---

Initiated by Fut.Perf. ☼ at 15:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Macedonia 2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 25.3 (admin topic restriction)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• Remedy 25.3 ("Future Perfect at Sunrise will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Greece and Macedonia, or in relation to editors involved in that topical area.")
• Requested amendment: for the above topic restriction to be vacated

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I am still under this admin restriction imposed two years ago. A few minutes ago, I deliberately broke it in an act of IAR for the first time: I protected the talk page of a highly esteemed Greek fellow editor against the personal attacks of a block-evading Greek vandal anon, and blocked the IP. That brought it back to my mind that it really makes no sense for me to remain barred from these kinds of actions. I wish to be again able to use admin tools in Greek or Macedonian cases at least in routine matters: e.g. routine vandal fighting, routine blocks of returning obvious socks, image deletion issues, and non-contentious housekeeping. Reasons:

• Not being able to do these things is frustrating, leads to waste of time (my own time and that of other admins), and serves no purpose.
• There was never a strong reason for this restriction to begin with. I never had a pattern of problematic "involved" admin actions. The evidence in the ARBMAC2 case contains one single case of an objectionable block made in anger [1], which was entirely untypical of my previous three years of admin work in the area. Other evidence of (perceived or real) problematic behaviour was either unrelated to this topic area, or unrelated to my role as an admin, and therefore never made for a good reason for this specific form of sanction.
• The conflicts that sparked the 2009 case were successfully solved (not least through my own initiative, I dare say), and have settled down. My relation of trust and cooperation with other editors of all nationalities have long been back to normal, as witnessed by multiple cases of Greek, Albanian, Macedonian and Bulgarian editors contacting me for assistance on my talk page.
• The assumption that just because I took a strong stance in one political dispute with some Greek editors I will automatically be "involved" in every other dispute involving the same countries, let alone in every non-contentious situation involving them, was never correct. The Balkans are a big place; there are plenty of different, unrelated editing issues around. I am still as reliably impartial on most of them as I always was, and most crucially: I know where I am and where I am not.

What I would prefer is for the restriction to be simply vacated, to let me work under the standard rules of admin "non-involvement". I am quite happy to confirm that I will interpret these standard rules in an extra strict way for myself. Before the ARBMAC2 case, I tended to follow what I think was then normal practice among other admins in these areas too; for instance, I might have taken admin actions with respect to editors in dispute X, when I had also engaged in content editing involving debates with the same editors on some other issue Y previously. I am not aware this was ever problematic, rather the opposite: apart from the one exceptional block mentioned above, no admin action of mine in this area was ever cited as problematic for reasons of "involvedness" or partiality. However, I believe that, for better or worse, community standards in matters of "involvedness" have generally become more stringent over time since I first became an admin, and I am quite happy to be even more conservative about such things than I was. There's no need for me to do edit-warring blocks of established editors, ARBMAC enforcement decisions or anything of that sort on Greek/Macedonian issues.

Alternatively, I request at least an amendment to the restriction that will allow routine and non-controversial admin actions.

In response to Ncmvocalist below

There is a difference between "the Greek-Macedonian naming dispute" and "Greek and Macedonian topics". I was heavily involved in a bitter dispute about this one, narrowly circumscribed, political issue. That dispute is now solved, and most of the opponents in that dispute have since been banned or have left. Of course, I never would have taken administrative action in anything touching on them, so yes, those diffs are unrelated to my role as an admin. There are of course still some other issues in which I have been involved, off and on, and some editors that I have had significant disputes with. But this doesn't mean I'm unable to be neutral in each and every matter simply because it touches on either of these two countries. Just because I once had an issue with User:Avg about a country naming dispute, doesn't mean I couldn't assist User:Cplakidas in dealing with disruption about etymologies of Greek folk dance names [2], or couldn't help User:Dimboukas moving a page over a redirect, or couldn't delete a copyvio image of a Greek island, or couldn't interfere in an edit-war about Greek-Turkish relations, or couldn't block a returning vandal who sneakily falisifies climate statistics on Skopje [3]. It is also not true that there was "sufficient Community concern about [me] being involved" in this whole wide area. In fact, right until the very days of that Arbcom case I was frequently congratulated on how well I was doing my admin work in it, and editors from all nationalities of the area routinely turned to me for help and assistance. Except for one participant in the Arbcom case, who used such suspicions as a weapon against me, nobody in the whole wide area had previously ever made a case that my admin actions in the wider field were biased, and none of the dozens of admin actions logged right under the eyes of the committee at WP:ARBMAC were ever challenged, let alone overturned, on "involvement" grounds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

