Requests for arbitration

This was a unilateral preemptive action by the administrator using administrative powers and performed without notice or input. Under the circumstances, appellant humbly requests the committee waive this requirement or advise appellant how to comply with it. Paavo273 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paavo273

Appellant requests appeal to reverse the content blocking actions of Administrator Fut.Perf. ☼ at Continuation War (also see Talk:Continuation War) and undo the warning to User talk:Paavo273 by Fut.Perf. ☼.

This appeal would be to overturn the ruling that a “consensus of sources” already exists for infobox result (See CW infobox at right side of this link) and to leave the infobox result blank to create a level playing field for deciding the matter through normal dispute resolution channels.

Appellant contends that when taken together (See last paragraph of introduction) and the other relevant sections ( [B] ) and ( [C] ) actually support a Finnish victory of sorts or at the very least a standstill, especially when placed in the context of what happened to the many other countries referred to ( ([B]) ). Appellant contends that the sources cited by YMB29 on CW Talk Page are not supported by any facts in article and are too extreme to have been included in article. Appellant contends that sources stating Finnish surrender altogether and unqualified Soviet victory are directly contradicted by article, including on the whole Armistice and Aftermath section and particularly the last two paragraphs of it. (added on February 11 for clarification following suggestion of admin. user) Paavo273 (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appellant asks that the sources that comprise the "consensus of sources" found by AdminFutPer be identified. Without knowing what sources are alleged to constitute the consensus, he has no way to rebut them. Specifically are there sources in the article supporting victory or only YMB29's citations from Google search?

Appellant contends this is an instance of the lone administrator not only supervening the editorial process and effectively preventing future resolution of underlying content issues on a level playing field, toward NPOV. Appellant contends administrator has misused administrative powers in an editorial role, and would be grateful for an opportunity to be heard before the committee. (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Appellant believes that Admin. Fut.Perf. was not aware of subtleties of what victory necessarily meant for either party in this war, when he made his ruling.

Appellant believes this is highly prejudicial, ongoing, reversible error.

Appellant contends that if admin. has the authority to make this finding of fact, i.e., consensus of sources, that it should be based on specific, named sources, and that appellant should have the opportunity to rebut AdminFutPerf's findings before the committe OR that the committee as a whole should make the decision.

Appellant requests appeal to reverse AdminFutPerf’s warning on the basis that appellant was not the primary guilty party. Paavo273 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Added 11 Feb.) Appellant requests that this committee determine whether the infobox is a proper place for new research and in any case whether the infobox result must explicitly match a fair reading of the actual article and its sources.

(content reduced at request of Clerk Hahc21; original material moved to Paavo273 (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

Rebuttal by P273 February 10--Response to Admin’s and others' statements

A. Appellant believes he has been abused by AdminFP and this process. New allegations "walls of text" (my single copying of a discussion exactly on point from another talk site to try stimulate discussion that wasn't happening at CW talk [A) and "blindly copied" and "filibustering" are latest in long list of various false allegations made to kill my attempt at meaningful engagement on the merits--including OR, synthesis, tag teaming, dubious source, canvassing, sock puppet (‘had to look that one up), etc.

B. Appellant and other users trying to provide balance and proportion to the infobox result--which is all this is about--have been attacked, threatened, ridiculed, and finally squelched. Just f/ex.,

YMB29: (to another user) "You still lack knowledge about this topic. It looks like you are only here to annoy me". -YMB29 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Paul Siebert: "Regarding [other user's] proposal, that is nonsense. All (or almost all) wars end with armistice or peace treaties. Playing Captain Obvious with the only goal to conceal the truth (namely, that the USSR won) is hardly acceptable."
Fut.Perf.: "Please stop the bickering. Yes, it's "our" policy – it is mine, it is yours, and it is also Paul Siebert's, because we are all Wikipedians, for better or worse, so we all have the right to call it "ours". Now please either say something constructive on the topic, or say nothing at all." Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC

I propose to the esteemed learned administrators that these and so very much else on CW talk page in the last ten days (and last seven YEARS) demonstrate nothing like good faith or an effort to resolve a disagreement; on the contrary, it is the embodiment of the spirit of totalitarianism and terror in action.

QUERY: When did the Soviet version of history become the mainstream one and the only accepted one at WP? I am NOT against inclusion of the Soviet viewpoint, and it is well-represented in the CW article, but why is that the one favored as mainstream? Why the short circuiting of discussion on the merits and now of democratic process? I don't think this is what the great one himself had in mind for his People's Encyclopaedia.

