Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerk: AGK ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren ( Talk) & Newyorkbrad ( Talk) |
Per Communicat's request, I have notified Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. -- Habap ( talk) 18:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Communikat ( talk) at Communikat ( talk) 17:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmations of notices sent:
I am topic-banned from editing or discussing articles about Aftermath of World War II To avoid conceptual confusion, potential disputes, complaints, or edit-warring, I request in good faith that Arbcom provides semantic clarification as to the practical, contextual meaning of " Aftermath of World War II" as referred to in the topic-ban decision.
I propose the word "aftermath" be agreed upon as meaning the immediate aftermath of World War II, and the end of 1948 be accepted as the World War II "aftermath" cut-off date. I propose this for the following reasons:
When an editor is personally attacked / falsely accused / provoked / hectored / badgered / baited or whatever, and is supposedly prevented from responding on the basis of evident presumptions that he is topic-banned, then IMO that amounts to gagging, viz., censorship pure and simple, regardless of how WP:CENSOR defines it. Please clarify whether the scope of my topic ban includes gagging / being censored, as has already ocurred in the incident referred to with diffs, in my observations below in response to administrator party Timotheus Canens, in which Nick-D is also named. I trust Arbcom applies impartially the rules on behaviour.
Please clarify also whether Nick-D is justified in his statement below that my submissions in this current matter "actually seem to be a clear violation of the editing restrictions" upon me, viz., I have allegedly broken my topic ban by filing this present request for clarification, which IMO a further, clear attempt to gag / censor me.
Please clarify whether or not my attempts to seek clarity on the scope of my topic ban amount to wikilawyering, as alleged by NickD on my talkpage. My response to that charge is contained within the same diff.
Please clarify / specify in Arbcom's pending decision any and all relevant WP rules or guidelines pertaining to that decision. Confusion has already arisen on my part as to Arbcom's unclear and unstated meaning of the term "topic ban", which resulted in a further one-week block on me. My interpretation of "topic ban" had relied inadvertently on guideline WP:TOPICBAN , not realising that WP:TOPICBAN is in fact a proposal that had earlier been archived because nobody wanted to discuss it. WP:BAN, which I had not read or was otherwise aware of, is in fact the currently operative guideline (even though I think WP:TOPICBAN, had it not been earlier shelved, might be a more comprehensive and superior guideline). Communikat ( talk) 14:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Kindly note: I've not asked for topic ban to be lifted. I've asked specifically for clarification. Kindly comply. Your pertinent input would be appreciated. Thank you. Communikat ( talk) 18:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: As David Fuchs ( talk · contribs) notes, there's no magic date in relation to World War II and its aftermath and specifying one would quickly become unworkable. Nick-d has not provided a diff or link to his quote from David Fuchs. Nick-d, please do so; and if that quote does in fact carry verifiable weight, then you should revise and reorganise entirely the Aftermath of World War II and the Effects of World War II articles, as referred to above in my opening statement. Communikat ( talk) 11:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest commentators here should refrain from speculation about my future behaviour. The normal way of resolving uncertainty is to ask for clarification. In my instance, I have asked specifically for clarification as to whether or not 1948 may be agreed upon as a practical date cut-off date relative to resumed editing within the constraints of my topic-ban. So far nobody has answered my question. Instead, there is this continual shying away from the key question by hiding behind a behavioral issue for which I have already been sanctioned. But since everyone here seems to be preoccupied with behavioural issues, allow me to quote one military history project co-ordinator, milhist articles “exist in a constant state of chaos”. This was true even before I started editing there. To quote another, very active and experienced WW2 editor Paul Siebert: “ ... let me remind you that he (Communicat) initiated several discussions that led to significant improvement of, e.g., WWII article ... we all must remember that initial impetus to this work was given by Communicat”.
If you don’t want me to edit or discuss anything relating to any and all post-1945 military history articles, then just say so. It is problematic to say the scope of the topic-ban should be interpreted "broadly but reasonably". What may be reasonable to one editor might not necessarily be viewed as reasonable by others. That is a recipe for potential conflict, which I’m seeking to avoid. In similar vein, Nick-d has claimed recently that Arbcom rulings are “deliberately broad in order to provide admins with the discretion they need”. What this “discretion” has recently amounted to in effect was a perceived prohibition in terms of my topic-ban preventing me from exercising any right of reply to personal attacks, and/or referring to the earlier Arbcom proceedings.
Now, my thoughts (as invited by NewYorkbrad) on what might need to be done going forward that would minimize the risk of conflict. A precise clarification of what “aftermath” means would be helpful for a start. In the longer term, the issue of systemic bias may need to be addressed, and I am not alone in this view. As stated by one participant in the Arbcom case: “The inability of the WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS to incorporate non Anglo-American POVs in practice can be extremely frustrating for new editors on Wikipedia ... (leading to inappropriate behaviour)". And to quote WW2 editor Paul Siebert again:: “... numerous evidences presented here demonstrate only that Communicat's behaviour is inappropriate and ... (it) is insufficient to conclude that the WWII project is not biased.” There is also the compelling evidence by peer review editor Fifelfoo: "Wikipedia's articles in the Humanities and Social Sciences suffer from a systematic i18n failure, and typically privilege US normative accounts … No systems exist to resolve high order structural, literary, or taxonomic disputes; encouraging bad editor behaviour from all sides of debate... At a point, persistent content failures become a domain-of-knowledge wide conduct failure. Military History is very successful at resolving many lower order content failures. But even this successful project has not been able to resolve higher order issues ... Previous sanctions specifically addressing conduct in domains of knowledge (Eastern Europe, etc.) have failed to change community conduct in content production: ... Individual disciplining does not resolve the failure to produce encyclopaedic content ... Cases like this come forward on a reasonably regular basis; demonstrating the failure of past individual sanctions to address the failure of community conduct under policy."
Further: "Humanities and social science articles generally have terrible problems with: ...determination and characterisation of weight of English language perspectives versus non-English language perspectives; determination and characterisation of weight of US/UK English language versus other English language perspectives; and,recourse to encyclopaedically unprofessional conduct in the location of, characterisation of, and weighting of appropriate secondary and tertiary (in the sense of field review articles) sources ... The impact of a major failure of editor conduct around the content production failures above — and the content failure itself ... seriously threatens the credibility of encyclopaedic project in Humanities and Social Sciences areas ....Discussion has recently occurred amongst some editors about Wikipedia's failure in taxonomy, classification, characterisation and weight content production in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Included in this discussion has been the failure of past conduct limitations … to resolve the problem of production of encyclopaedic content (which) exemplifies a threat, and itself threatens, the encyclopaedic project in the humanities and social sciences area (and) should be taken to arbitration”.
In short, I suggest the editors, arbitrators and administrators here present should not always and arbitrarily separate the issues of content and behaviour. The two may frequently be inseparable as the product of systemic bias inherent in the wikipedia system itself. I am not suggesting such bias is necessarily deliberate, though that may sometimes be the case. It is more a demographic and a design problem, and it is a symptom of system failure, which is defined as that which occurs when a system does not meet its requirements. If Wikipedia is to live up to its ambition of being encyclopedic by incorporating a diversity of verifiable and notable viewpoints, then the subject needs to be addressed productively and not be evaded simply as a “behavioural issue” in isolation of the core issue, which is clearly the issue of systemic bias. Communikat ( talk) 19:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
A topic ban "broadly construed" as relating to all World War and Cold War articles would mean in effect and for example a ban on editing or discussing the Moon landing. This because the moon landing was the ultimate outcome of rocket technology originating in World War II and developed further during the Cold War arms race. Similarly traceable chains of cause and effect "broadly construed" can apply to thousands of other topics. Which is what this present request for clarification is all about. Communikat ( talk) 19:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting Wikipedia should change itself to fit in with my behaviour. Your inference is laughable. Communikat ( talk) 20:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet should refrain from wild speculation as to the topics, content and quality of my future edits, if any. In addition, the matters he raises have comprehensively and satisfactorily been dealt with in previous discussions. I see no point in repeating them.