More to Ncmv.: If general involvement rules are as strict as you say – and I am not in need of lectures from you about what they are – then any extra restriction on me of this sort is redundant. Simply let me work under the normal rules, and if they amount to a far-reaching involvement status in some of the area, so be it. – About the history of the decision back in 2009: you are mistaken. I had indeed been willing to go for various forms of "routine-actions-only" limitations; the fact that they weren't chosen was largely a matter of behind-the-scenes tactical voting issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Respsonse to Coren

A "narrowing" to the Macedonia naming issue would be redundant/meaningless: it follows automatically from standard uninvolvement policy. It goes without saying that I don't use the tools there. I never did. This doesn't need an extra restriction. (Of course, if you decide to lift the restriction, you could add something worded as a clarifying note, along the lines of "It is understood that FPaS will act under strict observation of standard uninvolvement policy, and will in particular continue to abstain from admin actions in area XYZ". Just don't present it as if it was an extra limitation specially imposed on me, because it just isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by 125.162.150.88 ( talk)

• RESTRICTIONS SHOULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY. Those that *are* should be ignored 125.162.150.88 ( talk) Jack-Fuckin'-Merridew 06:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by jd2718

Absolutely support. FPaS helped guide the problems in this area to resolution; it is a better place to edit due in large part to his efforts. He was always tough with tendentious editors and nationalist edit-warriors, no matter which non-neutral POV they carried. There was some coarseness, and some confrontation, and those things led to the remedy. But from the first it was overkill. Today, two years later? There is no reason. Keeping FPaS out of the area no longer serves a purpose (if it ever did). Lifting the restriction would be welcome and would be a positive for WP. Jd2718 ( talk) 06:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, in case it slips by Future Perfect at Sunrise is well-informed and highly knowledgeable about the languages, culture, history, and politics of the region. This will be, too, a great asset to the project. Jd2718 ( talk) 15:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to NYB. I am going to argue that the restrictions placed on Future Perfect at Sunrise in ArbMac2 were politically necessary, but may not have made good sense then, and absolutely do not now. There were a number of major findings of fact that led to the sanction against FPaS, and several background or minor ones, as well as several more proposals that did not pass.

1 That he was incivil or or insulting or intimidating on multiple occasions. Passed with no opposition, with what appears to be an eggregious, recent example as a separate finding.

2 That FPaS was an involved administrator. I believe that finding was controversial, and wrong. And I believe ArbCom's and the community's subsequent actions show it was wrong.

3 That he openly articulated his intent to editwar with a group of nationalist pov-pushing editors. You wrote at the time: I can understand Fut.Perf.'s exasperation with the situation, but this was not the right way to articulate it.

What of these?

1. FPaS remains brusque at times, but there are not ongoing diffs showing insults or incivility or intimidation.

2. Note particularly the comments at the rejected finding against using tools to enforce NPOV. FPaS, without a nationalist side in the dispute, was working against an entrenched clique. In fact, in the same case, the Committee unanimously adopted: It is potentially harmful to Wikipedia when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world political polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along political lines due to shared national backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared political views that contravene the application of Wikipedia policy or obstruct consensus-building. Mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy. Defending editorial positions that support political preferences typical of a particular national background is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing [4]. Where did you take it from? Afaik, FPaS's workshop contribution. He went further: If in a decision-making process, such as a debate, straw poll or "!voting" procedure, it becomes evident that editorial opinions are heavily and permanently polarised along real-world political frontlines, then it is legitimate to assign systematically less weight to the contributions of editors who are recognisably associated with such political camps, or in extreme cases to discount them entirely. An editor who is tasked with evaluating such a process and calling a consensus on it (for instance an administrator closing a move debate) should then give a rationale for their call including a description of the political division found in the debate and a reason for why certain sides in the debate must be discounted. [5]. The Committee did not immediately adopt this, but the ArbMac2 decision created a centralized discussion for the naming dispute, with users Fritzpoll, J.delanoy and Shell Kinney refereeing. And they asked about proposals with numerical support, but out of policy, and the members of the Arbitration Committee reached a decision, just days after closing the case, that echoed this important FPaS principle. Had these principles been in place in advance, I do not know that the Committee would have found FPaS to be an involved admin.