I believe this is gross error and warrants your hearing. Does any administrator think I should be offered a hearing or is any at least willing to look into my application? Are any neutral administrators willing to read the article, or even just the first and last sections and entertain the thought for a few minutes of whether the copious sources cited there indicate "Soviet victory" before deciding? (Knowledge of Winter War and prior Finnish history helfpul but not essential.)

I would like to say additionally that AdminFP's IMO precipitant action is already bearing illegitimate fruit in what his colleague is doing to other infobox results. Enforcing this cookie-cutter approach to the infobox based on some usually not-enforced template specification is yet another thinly veiled effort to dictate a biased result with no substantive discussion. All readers and especially WP itself lose when capable researchers on this site are discouraged from participating as a result of rushed, biased, or backroom actions of people in administrative authority. Whatever the proper verbiage for CW infobox, it is a unique situation and needs special consideration. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Finland is the only country described in CW article ([B]) touched by USSR during World War II and post-war era not either absorbed by USSR or directly controlled through installation of communist government. If a country is the only one, (or even one of two) out of roughly thirteen countries to not be swallowed following action with the USSR, I submit that this needs special attention at infobox level, regardless of what some but not all Soviet sources say about the Soviets’ intentions rel Finland. I don’t believe AdminFP’s characterization of this view as Finnish nationalism even minutely represents what the article’s sources, including overall, the Soviet sources, state. (None of the several sources cited in the Analysis subsection Assessment of Soviet Designs ([C]) is even Finnish.

(Appellant’s summary reduced in length at the request of Clerk Hahc21 and LONGER version moved to appellant's talk page. Paavo273 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

Not sure what needs comment here. I warned Paavo for disrupting talk page discussions. His unconstructive conduct included making discussions unreadable with overlong "walls of text" and with huge amounts of extraneous material he repeatedly and blindly copied into them from elsewhere, making context of threaded discussion impossible to follow (he did that first on Talk:Continuation War and then even on the related WP:ANI thread. I also regard his talkpage behaviour as a form of filibustering ("WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT") in the face of an opposing position of clearly superior justification based on multiple reliable sources, which he just didn't like. So much for the warning part.

As for the editing of the protected article [1][2], I was responding to an edit request on the talkpage; hence, it was my task to determine whether there was consensus for the edit. I found participants locked in an interminable dispute to which they were evidently not going to find a mutually agreeable rational solution (a related mediation attempt was recently closed as hopeless, and the article was repeatedly protected for edit-warring). However, I also found that one side in this debate was apparently working within Wikipedia policy, citing reliable sources, while the other side wasn't. I therefore called a "consensus" (in the Wikipedian Newspeak sense of that word), not on the basis of overt agreement of all disputants, but on the basis of strength of policy-based argument. Which is what administrators are supposed to do.

As background for understanding the content dispute, my impression is that this [3] comment by Sailsbystars is insightful. Apparently there is one perspective on this war shared by most historical scholarship (seeing it as a Soviet victory), and there is another perspective characteristic of a national Finnish patriotic discourse (which doesn't want to see it that way). The question now is to what extent that Finnish narrative is not only mentioned and described but actually shared and defended in reliable secondary sources in modern historiography. Evidently one side in this Wikipedia dispute consists of Finnish editors who wish to give this perspective more weight, but from reading the talk page I find they have so far utterly failed to find significant support for it in reliable sources and have therefore resorted to filibustering instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comment by Nick-D

As a general comment, there have been very long running disputes relating to the Continuation War article and the infobox in the related Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive article. Requests have been made at WT:MILHIST for uninvolved input into the dispute relating to the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive article, but all the editors who've offered views (including myself) have been roundly ignored and this disagreement has dragged on and on. By my reading of this disagreement, it is strongly centered around nationalism (En-Wiki has attracted a surprising number of anti-Soviet nationalist editors from the Baltic region in the last couple of years), and appears to fall well within the scope of the Eastern European general sanctions. Moreover, I've read widely on World War II and agree that the consensus in the works which cover this war is that it ended in a clear cut victory for the Soviet Union; claims that it was a 'limited victory' or such appear to motivated mainly by anti-Soviet POV rather than weighting the evidence in reliable sources in a neutral fashion. As such, I agree entirely with Fut.Perf's analysis of the situation here, and think that his or her actions were appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I found the mention of a mediation attempt regarding this topic interesting and so I checked it out. The relevant case involved two other parties and partly focused on this same dispute about how to characterize the result of the war. Roem's close was based on a finding of inability to resolve that dispute. Perhaps it was impeded by the fact it really only involved two disputants, but looking at the talk page it is obvious there is no meaningful consensus on how to characterize the result of the conflict either so it seems the dispute is unlikely to be resolved. Those arguing that it should be characterized as a straightforward victory cite sources that say it, but those advocating for limited victory also provide sources supporting that characterization. In this respect, perhaps there should be consideration given to having a case on the general topic and Future's conduct can be examined in that context as well as the conduct of other parties.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YMB is mistaken in his statement below as the dispute over the Continuation War result was discussed during the mediation, in fact being brought up by YMB. It was brought up right at the end and appears to have been part of the reason for mediation failing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by YMB29