As to Binksternet's suggestion that Aftermath cut-off date to be set at "the end of the Cold War": I repeat my comments already directed at Edward321, namely, if that suggestion is adopted, then I'd need convincing it does not go against the letter and spirit of WP:CENSOR, as does Binksternet's suggestion here. Communikat ( talk) 22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The 1950 start of Korean War is reasonable and acceptable, as suggested by this milhist project co-ordinator, who otherwise fails to assume good faith. Communikat ( talk) 11:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I request this matter be left open for at least another three or four days before making a decision, so as to allow for the possibility of further community editor participation, if any. Communikat ( talk) 11:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The list of involved or affected users consists of those who gave evidence, or participated in workshop proposals/discussions that might have had an influence on the outcome of the Arbcom decision, and/or were otherwise named or referred to during the course of the Arbcom case.
Shell Kinney was included because I had requested guidance via the Help desk, to which she replied helpfully under Ticket#2011061910008112. I specifically asked whether I could request Arbcom clarification while I was still under a (then) one-week block. I asked further if it was permissable for me to invite wider community participation in Arbcom clarification discussions by posting on a relevant Rfc Noticeboard a notice inviting broader community participation in the Arbcom clarification request, given that Arbcom, by its own earlier admission, lacked the capacity to deal with content issues. IMO the current clarification request is essentially a content issue. Shell Kinney's advice was noted. To that extent, she was IMO "involved" in this current clarification matter. If I have misconstrued the word "involved", then I have no problem with redacting her username accordingly. I trust this answers your question. Communikat ( talk) 16:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Avoidance of Russophobia does not mean my edits are "emotionally" invested, as falsely alleged. Communikat ( talk) 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Understand this if you can: I do not want the topic ban to be lifted, not now, not in the past, nor in the forseeable future. In fact, I want nothing whatsover to do with the World War II and Aftermath of World War II articles. They are just too fraught with intractible problems of one kind or another, which have been there and will remain so for a long time. In fact, you might recall that I actually walked away from the WW2 article a full two months before I was topic banned from the article. What I do want, however, is clarity on the scope of my presently unclear topic ban, so that I can in future possibly avoid the usual conflicts with the usual small handful of people. Some of my interests in the development of science and technology, for example, might notionally be "broadly construed" as relating to the longterm effects of World War II, resulting predictably in consequent complaints of alleged breaking of the editing restrictions upon me. This is why I am asking the arbitrators to recognise the practical semantic distinction between "immediate aftermath" and "long term effects", and to clarify the topic ban accordingly so that everyone is on the same page. I do not want waste more of my valuable time in tedious disputes such as the present one if and when I do decide to return to active editing. Surely that is not asking for too much? Or maybe it is. Communikat ( talk) 20:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Re your query "Why exactly wasn't Communi[ck]at site-banned, again?" I have never been site-banned, not under the username Communicat nor under the username Communikat or any other username, of which there is none. The username Communicat was cancelled by me six months ago, I didn't know how to reinstate it when I returned recently, and hence the new username Communikat. Do you have any thoughts on a practical Aftermath cut-off date as currently under discussion? Communikat ( talk) 19:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This present matter shows every sign of replicating the Arbcom case, which dragged on for six weeks before I eventually walked away in exasperation. I will not be making further submissions here, unless something really compelling turns up. I've already stated whatever needs to said in support of my request for clarification. My main points of observation thus far are:
Military history project coordinator TomStar81 has conceded "there does need to be a date of some sort given for the aftermath of World War II, but I would place its aftermath as the period of time from the official surrender of Japan till the Start of the Korean War, or 1945-1950." BorisG has similarly conceded: "... the boundaries of the sanction are unclear, and clarification is in order." Do you have any thoughts on this? Communikat ( talk) 11:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Several parties here have complained about my behaviour as though their own behaviour is entirely above reproach, which is not true. Roger Davies, who has recused himself from these current proceedings, observed last year that poor behaviour was general and widespread at the World War II and related articles. AGK, e.g.
last year expressed disappointment at
"the acutely partisan nature" of editing behaviour at the World War II article.
His observation was made while rejecting a request from me for mediation, which request was turned down with regret expressed by Roger Davies because Nick-D refused to participate. Had Nick-d participated, subsequent disputes, the Arbcom case and even this current request for clarification might have been avoided
The focus of this present request for clarification has evidently become shifted by others to matters concerning exclusively complaints of misconduct; so it is appropriate for me to state here a formal request that Arbcom examines the WP:BATTLEFIELD and other perceived misconduct here on the part of several parties. In particular, I ask Arbcom to review the conduct of administrator Nick-D who has presented false evidence here in a bid to have me banned for a year, and presumably to impede my further participation in this present request for clarification. My response to some of the false "evidence" in Nick-D's "motion" is contained below in the sub-section "Response to Nick-D statement". Further responses can and will be provided if or when a clerk or someone responds to my earlier, related query about procedural correctness. Communikat ( talk) 13:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Four parties including the filing party are now clearly agreed that clarification is warranted as to the scope of the topic ban. Four other parties appear to disagree. This indicates an impasse. Hopefully Arbcom will state a definitive and conclusive view.
I have reported in my submissions what amounts to alleged gross misconduct on the part of Nick-D relative to his filing of a "motion" based on false / misleading evidence, which IMO is an unfair attempt to impede the processing of my request for clarification. Does Arbcom intend to review Nick-d's conduct in this regard, as requested?
There has been no response / indication from any clerk or drafting arbitrator as to whether or not Nick-d's "motion" is misplaced.
In the meantime, administrator Georgewilliamherbet has instructed me in his statement to walk away ... or else. While SirFozzie has advised everyone to simply walk away. I am puzzled in particular as to whether or not administrator Georgewilliamherbet has the authority to speak on behalf of Arbcom; while I am unclear as to whether or not SirFozzie is stating a formal decision by Arbcom to refrain from providing the clarification requested. Communikat ( talk) 15:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I accept as reasonable NewYorkbrad's clarification. To eliminate the risk of conflict going forward, I request a mutual interaction ban between Edward321, Nick-d and myself Communikat. This with specific regard to articles upon which they (Edward321 and Nick-d) have never worked previously or shown any interest in, and where there already exists sufficient oversight as to quality, collaborative editing. Communikat ( talk) 14:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Re Boris-G remark: Sorry if I am taxing the patience of "everyone" with my allegedly "combative" approach. It seems you're still confused as to who is the victim here, and who is the agressor.
And yes, I am seeking consensus, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee, seeing as Nick-d selected to raise the South Africa article issue here, and continues to do so. Communikat ( talk) 18:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I feel certain that Communi[ck]at will find himself in conflict again if he edits about the military/political situation surrounding the Cold War as well. However, I don't know if the arbitrators intended to be that wide in their definition. ( Hohum @) 18:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Communicat disclosed that he and Winer were in fact the same person. The alleged "plagiarism" by Communicat of his own work was thus not plagiarism at all .. signed - 196.215.76.234
And yes, the present and newly registered username "Communikat" is in fact the erstwhile Communicat and the above IP 196.215.76.234 (talk signatory who now rejoins wikipedia under a new username following a refreshing six-months sabbatical. - signed Communikat
Based on past and present behaviour, I think he is a disruptive editor who misrepresents sources, lies, and pushes his own unreliable work repeatedly. He ignores the advice given to him by editors, administrators and arbitrators, he wikilawyers, and clouds every issue with pointless and wandering responses. I don't think he can ever be a productive editor here, and he has proven that many times.