3. Future Perfect's declaration that, without a change in how WP handled nationalist edit-warring blocs, that he was ready to edit war, would not and could not be made today. Certainly we've seen nothing from him like it. But why would we? His and Chris O.'s actions and words may have been intemperate, may have violated WP guidelines and policies. But they led to a very effective case that changed the reality in the disputed articles in such a way that the tendentious editing that had been rampant was far tougher to maintain. Notice that there are only 6 enforcement actions logged so far.

I don't know that these reasons justified the sanction two years ago. I think there was some political logic to sanctioning Future Perfect that was outside of the discussion. In any event, the incivility probably was not the justification for the restriction on admin actions, and in any case no longer could be. You are already discussing the meaning of "involved" - but it looks like even two years ago it wasn't so clear, with an argument to be made that he wasn't, and that the committee, while making a positive finding, indirectly acknowledged at least the complexity of the issue. And the threat to edit war against the nationalist POV-pushing faction was made in an unusual context that does not exist today and is unlikely to exist again. The reasons for sanctioning FPaS, if they ever existed, are gone.

Brad, I would also ask that you not discount the users who are ready to jump in and 'vouch' for Future Perfect at Sunrise without diffs. He has earned a whole lot of respect specifically as an admin. That should count for something. Jd2718 ( talk) 02:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am uninvolved or at best marginally involved. Jd2718 ( talk) 02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions/comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Questions

Fut Perf, you state that "community standards in matters of "involvedness" have generally become more stringent over time since...[you] first became an admin, and...[you are] quite happy to be even more conservative about such things". You also said that you "never had a pattern of problematic "involved" admin actions. Other evidence of (perceived or real) problematic behaviour was either unrelated to this topic area, or unrelated to...[your] role as an admin, and therefore never made for a good reason for this specific form of sanction."

1. Is it your understanding that Community standards of involvement pertain to admin actions only, and that comments about a topic, or an editor involved in the topic, are not taken into consideration?
2. Is it your suggestion that all (or nearly all) of the diffs compiled in this and this finding are not in relation to Greek/Macedonian topics?
3. Generally, what remedy do you think is appropriate if there is sufficient Community concern about an admin being involved in a particular topic area?
4. What approach should ArbCom (and the Community) expect to see from you if somebody expresses a concern about something you have said/done? (Note: this question is deliberately broad; an adequate response may require you to describe more than one possible scenario). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Fut Perf, this is not like a mere topic ban where we can give an user some rope and hope for the best; there is more to it than that as it goes right to the heart of admin policy. Wikipedia:Administrator#Expectations of adminship are pretty plain in that there are higher standards of conduct for admins (and contrary to the impression being given here, this is not solely applicable while acting in the role of an admin). Additionally, involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute (with more stuff in the entire clause, all of which was crafted quite deliberately both as a protection for editors and admins - including about strong feelings, be it actual, or be it as perceived by others). Having reviewed the case, and some of the compelling parts of the evidence at the time (including this example: [6] [7]) and the fact that ArbCom were required to become involved, I don't think your primary request (of completely vacating that part of the remedy) is reasonable. It is applying admin policy as intended in practice and preventing further issues from arising; I don't see it as a punishment.