I just want to clarify that the mediation[4] was about original research in the Continuation War article and the infobox result in the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive article. The result of the Continuation War was not discussed in the mediation, so it was not disputed until Paavo273 and Thomas.W started reverting it. -YMB29 (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to The Devil's Advocate

Paavo273 and an IP user came to the mediation page to debate some issues, even though they were not part of the mediation. [5] By that time the mediation was already at a stalemate and practically over, as Wanderer602 and Lord Roem showed little interest in continuing.

When Paavo273 and Thomas.W started edit warring in the Continuation War article, I asked Lord Roem on the mediation page to take a look at it. Then the two of them came over to the page to argue, but this was all off-topic as far as the mediation was concerned. -YMB29 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recuse, as I mediated a dispute involving these same parties before the Mediation Committee. @Paavo, maybe bringing this to something like WP:ANI or WP:AN would be better? --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content revert and lock of Continuation War article and warning to Paavo273: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/10/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Paavo273, I am sorry, but I'm not sure what you wish we do... Are you appealing the warning Future Perfect at Sunrise issued or are you asking us to review a content dispute? If it's the former, this clarification request might be of interest. If it's the latter, I'm afraid ArbCom does not get involved in content disputes. For those, we have a different system of dispute resolution, which includes discussing the issue on the article's talk page and, if that fails, start an WP:RFC or a WP:DRN thread . Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I now understand what you'd like us to do, thanks. In short, there were editors edit warring on Continuation War, an uninvolved admin protected the page and, then, Future Perfect at Sunrise made an edit you disagree with as a result of a request on the talk page.
  When taking admin actions, sysops are allowed to use their discretion and I believe that we, as ArbCom, should only get involved when there has been a clear abuse of said discretion. In this case, Future Perfect at Sunrise evaluated the consensus which was emerging on the talk page and acted accordingly; furthermore, his actions are reasonable, in my opinion. For that, I think this case should be declined. If you wish to contest Future Perfect at Sunrise's actions, the best place to do so would be AN or ANI, so that the community can review them and, if necessary, overrule him. Personally, I'd advise against it, however, because it can only distract from the more important issue, which is the content dispute at hand, which should be the priority here. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Salvio said. However, taking a brief glance at the history of Continuation War, it does look like you've been edit warring recently. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline as a content dispute. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as a content dispute. The only thing that might be within our scope here would be Future Perfect's use of the admin tools (editing through full protection), but to jump straight to ArbCom would require extraordinary levels of misconduct, and there isn't any evidence of misconduct presented here. Courcelles 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. NW (Talk) 16:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. For better or worse, this is a content dispute that needs to be resolved by consensus on the article talkpage. Third-opinion, neutral notes on wikiproject pages, and the like can be used to obtain additional input, but I don't see evidence that insufficient input is the problem here. The bigger and recurring issue is that disputes are created when complicated matters, fully discussed in the text of the article, are reduced to a couple of words or a sentence fragment to fit within the format of an infobox. By definition, terms such as "X victory" are ambiguous (e.g., if X went to war with Y seeking to obtain five objectives and obtained three of them, was it an X victory or a partial X victory or what?). Perhaps we need some way of signalling that infoxes are for convenience, and by definition, don't include all of the information and nuances that might be found in the text of the article itself. Then again, hopefully most of readers will realize that fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Roger Davies ^talk 08:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline NYB covers pretty much everything I would have said. Worm^TT(talk) 08:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - though it might be useful to have the article explain things clearly (with a footnote or note appended to any infobox statement that points the reader to the relevant part of the article for the nuanced analysis, rather than just pointing to sources to bolster a simplified infobox statement), and/or an article talk page FAQ that can be pointed to, instead of endlessly repeating the same arguments (which is what appears to be happening). Carcharoth (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. T. Canens (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Newyorkbrad, mainly. Although I'll just point out that any particular parameter in an infobox is optional; in fact, the infobox itself is optional. Infoboxes are, in my experience, one of the primary sources of misinformation in Wikipedia articles. Risker (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. AGK [•] 23:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]