I think the current topic ban is easy enough to interpret, unless you want to skirt the edges of it - easily solved; don't skirt the edges of it.
On the other hand, setting a date of 1948 would at least give him enough rope to hang himself; I would predict more of the same behaviour on Cold War related articles, another arbcom, and another ban. But that whole procedure would waste a lot of other peoples time too.
I do think the arbitrators need to give a solid answer on this page to draw a line under the issue. ( Hohum @) 12:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
@SirFozzie, Communikat is not aksing to lift the topic ban. He is asking for clarification of its scope. I have no opinion on the extent of the ban. In my view, the boundaries of the sanction are unclear, and clarification is in order. - BorisG ( talk) 18:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
@Communikat, I am now sensing that the Arbitrators are inclined to interpret the ban to apply to anything related to WWII, regardless of dates. Ideally you should probably start editing some completely unrelated areas of wikipedia. - BorisG ( talk) 11:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
@Communikat, in my view, you are wasting everyone's time and patience (and bandwidth). It is crystal clear that you should edit areas of Wikipedia unrealted to WWII. However this is necessary but not sufficient. The problem with your editing on South Africa is not that it is related to WWII, but that your editing approach is similar to the one you used in the WWII topic, the approach that got you banned from that topic. If you apply the same combative approach elsewhere, you may be a subject of further sanctions. You need to seek consensus, not battleground. - BorisG ( talk) 12:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Communicat/Communikat has only returned to editing in the last few weeks, but has already been blocked twice for violating both editing restrictions by continuing to carry on the disputes which were discussed in the arbitration case concerning Wikipedia's coverage of World War II and making personal attacks on other editors: [4], [5]. This conduct and now this request seem to imply an intention to carry on the dispute, and relaxing the restriction as proposed seems unwise. As David Fuchs ( talk · contribs) notes, there's no magic date in relation to World War II and its aftermath and specifying one would quickly become unworkable. The current wording seems to be to be perfectly clear, and quite straightforward to observe. It's worth noting that Communikat has been misrepresenting the editing restrictions placed on him by claiming that they include a ban on disclosing the articles he's banned from editing here, which combined with the above violations of these conditions hardly inspires confidence. Nick-D ( talk) 23:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Communikat is now blatantly using this as a forum to continue his unacceptable behavior. He's attacked T Canens in this post (apparently for responding to his past violations of editing restrictions) and is continuing the dispute over the World War II article and attacking Binksternet in this post and this post as well as attacking Habap here. These are all clear violations of his editing restrictions. Nick-D ( talk) 08:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
A key issue in the events which led to the arbitration case and the case itself was Communicat ( talk · contribs) aggressively attempting to add material from the book Between the Lies to various articles, despite a strong consensus that it wasn't a reliable source. Since returning to editing as Communikat ( talk · contribs) he has stated that he is in fact the author of this book: [6]. This represents a significant change to the evidence which was available at the time of the arbitration case. It's worth noting that Communicat's conduct included attacks on other editors who opposed his attempts to add material from the book, falsely attributing text taken directly from the book to other sources in an attempt to have it included in articles and edit warring to keep the text in articles when other editors removed it.
Since returning to editing not much more than a month ago, Communicat has been blocked twice for violating both his editing restrictions by continuing to attack other editors and carry on the disputes which led to the arbitration case: [7] [8]
Despite these blocks, Communicat is continuing this pattern of unacceptable behavior in this clarification request. This includes, but is not limited to, the following posts:
Taking into account the new evidence on why Communicat was pushing the book Between the Lies so aggressively and the fact that since returning to editing he's continued the exact same behaviour which led to adverse arbitration findings, despite being blocked twice for this within a matter of weeks, I think that it is clear that Communicat is highly unlikely to adhere to the editing restrictions or productively contribute to Wikipedia. As such, I would like to propose the following motion to extend Communicat's editing restrictions:
Motion
Communicat (
talk ·
contribs) /
Communikat (
talk ·
contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Nick-D ( talk) 11:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
(as a note, I'm not sure if this is placed or formatted correctly, so I'd appreciate it if a clerk or arbitrator could notify me of any problems) Nick-D ( talk) 12:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I reject all allegations contained in Nick-d's motion, but before replying at length and in detail, I would first value confirmation from the clerk or whoever that the motion has indeed been made in the correct format and at the correct place. Please confirm, or direct me to whichever clerk is the person to whom this query should be referred. It seems to me that the motion is a matter quite separate from my request for clarification, which clarification has not yet been given, and the motion should have been filed separately so as not to impede the current request for clarification. Someone please clarify. Communikat ( talk) 14:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
On further reflection, it seems obvious that Nick-d's motion is in fact and in essence a request for enforcement. It should therefor be removed from this page, and a separate RFE page opened properly, where I shall be happy to respond at length and without disruption to the pending topic-ban clarification as requested. Communikat ( talk) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It was Nick-D who persuaded me in the first place to file my current request for clarification; now that I'm doing so, he wants me to shut up.
I await a clerk's confirmatory thoughts as above requested, before proceeding to contest at any length the contents of Nick-d's motion. Communikat ( talk) 19:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it from reading Arbitration/Requests/Motions, motions are made by arbitrators. Nick-D is not an arbitrator. He is an experienced editor/administrator and as such he should know better. His "motion" should IMO be struck from this record, and he should follow procedure by lodging his own separate request for dispute resolution, without hi-jacking these present proceedings to serve his own WP:BATTLEFIELD agenda. His "motion", whether intentionally or otherwise, is serving only to fork / disrupt and make over-long and unmanageable this current request for clarification, which is already long and complicated enough without the effects of derailment.
As regards Nick-d's latest in a long string of claims about "personal attacks", Nick-d is apparently employing the tactic referred to in the old saying: "If you spit on a stone enough times, it becomes wet."
I refute Nick-D's latest complaint. He and/or his collaborator, in evident pursuit of a WP:BATTLEFIELD agenda, hounded me to an article outside my topic ban and engaged in edit warring and rewording text under the guise of alleged "copyright violation" to the extent that the meaning of content of the text was rendered distorted and inaccurate. And then he/they departed promptly after I had been driven away, leaving a trail of garbled text and distorted meaning in their wake. Precisely the same kind of thing happened seven months ago at Aftermath of World War II article, which gave rise to my filing of the Arbcom case, which was turned against me. I am sorry if Nick-D and Edward321 are apparently disturbed by the fact that South Africa and communist China have signed a strategic partnership agreement. They should take it up with President Jacob Zuma, not me. The relevant diffs have already been provided. At the risk of tedious repetition, I provide them again, and again. Also here.
I repeat my well substantiated requests for an interaction ban, so that I can work productively and without harassment on topics beyond the scope of my topic ban. Communikat ( talk) 13:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a move by Communikat to continue his campaign to right wrongs of the standard historiography of World War II and its aftermath. He wishes to bring his years of research to bear on articles about how the various former Allies began scheming to remake the world into a form more friendly to their aims at the detriment of other nations and powers. This information is already part of the historiography of WWII and its aftermath but Communikat wants to highlight the issues in a non-neutral way, to rub the guilty nations' noses in the mess they created. His ideal article would make the reader angry that the UK was on the winning side of WWII—a violation of WP:NPOV.