Still, I think there is merit in considering your alternative request (to allow routine and non-controversial admin actions) both because it may be a more appropriate application of admin policy and for the other reasons you've stated which are in support of that request (and ironically, there were at least a couple of arbitrators who would've supported this back then if you'd expressed a willingness to limit yourself to routine actions in this area at the time). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that despite what ought to be the obvious, there are occasions where a few admins can insist on matters being escalated before they agree to abide by this standard (either because they think they are right and don't want to let go, or because they are willing to gamble their bit over it, or because they want AC to tell them when they've overstepped the mark; the many admins who resolve such issues out short of such escalation do not need such direction/restriction). Given your responses at the time, it did not seem like you were in the latter category. If you had, as you say, expressed such a routine-only willingness, then the two arbs would have supported it as I said; I expect a majority/minority issue to arise on this occasion too ironically (apologies for not being clearer). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 10:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Or clearer still.

In light of Fut Perf's repeated false accusations that I called him a liar when I didn't, and given that his response to criticism/advice (which wasn't too major in the grand scheme of things) was to the effect of "please stop commenting to me anywhere", I do not see what has changed in his approach since 2008/2009. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by largely uninvolved roux

Fut.Perf is quite simply one of the best admins that Wikipedia has. He is resolutely fair, disdains to entertain bullshit, and as a consequence not only tends to see to the heart of the matter, he is then able to explain it clearly and concisely. When this is in the context of interpersonal dispute, he brings both sides closer together, and while he ensures that blame is apportioned appropriately--part of his disdain for bullshit is a likewise refusal to engage in the usual Wikipedia illusions and self-deceptions, one of which is 'when in doubt, silence whoever's loudest and blame everyone')--he doesn't do so in a way that unduly shames or demeans anyone involved; Fut.Perf actually takes the goddamn time to look into an issue and understand what is going on before wading in. He calls a spade a spade, and his tone can often appear to be brusque or curt. I think, however, it is because he tries to be as unambiguous as possible, which necessarily calls for crisp use of language.

I have quoted frequently on Wikipedia the line " It is generally considered preferable [...] for opinions to be preceded by knowledge", and Fut.Perf is one of the very few admins who takes the preferable route consistently, no matter the situation.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in his understanding of the issues and major players involved in nationalistic disputes, particularly (obviously) the ones covered by this case. As he himself stated above, the very fact that nationalistic editors on opposite sides of disputes see him as fair is evidence enough that his insight is not only desired in the area, but sorely needed. I for one trust, implicitly, Fut.Perf's promises to hold himself to a stricter standard than would be expected of another admin, and to step back if or when his involvement would be problematic. Wikipedia has enough of a problem with lack of continuity in institutional memory, particularly in the area of the hotter nationalistic disputes, where admins burn out quickly and walk away. No blame attached, obviously; but when we have an admin who understands the issues, understands the personalities and people involved, acts fairly and in the best interests of the project, is self-critical, and actually wants to work in the seething morass of the various international disputes, there is no good reason to hamstring that person. Or as Jack said above, unless we are talking about unrepentant and serial damage to the project, punishments should not last forever. Arbcom sanctions should have a specific end, or be of 'indefinite' duration ala blocks. This one has far, far outlived whatever purpose it once had.

Question for Jacurek

Diffs or it didn't happen. You can't make inflammatory allegations like that and not back them up. →  ROUX  ₪ 08:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Jacurek

STRONG OPPOSE - Fut Perf. in my opinion is one of the most biased administrator I have ever dealt with. He very often misemploy his administrating tools. Please allow some time to prepare a full statement. Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 08:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Im a perfect example of a biased behaviour of Fut Perf. who blocked me on every occasion and picked on me exclusively. He also picked on other editors while turning a bling eye on others in many disputes, especially Polish-German related. The misbehaviour and abuse of his administrating tools in this area is quite impressive. I'm in a process of preparing a full statement with many examples. While I can not dispute possible positive behaviour of Fut Perf. in other topic areas because I know him only form Arbcom case and as a "trigger happy" administrator who is often more that unfair. Im sure my statement will show a different "face" of Fut Perf. some editors know. Thanks -- Jacurek ( talk) 20:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Newyorkbrad: In this case I will present just 3 examples of his biased approach and lack of fairness when Fut Perf was involved in Polish-German conflict areas. I will have it ready by the end of tomorrow. Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 01:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My experience with Fut Perf. was very negative. He was an involved [8] party here. [9]. After the case was over Fut Perf. started to bully and block editors he did not like or/and protect/unblock [10] editors who were his allies in the EEML case. I was among few he focused the most. He started to block me for the slightest offense and his blocks were severe. He blocked me for 1 month [11] for this conversation [12] with the editor who was harassing me [13]. The fact that the editor called me "an idiot" in the same conversation [14] was completely ignored by Fut Perf. My block was reduced by other administrator [15] and Fut Perf was criticized for his decision in the private email accidentally sent to me [16]. Fut Perf blocked me for 3 months [17] for a private message in Polish language I left on my friends talk page [18]. He later reported ONLY me [19] for edit warring ignoring the fact that there were other people edit warring at the same time [20]. Fut Perf even proposed an unsuccessful community ban to ban me from Wikipedia [21]. These are just few examples but there are more. From my perspective Fut Perf was not fair to me and he used his power to block and intimidate me. Hope this explains why I so strongly oppose giving him extra power in other topic areas. He used this power against me and I believe he will use it against others-- Jacurek ( talk) 06:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Russavia

