Talk:War crime

Blanking
This is not acceptable. I am now referring this to the ME and Constabulary. The article is not scientific and is written to win the argument about terminology. It has no references and NO SUPPORTING FACTS for the claims made in it. Just an opinion piece. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have also referred it to the Constabulary. It did, in fact, have one reference in the early draft that was blanked, as well as many wikilinks. I only discovered it was blanked when I was about to add references from the International Criminal Court


 * Even an Editor in a group can only mark something for deletion, or perhaps move the contents to the talk page. I am a History and Military Editor. Martin is not an editor in these groups or in Law. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to revert the blanking, but let me save here what I was about to add:
 * The International Criminal Court has " jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. These crimes are defined in detail in the Rome Statute.  In addition, a supplementary text of the “Elements of Crimes” provides a breakdown of the elements of each crime. " Its jurisdiction applies to both the direct perpetrators "as well as others who may be liable for the crimes, for example by aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of a crime.  The latter group also includes military commanders or other superiors whose responsibility is defined in the Statute."
 * Given wikilinks to Hague Conventions, hostis humani generis, Kellogg-Briand Pact and Geneva Conventions, I'd hardly call the article unsourced. Now, it would be one thing to claim ownership, and not take edits, but it's hard to edit that which was blanked. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Martin, I think you are wildly out of line here. Granted the article could be improved, in particular it could be better sourced, but I see no justification at all for blanking it. Sandy Harris 02:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy, you are not in possession of the facts, so you will not know why. This has become a serious disciplinary issue involving Howard and the EC. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Where should I look for "the facts"? Sandy Harris 02:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ombudsman
By Article 39 of the Charter, an Ombudsman is available to mediate any dispute. Agreements worked out through mediation shall be binding but may be appealed.

I have been asked to intervene here and on Josef Mengele.

As far as I am aware, I have no conflict of interest, I have not contributed to either article or to any related article, nor have I formed or expressed any view on the merits of the arguments either formally or privately

Do those involved in this dispute agree to my intervention here? My role I think would be to summarise the substantive issues raised, make an interim ruling based on the Charter, and pre-existing policy guidelines, and report to the EC. Are those involved willing that any interim ruling be binding pending future decisions of the EC? Gareth Leng 10:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have blanked the page again, since I object to the whole tenor of the article, which is deliberately being written to support Howard's position in another dispute. i have referred the matter to the Constabulary and Ombudsman, and this will likely appear before the EC. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we need an immediate interim ruling from the ombudsman on whether this blanking is justified. I'd say obviously not, but it is not my call. Sandy Harris 12:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I see it so far, Howard is not accepting the Ombudsman's authority. He obliges me to take all of this to the two Councils (when there are more serious problems to be sorted out than Howard's rejection of CZ policy). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We now quite obviously have a revert war. Martin has now blanked the page three times. David Finn restored it twice, in my view correctly. Ombudsman, please rule. Sandy Harris 14:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Gareth, with all personal respect, I do not accept mediation. I believe this can only be resolved by disciplinary action; it's but one manifestation of a continuing problem.


 * "As I see it so far, Howard is not accepting the Ombudsman's authority." This is logically flawed. First, I'm just seeing this, and the Ombudsman has not made any ruling. Second, the Ombudsman, even if invoked, is a mediator that tries to make informal actions, which are preferably accepted but may be appealed.


 * Since I do not accept mediation, then the Ombudsman has no role here. Again, Martin is interpreting what I believe, and, in this case, not very logically, since the Ombudsman process has not started because one of the sides does not accept it, quite within the rules of the Charter.


 * I am not "forcing" Martin to do anything. Be very clear that the matter is a question of my rejecting his usurpation of authority -- his blanking is quite outside the rules. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In going through edit notes, I discover that Martin claims this is a dispute between two Editors, both on the Editorial Council. That is a distortion. Yes, we are both EC members and Editors, but we are Editors in different workgroups. I am a History and Military Editor but Martin is not. Since there are other History Editors, the Charter principle of going to the lowest level would apply before the EC asserts any authority -- which Martin has not yet requested. Unfortunately, the most active other History Editor is Russell Jones, and I both hate to bother him at the moment, and he might have a conflict of interest as MC Chair. Roger Lohmann might be able to help, although I know he has heavy job responsibilities.


 * Nevertheless, if it were simply the matter of "war criminal", there is no reason that an Editor decision is not relevant. That decision could be appealed to the EC. If no Editor is available, the next step, in an urgent matter, would be the Managing Editor. The advocate for creating the ME saw him as appropriate for situations that need urgent attention, and I think this qualifies. Martin's statement that there is a behavioral issue between me and the EC is fantasy, in that there is no discussion of my behavior either on the EC wiki or mailing list.  I have drafted, before this incident, a preliminary work item proposal on article policy; if it's not seen to be conflict of interest, I shall try to finish the draft later today. Incidentally, it doesn't directly address objectivity/neutrality, other than recommending a task force structure, as I have done for other major issues, to get direct Citizen expert input. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

← Ladies and gentlemen, with all due respect, this is exactly the kind of behaviour that deters people from contributing to the Citizendium: bickering over comparatively minor issues while there are hundreds of articles on far more neutral soil that could be written right. I understand that there is an underlying interpersonal dispute here, and I trust that the Constabulary will deal with it appropriately; but, for the time being, please cease this pointless reversion-warring! I suggest that, for the time being, the article is left blanked, but a precedent should be set by the Ombudsman or by the relevant authorities as to the correct course of action in future disputes that bear similarities to this one.

At any rate, some vaguely adult behaviour would be greatly appreciated right now. Thomas H. Larsen 15:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)