We do not need more of the headache that Communikat has already given the involved editors in his campaign. We already experienced the drama, with many hours of editor time wasted, and if we approve of his wish to edit articles in the post-1948 world we will see once again his injection of anger and non-neutral wording regarding the long-term fallout of WWII; the five-, ten- and twenty-year results of sneaky decisions made during WWII by Churchill. I agree with some other involved editors that the end of the Cold War should be Communikat's cut-off date, imposed to keep him from adding non-neutral and angry text along the lines of his book Between The Lies (how's that for a non-neutral title?) I assume from observing his past behavior that giving him his wished-for answer will soon see Communikat blocked again for edit warring. Binksternet ( talk) 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Communickat has already falsely tried to claim consensus for his proposed cutoff date. [40] [41] If Communikat's suggested cutoff data is accepted, it would be lifting a major portion of his topic ban. If the Arbitration committee feels a specific cutoff date is needed for clarification, I suggest the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 as that date. If no specific date is needed, I suggest rewording Communikat's topic ban to "all articles related to World War II or the Cold War, broadly construed". Edward321 ( talk) 15:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
It has been suggested that Communickat edit nowhere near his topic ban. [42] Communickat appears to have no interest in doing so [43] and in fact wants to have his topic ban reduced by a cutoff date of 1948. [44] Aftermath of World War II does not end at 1948. Among other examples, it briefly discusses the Chinese Civil War which ended in 1950, the Malayan Emergency which ended in 1960, the First Indochina War which ended in 1954, and the Algerian War which ended in 1962. As the evidence shows, Communickat spent months advocating his views on the Korean War while engaging in every negative behavior that led to his current topic ban. [45] Kirill Lokshin was correct in labeling Communickat a single purpose account. [46] That purpose is advocating Stan Winer, who Communckat has specifically claimed to be [47] and specifically denied being Winer. [48] Even after everyone else repeatedly rejected Stan Winer as a source, Communickat is still trying to push Winer as a source [49] and using his talk page to advertise Winer's website. [50] Communickat has convinced me that he will never voluntarily drop the bludgeoning instrument and back away from the tattered remains of this equine cadaver. Edward321 ( talk) 00:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Communickat says "The list of involved or affected users consists of those who gave evidence, or participated in workshop proposals/discussions that might have had an influence on the outcome of the Arbcom decision, and/or were otherwise named or referred to during the course of the Arbcom case." [51] Kirill Lokshin, [52] 67.117.130.143 [53] and Georgewilliamherbert [54] also presented evidence against Communickat in that case, but he has not listed them. Edward321 ( talk) 00:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The list Communickat mentions was anything but "painstaking", it was a simple once-through read looking for obvious examples, and it was not limited to revisionist historians. Communicat said "I will give you a barnstar for every non-Western, Western-revisionist, or significant-minority position reference source cited in the references list of WW2 article" [55] I gave a cursory look at the article and found a dozen. [56] Communickat still hasn't made good his promise. Edward321 ( talk) 14:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll concede a point that there does need to be a date of some sort given for the aftermath of World War II, but I would place its aftermath as the period of time from the official surrender of Japan till the Start of the Korean War, or 1945-1950. Having said that, I want to know why we are being asked to clarify the point. I sense that the ultimate object of the clarification is to provide a loophole through which you can edit the pages with official sanction from the arbitration committee. It is my opinion that the clarification, once reached by arbcom, should come with a stipulation that are also banned from editing the post WWII pages as well. Note that due to circumstances beyond my control I expect to absent for long periods of time here, and I am not sure when or if I will be back before a consensus is reached. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
It was Communi(ck)at's behaviour far more than the unsupported arguments that were the problem. If the behaviour continues, it doesn't really matter whether the topic is WWII or children's toys. I believe that one of the reasons that such bans are put in place is to encourage editors to go edit in areas in which they have less emotional investment and can edit in a more detached manner. With an opportunity to edit in a less tendentious manner, the editor can then take those habits back to the topics from which they had been banned after the topic ban expires and use those new habits to edit in a constructive manner. It sounds as though Communikat is having some issues again. I would suggest that he edit articles which are less controversial and which he has less emotional commitment to over the next six months so that when the topic ban expires, he will have experience in more collegial editing and can bring his ideas back to those controversial articles.
Using 1948 as the cutoff date would include the Korean War, which I think will be problematic, based on his prior editing. I think that anything which Communikat relates to WWII, such as accusations that American or British actions taken during WWII caused things in later years, is going to inspire the same inappropriate behaviour by Communikat. As such, I think it entirely appropriate to interpret the topic ban broadly and for Communikat to take the next six months to learn to edit in a more appropriate manner while editing articles about which he is not emotionally committed. --
Habap (
talk)
14:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't checked the contributions that got you in hot water again. I had assumed it was for editing articles, but it was only for behaviour on non-article space pages. Nonetheless, by seeking to edit articles that some might consider to be related to WWII, as you are doing by asking to have the aftermath defined as ending in 1948, you are obviously thinking of editing articles that are similar to the two on which you behaved badly.
Please, edit something that has nothing to do with WWII or the evils of capitalism for the next six months so that you can find out what it is like to edit something without raging against the institutional bias. At the end of your topic-ban, feel free to re-engage in the controversial topics and work to remove the bias. This is what you're supposed to do when you are topic-banned, not spend days or weeks arguing about what the ban was about and whether it was justified. -- Habap ( talk) 19:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Communikat, the problem you are having is that you continue to get into unproductive arguments and involved in endless disciplinary discussions. I think it would be more enjoyable for you to edit articles instead of arguing, so I suggest that you edit articles on which you will not encounter arguments. I have no idea what you would enjoy, though, so do as you please.
It might be helpful to the arbitrators if, rather than ask for general clarification, you simply asked about specific articles you would like to edit. I honestly don't care which articles you want to edit and vow not to pay any attention to the articles you choose to edit.
I only came to this discussion because an email arrived in my inbox stating that you had posted the notice on my talk page. Before you came to the WWII article, I had no significant interaction (if any) with the editors you label my "pals" or "peers" or that you have alleged are part of a concerted effort to inhibit your efforts. Similary, I have had no interaction with them since. WP:TINC -- Habap ( talk) 16:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Why exactly wasn't Communi[ck]at site-banned, again? T. Canens ( talk) 18:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Communicat, you are in the process of exhausting the communities' patience here. The next couple of steps down that road lead to an indefinite block, community ban, or arbcom ban.
The only way out of this is to abandon any efforts to edit any vaguely related topics or argue your way out of this - simply walk away - and stop fighting on this.
What you're trying to use Wikipedia for, and how you're engaging with discussions in the community are just not ok. If you walk away from these topics voluntarily now you have at least a chance to figure out how to engage elsewhere in a constructive manner and continue to participate here. If not, you're going to get yourself kicked away from the project.
This is pretty much up to you. You don't have to agree with me, or agree that this is fair, but you need to understand what path you are on and what the next couple of steps will be and mean.