I would support FPaS' motion above, and agree with his reasoning to have the entire sanction revoked in its entireity. It is my experience that FPaS is a neutral (as one can humanly be) administrator who deals heavily in contentious editing areas. We need more neutral admins in areas like him. Editors who have a problem with FPaS are in my experience POV-edit warriors, sockpuppeteers, and generally pains in the arse who are usually eventually topic banned or indef blocked, who more often than not evade their bans. FPaS should be given the freedom to admin in contentious areas as we need more admins like him acting in such areas, the Greek-Macedonian area being one of these. -- What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? ^{Two pints of lager} 09:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ZjarriRrethues

• AFAIK FutureP hasn't abused his admin rights and has maintained his neutrality, so I fully support his request. He should have full admin rights regarding all issues, because he's one of very few admins who understand the nature of the Balkans disputes and don't focus only on the technical aspects(3RR) of the issues.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  ^talk 12:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional Comment: I don't know how accurate these uninvolved labels users are applying to themselves are since for example Vecrumba, who considers FutureP judgemental was blocked less than a month ago(block ended a few days ago) by FutureP because of a topic ban breach, so I suggest other users not apply such labels to themselves especially when they're heavily involved.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  ^talk 21:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Vecrumba

Comment. While I am not sure I can agree with Jacurek on outright bias, I regret that I have found Future Perfect to be judgemental in their statements and actions and discourse with editors they believe to fit in a particular WP:PIGEONHOLE. Any editor on the receiving end of same I suspect may well use the term "bias." I would like to see what Future P. offers regarding separating their content-related and admin-related activity. PЄTЄRS J V ► TALK 20:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Volunteer Marek

Request for clarification

(Note: I am using the term "uninvolved" in the same sense that FP@S is using it - I do not edit Macedonia related articles. I am NOT using the term "uninvolved" in the same sense that ZjarriR is using the term - I have had disagreements with FP@S in the past. In fact obviously part of the problem here is with these two completely different usages of the term. Which is particularly ironic considering that ZjarriR is supporting FP@S's "uninvolvedness" while at the same time calling other commentators "involved" for basically the same reason - either FP@S is "uninvolved" but then so are these other commentators, or he is "involved" and so are these other commentators. You can't have it both ways. Perhaps a motion which clarifies this (extremely vague and trouble causing) notion of "uninvolvedness" by the ArbCom could help here.)

Anyway. I'm at a bit of a loss here, both as to the purpose of the original sanction and this appeal as well. It is my understanding that FP@S is in fact active in editing Macedonia related articles (creating new ones, participating in talk page discussions, etc.). As such, I don't quite get why a specific sanction barring him from using his admin tools in this area is necessary. OBVIOUSLY, if a person is actively editing a topic area, THEY SHOULD NOT use their admin tools in that topic area. This is basic policy and practice, and does not necessitate a specific sanction. So the original sanction seems to just reitarate what is expected of admins anyway. Hence it is neither necessary nor should it be "appealed" - which would seem to be an explicit permission to both participate in content conflicts in a topic area AND use admin tools to enforce a particular viewpoint in the same topic area.

