of his case to come from a thread I initiated 5 hours before he filed this RfAr?[6]What happened to all the evidence he said he had over a month ago? Edward321 (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on Communicat's request, we will extend the deadline for submitting evidence until Friday, December 17. I trust this will provide ample time for everyone while still allowing a timely decision. We expect that will be the first and last extension, unless there is an unanticipated development. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I did not actually file a request for extention. I was just fishing around for some idea as to what might be the maximum permissible period if extention was requested and granted. I think you have answered my question, but IMO an extra three days is insufficient, taking into consideration the scope and magnitude of user-conduct evidence that still needs to be assembled. I've mentioned this already in my evidence submitted. So, it's quite okay with me if you want to revert the deadline back to Tuesday. I've already used up my 1000-word allocation. Thanks. Communicat (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Edward321 might note that there is no evidence to suggest I expect "the bulk" of my case to come from a thread he initiated 5 hours before I filed this RfAr. His hectoring tone is inappropriate. Communicat (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you reread that last paragraph of your 11:20, 5 December 2010 post. Edward321 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My posting, which you're attempting to denigrate, states clearly that the current Rfc thread at WP:RS/N relates to "issues of partisan editing and NPOV sources, which were expected by me to form the substance of this Arbcom case." My posting does not state that Edward321's particular issues were/are intended exclusively to form the the bulk of this Arbcom case. You are not all that important in the bigger scheme of things.

Meanwhile, thank you for your recent apology for and retraction of your false innuendo / aspersion at abovementionedWP:RS/N discussion to the effect that I am incompetent at correctly attributing sources. Communicat (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that Communicat is the subject of evidence presented by several other parties, we will allow him a reasonable additional length if he wishes to present further evidence in response, on matters he has not yet covered. Such evidence should still be presented by the extended deadline of December 17th. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In view of the now extended deadline, (which I've only just noticed), and given the fact that I exhausted my 1000-word evidence limit while still under the impression that the deadline was set for UCT midnight 6 December, what should I do now about evidence length? Can I obtain an extention of the limit to evidence length?

Apart from sheer physical overload, I'm faced with the onerous task of replying to about 5000 words of allegations and accusations while at the same time being limited to a mere 1000 words with which to not only present my own case but also to rebut all the allegations, innuendos etc that serve effectively to deflect attention from the core issue of this case, namely systematic and systemic POV-bias. Communicat (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it looks like I wasn't clear above. When I wrote that we would allow a reasonable additional length, I meant length of evidence (word limit) as well as the 10-day extension of time. "Reasonable" should still be the watchword, please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To provide fairness to the other parties (1000 words is a bit short given how long this has been going on for, though I appreciate the neccessity), can you please define a set number of words for Communicat? An undefined "reasonable" is a bit of a licence to write a lot. Nick-D (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. Reasonable people know what "reasonable" means, (notwithstanding the fact that this extention has so far served only to overload the filing party with a flood of further allegations which I'm apparently expected to address at "reasonable" length within a "reasonable" period of time). Go figure. Communicat (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for my additions. I could remove the COPYVIO from the Evidence page and deal with it in the individual articles instead. I was really stunned when I noticed it, though I think that understanding where the material came from does help explain how things ended up getting so sticky. --Habap (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You have nothing to apologize for. The Committee has granted an extension to the evidence deadline, and everyone participating in this case is well within their rights to continue presenting evidence up until the new date. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is true that a 10-day extension of time has been granted. It is also true this extention of time has resulted in a flood of additional allegations from the involved and other parties. It is further true that, even before this flood of additional allegations arrived, I stated that it would require an extention of at least one month if fairness and proportionality are to apply to this case. The consequent flood of additional allegations has not eased my position. As for (text) length of evidence, a fair and reasonable allotment of length would be that which is proportionate to the combined length of all the submissions made by the involved parties in particular and the others in general. That length already runs into several thousand words. Communicat (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Another question

The offsite comments that Communicat feels are evidence against me also lump me together with several other users. Would it be acceptable to inform them of this ARC, or would that violate Wikipedia rules on canvassing? Edward321 (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Per Communicat's request, I had already notified Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. White Shadows and Binksternet said they prefer not to be involved, but will be monitoring. The others have not commented. --Habap (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Habap's statement has nothing to do with any of the users I am asking about. Depending on when and how the Arbiters answer my question, I made need to request an extension on this ARC. Edward321 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on this [7] and the request from Communicat that I notify the editors listed above, I would assume that alerting others to this notice is not considered canvassing. --Habap (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's quite possible that you are correct, but I'd prefer to hear ArbComs' views on the matter. Edward321 (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone is mentioned in evidence (or in another stage of the case) a polite note to let them know they've been mentioned is fine. Asking them to come give evidence against a certain person or lend weight to your opinions isn't a good idea. Does that help? Shell ^babelfish 15:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The editors are mentioned in a external site Communicat linked to in his preliminary statement, but those editors were not specifically mentioned by Communicat, nor has he relinked the site on the evidence page. Based on that, informing them of this ARC does not seem appropriate at this time. Thank you for the clarification. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about the purpose of the arbitration

Many who edit WWII topics probably know that there were mass civilian suicides amongst Japanese when US invasion troops landed on their islands. Probably few of them, however, know that it has been suggested that part of the motives behind the suicides was public knowledge that some Americans were treating the Japanese this way. Many probably dont even know that one unlucky Japanese even became LIFE picture of the week.[1]. Uncomfortable details seems to get forgotten.