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 06:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Considering the topic ban was just placed in January, I see no compelling reason to lift it at this time. SirFozzie ( talk) 18:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I would certainly not support an enumeration of any kind, as it encourages gaming the letter rather than avoiding controversy but you may get guidance for specific examples if you ask. (And a formal clarification request is overkill for that). — Coren (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerk: AGK ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren ( Talk) & Newyorkbrad ( Talk) |
Per Communicat's request, I have notified Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. -- Habap ( talk) 18:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Communikat ( talk) at Communikat ( talk) 17:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmations of notices sent:
I am topic-banned from editing or discussing articles about Aftermath of World War II To avoid conceptual confusion, potential disputes, complaints, or edit-warring, I request in good faith that Arbcom provides semantic clarification as to the practical, contextual meaning of " Aftermath of World War II" as referred to in the topic-ban decision.
I propose the word "aftermath" be agreed upon as meaning the immediate aftermath of World War II, and the end of 1948 be accepted as the World War II "aftermath" cut-off date. I propose this for the following reasons:
When an editor is personally attacked / falsely accused / provoked / hectored / badgered / baited or whatever, and is supposedly prevented from responding on the basis of evident presumptions that he is topic-banned, then IMO that amounts to gagging, viz., censorship pure and simple, regardless of how WP:CENSOR defines it. Please clarify whether the scope of my topic ban includes gagging / being censored, as has already ocurred in the incident referred to with diffs, in my observations below in response to administrator party Timotheus Canens, in which Nick-D is also named. I trust Arbcom applies impartially the rules on behaviour.
Please clarify also whether Nick-D is justified in his statement below that my submissions in this current matter "actually seem to be a clear violation of the editing restrictions" upon me, viz., I have allegedly broken my topic ban by filing this present request for clarification, which IMO a further, clear attempt to gag / censor me.
Please clarify whether or not my attempts to seek clarity on the scope of my topic ban amount to wikilawyering, as alleged by NickD on my talkpage. My response to that charge is contained within the same diff.
Please clarify / specify in Arbcom's pending decision any and all relevant WP rules or guidelines pertaining to that decision. Confusion has already arisen on my part as to Arbcom's unclear and unstated meaning of the term "topic ban", which resulted in a further one-week block on me. My interpretation of "topic ban" had relied inadvertently on guideline WP:TOPICBAN , not realising that WP:TOPICBAN is in fact a proposal that had earlier been archived because nobody wanted to discuss it. WP:BAN, which I had not read or was otherwise aware of, is in fact the currently operative guideline (even though I think WP:TOPICBAN, had it not been earlier shelved, might be a more comprehensive and superior guideline). Communikat ( talk) 14:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Kindly note: I've not asked for topic ban to be lifted. I've asked specifically for clarification. Kindly comply. Your pertinent input would be appreciated. Thank you. Communikat ( talk) 18:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: As David Fuchs ( talk · contribs) notes, there's no magic date in relation to World War II and its aftermath and specifying one would quickly become unworkable. Nick-d has not provided a diff or link to his quote from David Fuchs. Nick-d, please do so; and if that quote does in fact carry verifiable weight, then you should revise and reorganise entirely the Aftermath of World War II and the Effects of World War II articles, as referred to above in my opening statement. Communikat ( talk) 11:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest commentators here should refrain from speculation about my future behaviour. The normal way of resolving uncertainty is to ask for clarification. In my instance, I have asked specifically for clarification as to whether or not 1948 may be agreed upon as a practical date cut-off date relative to resumed editing within the constraints of my topic-ban. So far nobody has answered my question. Instead, there is this continual shying away from the key question by hiding behind a behavioral issue for which I have already been sanctioned. But since everyone here seems to be preoccupied with behavioural issues, allow me to quote one military history project co-ordinator, milhist articles “exist in a constant state of chaos”. This was true even before I started editing there. To quote another, very active and experienced WW2 editor Paul Siebert: “ ... let me remind you that he (Communicat) initiated several discussions that led to significant improvement of, e.g., WWII article ... we all must remember that initial impetus to this work was given by Communicat”.
If you don’t want me to edit or discuss anything relating to any and all post-1945 military history articles, then just say so. It is problematic to say the scope of the topic-ban should be interpreted "broadly but reasonably". What may be reasonable to one editor might not necessarily be viewed as reasonable by others. That is a recipe for potential conflict, which I’m seeking to avoid. In similar vein, Nick-d has claimed recently that Arbcom rulings are “deliberately broad in order to provide admins with the discretion they need”. What this “discretion” has recently amounted to in effect was a perceived prohibition in terms of my topic-ban preventing me from exercising any right of reply to personal attacks, and/or referring to the earlier Arbcom proceedings.
Now, my thoughts (as invited by NewYorkbrad) on what might need to be done going forward that would minimize the risk of conflict. A precise clarification of what “aftermath” means would be helpful for a start. In the longer term, the issue of systemic bias may need to be addressed, and I am not alone in this view. As stated by one participant in the Arbcom case: “The inability of the WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS to incorporate non Anglo-American POVs in practice can be extremely frustrating for new editors on Wikipedia ... (leading to inappropriate behaviour)". And to quote WW2 editor Paul Siebert again:: “... numerous evidences presented here demonstrate only that Communicat's behaviour is inappropriate and ... (it) is insufficient to conclude that the WWII project is not biased.” There is also the compelling evidence by peer review editor Fifelfoo: "Wikipedia's articles in the Humanities and Social Sciences suffer from a systematic i18n failure, and typically privilege US normative accounts … No systems exist to resolve high order structural, literary, or taxonomic disputes; encouraging bad editor behaviour from all sides of debate... At a point, persistent content failures become a domain-of-knowledge wide conduct failure. Military History is very successful at resolving many lower order content failures. But even this successful project has not been able to resolve higher order issues ... Previous sanctions specifically addressing conduct in domains of knowledge (Eastern Europe, etc.) have failed to change community conduct in content production: ... Individual disciplining does not resolve the failure to produce encyclopaedic content ... Cases like this come forward on a reasonably regular basis; demonstrating the failure of past individual sanctions to address the failure of community conduct under policy."
Further: "Humanities and social science articles generally have terrible problems with: ...determination and characterisation of weight of English language perspectives versus non-English language perspectives; determination and characterisation of weight of US/UK English language versus other English language perspectives; and,recourse to encyclopaedically unprofessional conduct in the location of, characterisation of, and weighting of appropriate secondary and tertiary (in the sense of field review articles) sources ... The impact of a major failure of editor conduct around the content production failures above — and the content failure itself ... seriously threatens the credibility of encyclopaedic project in Humanities and Social Sciences areas ....Discussion has recently occurred amongst some editors about Wikipedia's failure in taxonomy, classification, characterisation and weight content production in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Included in this discussion has been the failure of past conduct limitations … to resolve the problem of production of encyclopaedic content (which) exemplifies a threat, and itself threatens, the encyclopaedic project in the humanities and social sciences area (and) should be taken to arbitration”.
In short, I suggest the editors, arbitrators and administrators here present should not always and arbitrarily separate the issues of content and behaviour. The two may frequently be inseparable as the product of systemic bias inherent in the wikipedia system itself. I am not suggesting such bias is necessarily deliberate, though that may sometimes be the case. It is more a demographic and a design problem, and it is a symptom of system failure, which is defined as that which occurs when a system does not meet its requirements. If Wikipedia is to live up to its ambition of being encyclopedic by incorporating a diversity of verifiable and notable viewpoints, then the subject needs to be addressed productively and not be evaded simply as a “behavioural issue” in isolation of the core issue, which is clearly the issue of systemic bias. Communikat ( talk) 19:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
A topic ban "broadly construed" as relating to all World War and Cold War articles would mean in effect and for example a ban on editing or discussing the Moon landing. This because the moon landing was the ultimate outcome of rocket technology originating in World War II and developed further during the Cold War arms race. Similarly traceable chains of cause and effect "broadly construed" can apply to thousands of other topics. Which is what this present request for clarification is all about. Communikat ( talk) 19:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting Wikipedia should change itself to fit in with my behaviour. Your inference is laughable. Communikat ( talk) 20:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet should refrain from wild speculation as to the topics, content and quality of my future edits, if any. In addition, the matters he raises have comprehensively and satisfactorily been dealt with in previous discussions. I see no point in repeating them.