I've got some specific opinions on the details of this request but I don't see a point in expressing them until it is clarified first of why an admin who's involved in editing content in a particular topic area would be allowed to use his block button in that area in the first place, sanction or no sanction.

Having said all that, were I at all cynically inclined, I might think that it'd be better for me personally, if FP@S abused his admin powers in a topic area which I don't edit - like Macedonia - rather than a topic area which I do edit. So, were I at all cynically inclined, I might support this appeal, with apologies to all Balkan editors. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(As a point of clarification, I don't think anyone would ever have a problem with FP@S taking administrative action against obvious vandals, as those kinds of actions are usually excluded from these kinds of "topic" sanctions). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

I think that this is ripe for at least narrowing; Future Perfect seems to have gotten the message on that one point and to be doing ongoing good solid work in all the other areas.

I don't see an ongoing preventive function necessary here. He's just not a problem.

If this is revoked and he goes off the deep end plenty of us can apply the loving mallet of correction either as admins or taking him back here for an un-revocation. His behavior doesn't seem likely to require that, though.

Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

I agree that the current restriction is now over-broad. Just say "Lifted, and FPaS is reminded that he should take care not to use any admin tools to promote or demote any specific viewpoints on any articles directly related to the original decision." Clear and clean solution, In my opinion. Collect ( talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Deacon of Pndapetzim

This kind of ruling is further evidence that, when it comes to these kinds of editorial issues at least, ArbCom are often the biggest problem of all. "We don't really undertand what went on, so we'll punish everyone and that'll guarantee we're at least partly right". No, not good enough. It's like killing half the soldiers in Europe c. 1943 and expecting war to stop cause you did it fairly: won't stop the war, and probably won't produce a different outcome. FPAS is not even a warring user; he is one of the good guys. Editors such as FPAS should be the ones evaluating ArbCom, not the other way around; and if encyclopedic reader-orientated values dominated Wikipedia the way socially-based editor-orientated values currently do, guys like him would be in charge. And if that were the case then the guys that cause all these problems would be spending their internet time on appropriate ideologue forums elsewhere. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

PS, can someone email me and explain why so many EMMLers have crowded here to attack FPAS on a case they weren't involved in? I have missed the user-history here. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved MyMoloboaccount

Oppose. FP@S is one of the most engaged and emotional administrators I have encountered. I do not believe it is wise to abandon one of the core principles of Wikipedia, especially to an editor so heavily engaged. Administrator conduct states "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". I am afraid FP@S has been lacking in that department in several cases.Therefore narrowing restrictions doesn't seem a wise choice to make.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved Horologium

(I identify myself as marginally involved because I don't edit Balkan/Greece-related articles, but I was deeply involved in the arbitration case.)

FPaS should be released from the restrictions, which were overkill in the first place. After two years, during which most of the more problematic editors have either disappeared or been kicked to the curb, there is no reason to prevent one of our most knowledgeable editors from using his tools to deal with routine vandals and trolls in an area which seems to have a high incidence of each. Horologium (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Miacek

A quick look at the comments by Russavia and Biophys, two users who don't agree that often, has further strengthened my own perception of FPaS as a calm and objective enough sysop. His decisions on our often turbulent Eastern Europe area as a rule facilitate the work of constructive editors. That a sock puppeteering long-term editwarrior with a block log like this might disagree, seconded by a diehard nationalist flamer and hatemongerer convinces me further, that the sysop concerned has actually been doing a great job. It's not that FPaS is having a problem with such editors - the thing is that the whole community has problems with users like these. Thus, I support this request. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from Heim

Mm goi sai. Thanks for doing the right thing, Arbs. Since I make such a habit of criticising the committee, I think it's only fair that I leave positive feedback occasionally. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • General note to a few commenters: remarks along the lines of "I support the amendment request, he's a great administrator" or "I strongly oppose the request, he's unfair" etc., without reasons or details, don't help us much. We don't need hundreds of diffs, but please explain the reasons for whatever position you take, giving some specifics. Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Future, would you be amenable to a narrowing of the restriction to the naming dispute proper rather than outright vacating it at this time? —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Either a narrowing, or a lifting - with the "caveat" suggested by FPAS [22] - seems reasonable. – xeno ^talk 14:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think a narrowing would be the best option here. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Lifting the restriction seems reasonable at this point. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion

Remedy 25.3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 ("Future Perfect at Sunrise temporarily desysopped") is lifted, effective immediately. Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is reminded to abide by the policies guiding administrative acts in areas where one is involved, and to apply particular care to avoid conflict in areas related to Greece and Macedonia.

