User:Arthur Rubin/Nuclear dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible loci of dispute:

• Nuclear
  1. disruptive editing of 911 articles, including:
     1. Attempted repurposing of {{911tm}} and {{911ct}} without concensus (including both Bov's and Lovelight's repurposings of {{911ct}}; I cannot imagine someone supporting both in good faith)
     2. Moving {{911cd}} from User:Lovelight's directory before it was ready
     3. Deleting the ct template from articles where it clearly appropriate, and adding to those where it was clearly not appropriate, such as the main 9/11 article.
  2. claims that I have not been assuming good faith (referring to statements that I found it difficult to assume good faith considering
  3. claims that I agreed to a "concensus", when it should have been clear to all concerned that there was neither concensus nor that I had agreed to it
  4. replying to requests for Arbcom enforcement against him (4, so far this month) in a disruptive and tendenatious manner, to the point where 2 requests were allowed to go to the archives without yes/no decisions being made.

• me
  1. edit warring on 911 articles (I dispute that, but it should be on the table), including
     1. reverting Nuclear's, Bov's, Lovelight's, and Webucation's edits without comment

        or should we leave Webucation out of this?

     2. claiming I was reverting vandalism when I believed it was merely a bad faith edit
  2. failures of WP:AGF; (I still say that the policy allows me to conclude bad faith if it's clear from the edits)
  3. use of Nuclear's RfAr ruling that he had engaged in tendenatious editing to assume that that is bad faith
  4. WP:POINT violations in putting words into his "mouth" that he agreed that 9/11 conspiracy theories were a scam, when he clearly meant the NESARA conspiracy theories. (Tit for tat in regard point Nuclear:2.)