As to Binksternet's suggestion that Aftermath cut-off date to be set at "the end of the Cold War": I repeat my comments already directed at Edward321, namely, if that suggestion is adopted, then I'd need convincing it does not go against the letter and spirit of WP:CENSOR, as does Binksternet's suggestion here. Communikat ( talk) 22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The 1950 start of Korean War is reasonable and acceptable, as suggested by this milhist project co-ordinator, who otherwise fails to assume good faith. Communikat ( talk) 11:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I request this matter be left open for at least another three or four days before making a decision, so as to allow for the possibility of further community editor participation, if any. Communikat ( talk) 11:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The list of involved or affected users consists of those who gave evidence, or participated in workshop proposals/discussions that might have had an influence on the outcome of the Arbcom decision, and/or were otherwise named or referred to during the course of the Arbcom case.
Shell Kinney was included because I had requested guidance via the Help desk, to which she replied helpfully under Ticket#2011061910008112. I specifically asked whether I could request Arbcom clarification while I was still under a (then) one-week block. I asked further if it was permissable for me to invite wider community participation in Arbcom clarification discussions by posting on a relevant Rfc Noticeboard a notice inviting broader community participation in the Arbcom clarification request, given that Arbcom, by its own earlier admission, lacked the capacity to deal with content issues. IMO the current clarification request is essentially a content issue. Shell Kinney's advice was noted. To that extent, she was IMO "involved" in this current clarification matter. If I have misconstrued the word "involved", then I have no problem with redacting her username accordingly. I trust this answers your question. Communikat ( talk) 16:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Avoidance of Russophobia does not mean my edits are "emotionally" invested, as falsely alleged. Communikat ( talk) 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Understand this if you can: I do not want the topic ban to be lifted, not now, not in the past, nor in the forseeable future. In fact, I want nothing whatsover to do with the World War II and Aftermath of World War II articles. They are just too fraught with intractible problems of one kind or another, which have been there and will remain so for a long time. In fact, you might recall that I actually walked away from the WW2 article a full two months before I was topic banned from the article. What I do want, however, is clarity on the scope of my presently unclear topic ban, so that I can in future possibly avoid the usual conflicts with the usual small handful of people. Some of my interests in the development of science and technology, for example, might notionally be "broadly construed" as relating to the longterm effects of World War II, resulting predictably in consequent complaints of alleged breaking of the editing restrictions upon me. This is why I am asking the arbitrators to recognise the practical semantic distinction between "immediate aftermath" and "long term effects", and to clarify the topic ban accordingly so that everyone is on the same page. I do not want waste more of my valuable time in tedious disputes such as the present one if and when I do decide to return to active editing. Surely that is not asking for too much? Or maybe it is. Communikat ( talk) 20:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Re your query "Why exactly wasn't Communi[ck]at site-banned, again?" I have never been site-banned, not under the username Communicat nor under the username Communikat or any other username, of which there is none. The username Communicat was cancelled by me six months ago, I didn't know how to reinstate it when I returned recently, and hence the new username Communikat. Do you have any thoughts on a practical Aftermath cut-off date as currently under discussion? Communikat ( talk) 19:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This present matter shows every sign of replicating the Arbcom case, which dragged on for six weeks before I eventually walked away in exasperation. I will not be making further submissions here, unless something really compelling turns up. I've already stated whatever needs to said in support of my request for clarification. My main points of observation thus far are:
Military history project coordinator TomStar81 has conceded "there does need to be a date of some sort given for the aftermath of World War II, but I would place its aftermath as the period of time from the official surrender of Japan till the Start of the Korean War, or 1945-1950." BorisG has similarly conceded: "... the boundaries of the sanction are unclear, and clarification is in order." Do you have any thoughts on this? Communikat ( talk) 11:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Several parties here have complained about my behaviour as though their own behaviour is entirely above reproach, which is not true. Roger Davies, who has recused himself from these current proceedings, observed last year that poor behaviour was general and widespread at the World War II and related articles. AGK, e.g.
last year expressed disappointment at
"the acutely partisan nature" of editing behaviour at the World War II article.
His observation was made while rejecting a request from me for mediation, which request was turned down with regret expressed by Roger Davies because Nick-D refused to participate. Had Nick-d participated, subsequent disputes, the Arbcom case and even this current request for clarification might have been avoided
The focus of this present request for clarification has evidently become shifted by others to matters concerning exclusively complaints of misconduct; so it is appropriate for me to state here a formal request that Arbcom examines the WP:BATTLEFIELD and other perceived misconduct here on the part of several parties. In particular, I ask Arbcom to review the conduct of administrator Nick-D who has presented false evidence here in a bid to have me banned for a year, and presumably to impede my further participation in this present request for clarification. My response to some of the false "evidence" in Nick-D's "motion" is contained below in the sub-section "Response to Nick-D statement". Further responses can and will be provided if or when a clerk or someone responds to my earlier, related query about procedural correctness. Communikat ( talk) 13:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Four parties including the filing party are now clearly agreed that clarification is warranted as to the scope of the topic ban. Four other parties appear to disagree. This indicates an impasse. Hopefully Arbcom will state a definitive and conclusive view.
I have reported in my submissions what amounts to alleged gross misconduct on the part of Nick-D relative to his filing of a "motion" based on false / misleading evidence, which IMO is an unfair attempt to impede the processing of my request for clarification. Does Arbcom intend to review Nick-d's conduct in this regard, as requested?
There has been no response / indication from any clerk or drafting arbitrator as to whether or not Nick-d's "motion" is misplaced.
In the meantime, administrator Georgewilliamherbet has instructed me in his statement to walk away ... or else. While SirFozzie has advised everyone to simply walk away. I am puzzled in particular as to whether or not administrator Georgewilliamherbet has the authority to speak on behalf of Arbcom; while I am unclear as to whether or not SirFozzie is stating a formal decision by Arbcom to refrain from providing the clarification requested. Communikat ( talk) 15:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I accept as reasonable NewYorkbrad's clarification. To eliminate the risk of conflict going forward, I request a mutual interaction ban between Edward321, Nick-d and myself Communikat. This with specific regard to articles upon which they (Edward321 and Nick-d) have never worked previously or shown any interest in, and where there already exists sufficient oversight as to quality, collaborative editing. Communikat ( talk) 14:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Re Boris-G remark: Sorry if I am taxing the patience of "everyone" with my allegedly "combative" approach. It seems you're still confused as to who is the victim here, and who is the agressor.
And yes, I am seeking consensus, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee, seeing as Nick-d selected to raise the South Africa article issue here, and continues to do so. Communikat ( talk) 18:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I feel certain that Communi[ck]at will find himself in conflict again if he edits about the military/political situation surrounding the Cold War as well. However, I don't know if the arbitrators intended to be that wide in their definition. ( Hohum @) 18:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Communicat disclosed that he and Winer were in fact the same person. The alleged "plagiarism" by Communicat of his own work was thus not plagiarism at all .. signed - 196.215.76.234
And yes, the present and newly registered username "Communikat" is in fact the erstwhile Communicat and the above IP 196.215.76.234 (talk signatory who now rejoins wikipedia under a new username following a refreshing six-months sabbatical. - signed Communikat
Based on past and present behaviour, I think he is a disruptive editor who misrepresents sources, lies, and pushes his own unreliable work repeatedly. He ignores the advice given to him by editors, administrators and arbitrators, he wikilawyers, and clouds every issue with pointless and wandering responses. I don't think he can ever be a productive editor here, and he has proven that many times.