Support:

1. —  Coren  ^(talk) 16:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
3. SirFozzie ( talk) 18:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
4. – xeno ^talk 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens ( talk) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Well-worded; full support for each aspect of the motion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Shell ^babelfish 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Risker ( talk) 02:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Mailer Diablo 13:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 12:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

---

---

Initiated by AGK [ • at 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• AGK ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• The other parties to the case might be considered to be involved, but the case is rather old and this clarification concerns general remedies, rather than ones about specific users.

Statement by AGK

Further to the confusion generated in this request for arbitration enforcement, I request that the Committee clarify which of the contradictory enforcement provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo#Enforcement should be used. Is enforcement 1) or enforcement 2) the one that the community can enforce? AGK [ • 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Xeno: In order to ensure that all authoratitive Committee decision pages are kept updated, could we strike the enforcement provisions of Kosovo and place a note underneath noting that they are, as a practical matter, superseded by the other case decision? AGK [ • 09:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Hmm... On a plain reading, those remedies seem to apply only to "parties of [the Kosovo] case"; and unless Alinor edited under a different username in 2006, s/he was not a party to that case.
  In any case, Newyorkbrad suggested that the more recent WP:ARBMAC decision be leveraged instead, and it appears this was done. – xeno ^talk 15:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

  @AGK: The enforcement provisions still affect parties to the case, though it seems there is only one remedy that is still in effect (and that user has seemingly not edited since 2008). Though it would probably be a good idea to tuck a pointer to the ARBMAC decision in there somewhere - Kosovo is already noted as superseded by Macedonia at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Superseded sanctions. – xeno ^talk 14:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Concur with Xeno, including his (and AGK's) suggestion of a cross-reference. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• I too concur with Xeno and his (and AGK's) suggestino of a cross-reference. Risker ( talk) 15:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Me too.. um.. three.. ur.. four (oh never mind!)... or in long, I agree with Xeno and his/AGK's Suggestion of a cross-reference.. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Me five-ish? The cross-ref idea seems a good one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Pile ON!!!1! —  Coren  ^(talk) 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by Andries ( talk) at 17:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Ed_Poor_2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
2. user:Ed Poor has not violated these guidelines for articles in category:Unification Church
3. The talk page topic ban should be lifted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Andries ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator), but uninvolved: I rarely edited Unification Church related subjects, except The Making of a Moonie
• Ed Poor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kafziel ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Note:Kafziel claims that he is uninvolved, but user:Andries disagrees. Andries ( talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC) closed discussion started by KillerChihuahua's request for a topic ban by fulfilling this request.
• KillerChihuahua ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) requested topic ban
• Kitfoxxe ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Hrafn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Cirt ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Borock ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Steve Dufour ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Exucmember ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Marknw ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Wndl42 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Wolfview ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles

Andries ( talk) 07:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Ed Poor (diff of notification of this thread on Ed Poor's talk page)
• Kafziel (diff of notification of this thread on Kafziel's talk page)
• KillerChihuahua (diff of notification of this thread on KillerChihuahua's talk page)
• Kitfoxxe
• Hrafn
• Cirt
• Borock
• Steve Dufour
• Exucmember
• Marknw
• Wndl42
• Wolfview

Amendment 1

• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2&diff=330919237&oldid=330918451
• Strike out talk page for articles in the[ category:Unification Church. User:Ed Poor is still not allowed to edit the article pages in the category:Unification Church

Statement by user:Andries

I formally request the arbcom to lift the talk page topic ban for Unification Church related articles of user:Ed Poor. Ed Poor is well known to be a committed long time follower of the Unification Church which he openly admits. I can understand that and why he has a article topic ban for the articles related to the Unification Church. However it seems that Ed Poor does not even dare to edit some rather unrelated talk pages, because of the possible consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=431407881