I haven't followed this from the start, but the evidence presented by Fifelfoo struck a strong chord with me, so I have a question to any of the arbitrators.

Exactly what is the purpose. Is it 1. To examine the behavior of the parties to this arbitration? or is it 2. To investigate if there is an inherent and systematic bias in the WWII project? Or is it both 1 & 2?

If it is 2 then I have to say that this arbitration hardly will be enough, as it seems to be dominated by personal accusations; what is needed is a working group that provides a proper introspective analysis of the situation, perhaps using the WWII article as subject. As an example of what I see as a problem is the use of "euphemisms". E.g. the word "forced labor" or "slave labor" is correctly used for that of the Nazis, but when the Allies use forced labor it is retitled "Allied use of involuntary labor", despite pointing to an article with "forced labor" in its title. But this is to be expected by an article probably both written and read by people lacking proper academic sources.

Missrepresentation by Omission: A more serious aspect, in my view, is the risk of important omissions due to the use of one-sided sources, i.e. if the articles are based on sources with a cultural or national bias that can only become only apparent if you compare it against literature from other cultures or other countries that discuss the same topic.

If I take the liberty to take an example from just after WW-II: Take for example the article First Indochina War. Compare it with this analysis:

""...it appears that misrepresentations by omission are a fairly frequent phenomenon. Just for the purpose of illustration, three episodes are mentioned below; they have been selected on a much longer list because of their similarity with the present case."

• "The first example consists in the accounts made by French veterans and historians of the war in Indochina (1946-1954). Even in fairly detailed accounts such as the 5-volume history by Lucien Bodard (1972-1973), there is almost no mention of the role played by the United States. Yet, just by browsing through the articles published in the New York Times one quickly becomes convinced that this role was both massive and crucial. (i) Almost all the war material was provided by the United States (ii) French tactical plans had to be approved by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (iii) American military advisers were present at French headquarters (iv) French troops were often transported in American planes piloted by US airmen (more details on all these points can be found in Roehner 2007, p. 137-143). It is of course easy to understand the rationale of such omissions. For French military it would be fairly unconfortable to recognize a subordination of this kind; for US advisers it would be equally embarrassing to mention their role, all the more so because the whole campaign ended in disaster at DienBienPhu. Similarly (and for the same kind of reasons) the role of US Forces in the civil war between Nationalists and Chinese Communists is down played in most American accounts."[8]

What does the Vietnamese Wikipedia article say on the topic? If it is based on Vietnamese sources then perhaps is presents, on this topic, a more full and accurate picture than the English language Wikipedia? If Professor Roehner is correct, then many Wikipedia articles will run the risk of being systematically slanted, although the slant will make them very much in line with "common perceptions" of both editors and (western) readers, so no-one will react.

I once found in an obscure book a reference to a unusual opinion poll. I checked it, and it turned out the figures given in the book were accurate. In my eyes this should have been quite notable, but western writers seem not to have picked up on it. I haven't found reference to it anywhere else. Perhaps it was too uncomfortable? Since this was during the start of the Cold War I would presume that Russian sources would have picked up this quite revealing poll to show how "fascist" the west was. I do know they made a big show out of pictures of American farmers pouring gasoline on potatoes (to keep prices up) while there at the same time was near famine in parts of Europe after the war. Maybe the Russians picked up on the poll, maybe they did not, but since I don't speak Russian I wouldn't know, and wouldn't be able to find it. Unpleasant items such as this poll, that perhaps received a thorough analysis in cultures/nations without a stake in the matter, will slip through the cracks if we are too one-sided in the literature. That will mean that Wikipedia will misrepresent events. You can check the source for a fact. But how do you check the source for a missing fact that you do not know is missing? How to fix it I wouldn't know, but the first step in solving a problem is usually to raise awareness that the problem might actually exist.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the scope presented by the opener is 1 and 2, but who knows how far down the rabbit hole the arbitrators will need to go - it's a little early to say. IMO the entire point of all of the evidence and arbitrators looking into it is to find out the scope of the problem before deciding what to do about it. (Hohum ^@) 02:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom traditionally stays away from content issues such as NPOV disputes. They examine conduct only. If a group of editors were acting improperly to promote a POV, that would count as a conduct issue. If editors are following policy but still have an unresolvable content disagreement, it's supposed to be handled through community processes like content RFC's. Those have failed miserably for some perennial religious and nationalistic battles, but for this particular topic it is probably a reasonable approach once the conduct issues are sorted. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Communicat's claims in regards to me

Blablaaa

I have not used my admin tools in relation to Communicat and/or their edits. As such, his or her allegation that I've been missusing the tools seem to be irrelevant to this case.