I think the current topic ban is easy enough to interpret, unless you want to skirt the edges of it - easily solved; don't skirt the edges of it.
On the other hand, setting a date of 1948 would at least give him enough rope to hang himself; I would predict more of the same behaviour on Cold War related articles, another arbcom, and another ban. But that whole procedure would waste a lot of other peoples time too.
I do think the arbitrators need to give a solid answer on this page to draw a line under the issue. ( Hohum @) 12:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
@SirFozzie, Communikat is not aksing to lift the topic ban. He is asking for clarification of its scope. I have no opinion on the extent of the ban. In my view, the boundaries of the sanction are unclear, and clarification is in order. - BorisG ( talk) 18:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
@Communikat, I am now sensing that the Arbitrators are inclined to interpret the ban to apply to anything related to WWII, regardless of dates. Ideally you should probably start editing some completely unrelated areas of wikipedia. - BorisG ( talk) 11:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
@Communikat, in my view, you are wasting everyone's time and patience (and bandwidth). It is crystal clear that you should edit areas of Wikipedia unrealted to WWII. However this is necessary but not sufficient. The problem with your editing on South Africa is not that it is related to WWII, but that your editing approach is similar to the one you used in the WWII topic, the approach that got you banned from that topic. If you apply the same combative approach elsewhere, you may be a subject of further sanctions. You need to seek consensus, not battleground. - BorisG ( talk) 12:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Communicat/Communikat has only returned to editing in the last few weeks, but has already been blocked twice for violating both editing restrictions by continuing to carry on the disputes which were discussed in the arbitration case concerning Wikipedia's coverage of World War II and making personal attacks on other editors: [4], [5]. This conduct and now this request seem to imply an intention to carry on the dispute, and relaxing the restriction as proposed seems unwise. As David Fuchs ( talk · contribs) notes, there's no magic date in relation to World War II and its aftermath and specifying one would quickly become unworkable. The current wording seems to be to be perfectly clear, and quite straightforward to observe. It's worth noting that Communikat has been misrepresenting the editing restrictions placed on him by claiming that they include a ban on disclosing the articles he's banned from editing here, which combined with the above violations of these conditions hardly inspires confidence. Nick-D ( talk) 23:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Communikat is now blatantly using this as a forum to continue his unacceptable behavior. He's attacked T Canens in this post (apparently for responding to his past violations of editing restrictions) and is continuing the dispute over the World War II article and attacking Binksternet in this post and this post as well as attacking Habap here. These are all clear violations of his editing restrictions. Nick-D ( talk) 08:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
A key issue in the events which led to the arbitration case and the case itself was Communicat ( talk · contribs) aggressively attempting to add material from the book Between the Lies to various articles, despite a strong consensus that it wasn't a reliable source. Since returning to editing as Communikat ( talk · contribs) he has stated that he is in fact the author of this book: [6]. This represents a significant change to the evidence which was available at the time of the arbitration case. It's worth noting that Communicat's conduct included attacks on other editors who opposed his attempts to add material from the book, falsely attributing text taken directly from the book to other sources in an attempt to have it included in articles and edit warring to keep the text in articles when other editors removed it.
Since returning to editing not much more than a month ago, Communicat has been blocked twice for violating both his editing restrictions by continuing to attack other editors and carry on the disputes which led to the arbitration case: [7] [8]
Despite these blocks, Communicat is continuing this pattern of unacceptable behavior in this clarification request. This includes, but is not limited to, the following posts:
Taking into account the new evidence on why Communicat was pushing the book Between the Lies so aggressively and the fact that since returning to editing he's continued the exact same behaviour which led to adverse arbitration findings, despite being blocked twice for this within a matter of weeks, I think that it is clear that Communicat is highly unlikely to adhere to the editing restrictions or productively contribute to Wikipedia. As such, I would like to propose the following motion to extend Communicat's editing restrictions:
Motion
Communicat (
talk ·
contribs) /
Communikat (
talk ·
contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Nick-D ( talk) 11:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
(as a note, I'm not sure if this is placed or formatted correctly, so I'd appreciate it if a clerk or arbitrator could notify me of any problems) Nick-D ( talk) 12:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I reject all allegations contained in Nick-d's motion, but before replying at length and in detail, I would first value confirmation from the clerk or whoever that the motion has indeed been made in the correct format and at the correct place. Please confirm, or direct me to whichever clerk is the person to whom this query should be referred. It seems to me that the motion is a matter quite separate from my request for clarification, which clarification has not yet been given, and the motion should have been filed separately so as not to impede the current request for clarification. Someone please clarify. Communikat ( talk) 14:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
On further reflection, it seems obvious that Nick-d's motion is in fact and in essence a request for enforcement. It should therefor be removed from this page, and a separate RFE page opened properly, where I shall be happy to respond at length and without disruption to the pending topic-ban clarification as requested. Communikat ( talk) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It was Nick-D who persuaded me in the first place to file my current request for clarification; now that I'm doing so, he wants me to shut up.
I await a clerk's confirmatory thoughts as above requested, before proceeding to contest at any length the contents of Nick-d's motion. Communikat ( talk) 19:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it from reading Arbitration/Requests/Motions, motions are made by arbitrators. Nick-D is not an arbitrator. He is an experienced editor/administrator and as such he should know better. His "motion" should IMO be struck from this record, and he should follow procedure by lodging his own separate request for dispute resolution, without hi-jacking these present proceedings to serve his own WP:BATTLEFIELD agenda. His "motion", whether intentionally or otherwise, is serving only to fork / disrupt and make over-long and unmanageable this current request for clarification, which is already long and complicated enough without the effects of derailment.
As regards Nick-d's latest in a long string of claims about "personal attacks", Nick-d is apparently employing the tactic referred to in the old saying: "If you spit on a stone enough times, it becomes wet."
I refute Nick-D's latest complaint. He and/or his collaborator, in evident pursuit of a WP:BATTLEFIELD agenda, hounded me to an article outside my topic ban and engaged in edit warring and rewording text under the guise of alleged "copyright violation" to the extent that the meaning of content of the text was rendered distorted and inaccurate. And then he/they departed promptly after I had been driven away, leaving a trail of garbled text and distorted meaning in their wake. Precisely the same kind of thing happened seven months ago at Aftermath of World War II article, which gave rise to my filing of the Arbcom case, which was turned against me. I am sorry if Nick-D and Edward321 are apparently disturbed by the fact that South Africa and communist China have signed a strategic partnership agreement. They should take it up with President Jacob Zuma, not me. The relevant diffs have already been provided. At the risk of tedious repetition, I provide them again, and again. Also here.
I repeat my well substantiated requests for an interaction ban, so that I can work productively and without harassment on topics beyond the scope of my topic ban. Communikat ( talk) 13:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a move by Communikat to continue his campaign to right wrongs of the standard historiography of World War II and its aftermath. He wishes to bring his years of research to bear on articles about how the various former Allies began scheming to remake the world into a form more friendly to their aims at the detriment of other nations and powers. This information is already part of the historiography of WWII and its aftermath but Communikat wants to highlight the issues in a non-neutral way, to rub the guilty nations' noses in the mess they created. His ideal article would make the reader angry that the UK was on the winning side of WWII—a violation of WP:NPOV.
We do not need more of the headache that Communikat has already given the involved editors in his campaign. We already experienced the drama, with many hours of editor time wasted, and if we approve of his wish to edit articles in the post-1948 world we will see once again his injection of anger and non-neutral wording regarding the long-term fallout of WWII; the five-, ten- and twenty-year results of sneaky decisions made during WWII by Churchill. I agree with some other involved editors that the end of the Cold War should be Communikat's cut-off date, imposed to keep him from adding non-neutral and angry text along the lines of his book Between The Lies (how's that for a non-neutral title?) I assume from observing his past behavior that giving him his wished-for answer will soon see Communikat blocked again for edit warring. Binksternet ( talk) 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Communickat has already falsely tried to claim consensus for his proposed cutoff date. [40] [41] If Communikat's suggested cutoff data is accepted, it would be lifting a major portion of his topic ban. If the Arbitration committee feels a specific cutoff date is needed for clarification, I suggest the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 as that date. If no specific date is needed, I suggest rewording Communikat's topic ban to "all articles related to World War II or the Cold War, broadly construed". Edward321 ( talk) 15:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
It has been suggested that Communickat edit nowhere near his topic ban. [42] Communickat appears to have no interest in doing so [43] and in fact wants to have his topic ban reduced by a cutoff date of 1948. [44] Aftermath of World War II does not end at 1948. Among other examples, it briefly discusses the Chinese Civil War which ended in 1950, the Malayan Emergency which ended in 1960, the First Indochina War which ended in 1954, and the Algerian War which ended in 1962. As the evidence shows, Communickat spent months advocating his views on the Korean War while engaging in every negative behavior that led to his current topic ban. [45] Kirill Lokshin was correct in labeling Communickat a single purpose account. [46] That purpose is advocating Stan Winer, who Communckat has specifically claimed to be [47] and specifically denied being Winer. [48] Even after everyone else repeatedly rejected Stan Winer as a source, Communickat is still trying to push Winer as a source [49] and using his talk page to advertise Winer's website. [50] Communickat has convinced me that he will never voluntarily drop the bludgeoning instrument and back away from the tattered remains of this equine cadaver. Edward321 ( talk) 00:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Communickat says "The list of involved or affected users consists of those who gave evidence, or participated in workshop proposals/discussions that might have had an influence on the outcome of the Arbcom decision, and/or were otherwise named or referred to during the course of the Arbcom case." [51] Kirill Lokshin, [52] 67.117.130.143 [53] and Georgewilliamherbert [54] also presented evidence against Communickat in that case, but he has not listed them. Edward321 ( talk) 00:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The list Communickat mentions was anything but "painstaking", it was a simple once-through read looking for obvious examples, and it was not limited to revisionist historians. Communicat said "I will give you a barnstar for every non-Western, Western-revisionist, or significant-minority position reference source cited in the references list of WW2 article" [55] I gave a cursory look at the article and found a dozen. [56] Communickat still hasn't made good his promise. Edward321 ( talk) 14:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll concede a point that there does need to be a date of some sort given for the aftermath of World War II, but I would place its aftermath as the period of time from the official surrender of Japan till the Start of the Korean War, or 1945-1950. Having said that, I want to know why we are being asked to clarify the point. I sense that the ultimate object of the clarification is to provide a loophole through which you can edit the pages with official sanction from the arbitration committee. It is my opinion that the clarification, once reached by arbcom, should come with a stipulation that are also banned from editing the post WWII pages as well. Note that due to circumstances beyond my control I expect to absent for long periods of time here, and I am not sure when or if I will be back before a consensus is reached. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
It was Communi(ck)at's behaviour far more than the unsupported arguments that were the problem. If the behaviour continues, it doesn't really matter whether the topic is WWII or children's toys. I believe that one of the reasons that such bans are put in place is to encourage editors to go edit in areas in which they have less emotional investment and can edit in a more detached manner. With an opportunity to edit in a less tendentious manner, the editor can then take those habits back to the topics from which they had been banned after the topic ban expires and use those new habits to edit in a constructive manner. It sounds as though Communikat is having some issues again. I would suggest that he edit articles which are less controversial and which he has less emotional commitment to over the next six months so that when the topic ban expires, he will have experience in more collegial editing and can bring his ideas back to those controversial articles.
Using 1948 as the cutoff date would include the Korean War, which I think will be problematic, based on his prior editing. I think that anything which Communikat relates to WWII, such as accusations that American or British actions taken during WWII caused things in later years, is going to inspire the same inappropriate behaviour by Communikat. As such, I think it entirely appropriate to interpret the topic ban broadly and for Communikat to take the next six months to learn to edit in a more appropriate manner while editing articles about which he is not emotionally committed. --
Habap (
talk)
14:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't checked the contributions that got you in hot water again. I had assumed it was for editing articles, but it was only for behaviour on non-article space pages. Nonetheless, by seeking to edit articles that some might consider to be related to WWII, as you are doing by asking to have the aftermath defined as ending in 1948, you are obviously thinking of editing articles that are similar to the two on which you behaved badly.
Please, edit something that has nothing to do with WWII or the evils of capitalism for the next six months so that you can find out what it is like to edit something without raging against the institutional bias. At the end of your topic-ban, feel free to re-engage in the controversial topics and work to remove the bias. This is what you're supposed to do when you are topic-banned, not spend days or weeks arguing about what the ban was about and whether it was justified. -- Habap ( talk) 19:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Communikat, the problem you are having is that you continue to get into unproductive arguments and involved in endless disciplinary discussions. I think it would be more enjoyable for you to edit articles instead of arguing, so I suggest that you edit articles on which you will not encounter arguments. I have no idea what you would enjoy, though, so do as you please.
It might be helpful to the arbitrators if, rather than ask for general clarification, you simply asked about specific articles you would like to edit. I honestly don't care which articles you want to edit and vow not to pay any attention to the articles you choose to edit.
I only came to this discussion because an email arrived in my inbox stating that you had posted the notice on my talk page. Before you came to the WWII article, I had no significant interaction (if any) with the editors you label my "pals" or "peers" or that you have alleged are part of a concerted effort to inhibit your efforts. Similary, I have had no interaction with them since. WP:TINC -- Habap ( talk) 16:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Why exactly wasn't Communi[ck]at site-banned, again? T. Canens ( talk) 18:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Communicat, you are in the process of exhausting the communities' patience here. The next couple of steps down that road lead to an indefinite block, community ban, or arbcom ban.
The only way out of this is to abandon any efforts to edit any vaguely related topics or argue your way out of this - simply walk away - and stop fighting on this.
What you're trying to use Wikipedia for, and how you're engaging with discussions in the community are just not ok. If you walk away from these topics voluntarily now you have at least a chance to figure out how to engage elsewhere in a constructive manner and continue to participate here. If not, you're going to get yourself kicked away from the project.
This is pretty much up to you. You don't have to agree with me, or agree that this is fair, but you need to understand what path you are on and what the next couple of steps will be and mean.
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 06:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Considering the topic ban was just placed in January, I see no compelling reason to lift it at this time. SirFozzie ( talk) 18:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I would certainly not support an enumeration of any kind, as it encourages gaming the letter rather than avoiding controversy but you may get guidance for specific examples if you ask. (And a formal clarification request is overkill for that). — Coren (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)