Nevertheless, I have a policy of responding to any complaints concerning my conduct as an admin and the nature of the allegations is consistent with Communicat's general conduct, so I'd like to make the following points:

1. My blocks of Blablaaa (talk · contribs) were as an uninvolved admin, and not a participant in the disputes. As with the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Workshop#Participation of Georgewilliamherbert in this case Communicat is seeking to portray the actions of an uninvolved admin as them engaging in a "NPOV dispute". It is a very serious matter to allege that admins are using their tools in disputes they're involved with and, as with their claims about Georgewilliamherbert, Communicat does not provide any supporting evidence.
2. I blocked Blablaaa for making personal attacks on other editors and engaging in disruptive editing (I posted explanations and the relevant diffs on Blablaaa's talk page following each block). Blablaaa had also been blocked for this conduct on several occasions when he or she was editing via IP accounts before they registered the Blablaaa account. During the periods between these blocks I also provided him or her with advice about how to behave appropriately (including on several occasions when Blablaaa posted on my talk page asking for advice).
3. My fifth and indef block of Blablaaa was overturned following this discussion at WP:AN, during which I agreed that I should have sought other admins' opinion before implementing the block. From memory, this is the only one of the many blocks I've implemented during my almost three years as an admin to have been overturned (some have also been cut short when the editor apologised for their conduct via the request for unblock process).
4. Following the unblock in April Blablaaa continued to make personal attacks on other editors and engage in disruptive editing. I did not intervene in response to this behavior given that one of the conclusions of the discussion at WP:AN was that I should have asked other admins to look into matters. He or she was eventually blocked in August for an indefinite period by Jehochman (talk · contribs) on the basis of the evidence concerning their disruptive conduct presented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa. Only one other editor endorsed Blablaaa's statement alleging widespread anti-German editing during this RfC/U.
5. As such, Communicat has also confused the response to long-running unacceptable conduct by an editor with systematic 'bias'
6. I find it interesting that Communicat quotes Deskana (talk · contribs) as part of his or her claim alleging that I have a "record of policy-breaching conduct" but ignores that Deskana concluded their statement in the RfArb Communicat links to by stating that "Although I have said I find Nick-D's fifth block to be inappropriate, I am not accusing him of abusing his administrator tools. I also have no doubt in my mind that his actions were taken with the intent of improving Wikipedia. I want to make this perfectly clear." This is typical of Communicat's use of references.

'Blind reverts'

In their evidence Communicat claims that I reverted an edit to the World War II article "without engaging in any discussion" in August and "blindly reverted" their edits in September and October. These claims can easily be proven false:

• In regards to the August reversion, I included a descriptive edit summary noting that Communicat's changes were POV and had been wrongly labeled as 'minor' in their edit summary [9] and provided a detailed description of the problems with Communicat's changes a few days later: [10], so it is not true to say that the reversion wasn't explained or I didn't engage in discussion on the topic. Communicat's edit also needs to be seen in the context of the ongoing discussions about the problems with their actual and proposed edits at the time which involved a number of editors (which actually make up most of Talk:World War II/Archive 39 and Talk:World War II/Archive 40) and his or her post seeking comments on the reversion in question was very rude [11] (for instance, "I'm happy to work productively and co-operatively but have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in puerile and unproductive editing wars with evidently disruptive administrators. Do well-intentioned people really have to go through all this $h1t in order to improve an article?").
• In regards to claim that I "blindly reverted" an edit in September, Communicat's edit inserted quite different text to a section of the article in which new wording was being drafted on the article's talk page, which included claims regarding the status of Korea which clearly didn't gain support when Communicat proposed them on the talk page (see Talk:World War II/Archive 42#New aftermath section), I explained my rationale in the edit summary [12] and posted an explanation on the talk page ten minutes later: [13]
• In regards to the October revert the diff Communicat provides clearly shows that I included an edit summary which explains why I reverted the edit [14]. I also provided a detailed explanation for this revert on the article's talk page immediately prior to reverting the edit: [15]. This and the September reversions are the exact opposite to 'blindly' reverting an edits given that I made it clear why the edits had been reverted, and these actions were supported in the resulting discussions on the article's talk page.

I'd argue that these clearly false claims are good examples of Communicat's disruptive conduct which Edward321 focused on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence#Communicat misrepresents other users edits Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)