I check the talk pages of several Unification Church related talk pages and I saw no walls of texts or insults by Ed Poor. As far as I can see he has behaved constructively there or at least does no harm. Please understand that committed long time followers can give excellent comments on article talk pages. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unification_Church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Unification_Church_members

I know what I am talking about, because I am a critical former member of the Satya Sai Baba cult/new religious movement. I can give useful comments there. My topic ban was changed into an article only topic ban and I am now free to comment on the talk page. I can say that it was a relief to be able to comment there, because the article is about what was a big part of my life for nine years. I do not think I have done any harm with my comments and I have helped with sources.

I never had serious problems with Ed Poor regarding cults/new religious movements, though we worked together years ago. And we had some reason to get into a fight with each other because he was a current member and I am an apostate (critical former member).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Andries&diff=431409793&oldid=430884030

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=430551195

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=431671329&oldid=431650555 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=330961567#User:Ed_Poor_-_POV_and_COI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Thanks in advance to the arbcom members, who volunteered to do a difficult job, but have little chance to make all people happy.

Sincerely yours,

user:Andries Andries ( talk) 18:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Update 01 by Andries: two views of Ed Poor's edits

I think that there are two views on Ed Poor's edits which determine what diffs are relevant and who is involved in this matter.

1. Ed is a generally competent editor, but he does not see the limits of his competence and is biased in some subjects which has caused problems

2. Ed is a generally biased and incompetent editor who cannot see the difference between good and bad sources. As a result of that he has caused problems in some articles. In other subjects he has not (yet) caused problems.

If you believe in nr. 1, like myself, then his bad edits on climate change etc. do not matter and people not involved in Unification Church edits are not involved in this amendment. Andries ( talk) 10:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Andries to request by user:Bishonen

I think the amendment is necessary because

1. It is important not to discourage contributors in Wikipedia by giving them unnecessary editing restrictions
2. Ed Poor can help to prevent mistakes in the article. Reputable source contain sometimes blunders. For example in the case of my former religious group, the New York Times (Keith Bradsher A Friend in India to all the world) made a blunder (leader supposedly silent in public) and both proponents and opponents agreed with each other not to include this statement in the article. I had a mistake corrected in the lead of the article Sathya Sai Baba by extensive arguing on the talk page. The article was linked to on the main page of Wikipedia, just after he passed away.
3. Ed Poor has access to reputable writings about the Church (among others by David Bromley), so he can help with sources. (I personally disagree with Bromley's hurtful negative generalizations about apostates, but I understand that they have to be seen in the context of the great American cult scare of the 1970s and 1980s)

Andries ( talk) 08:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Andries to user:Orangemarlin

Your reply is off topic. My request for amendment is only about the talk pages of Unification Church related subjects. Andries ( talk) 08:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to declare what is on topic or not? It would seem that Mr. Poor's ongoing pattern of edits is highly relevant here. It seems proper to leave such decisions to the arbitrators. -- 69.165.135.150 ( talk) 03:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you 69.165. 135.150. Saves me from leaving an uncivil and very pointy reply. Now get registered around here. We need good editors who stand up to the POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Andries to comment by user:KillerChihuahua

ad 1. There are no diffs of bad behavior on Unifcation Church related talk pages. So the offense level was and will be zero if the topic talk page ban is lifted.

ad 2. For many obscure or foreign subject, one could find mainstream English language sources that make mistakes of blunders. But if better sources that contradict these statements then Ed Poor can help to get the blunders out if all contributors (both opponents and adherents of the Unification Church) agree. This is not breaking Wikipedia's core policies but using common sense and discernment when editing. The job of the contributors/editors is not to copy every statement in seemingly reputable sources.

Andries ( talk) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Andries to comment by user:JoshuaZ and Ed Poor

JoshuaZ and Ed Poor, I thought and still think that the only persons involved are the ones that dealt with the topic ban of the Unification Church. I also posted on the NRM notice wikiproject talk page. Nevertheless, I will inform the listed contributors who edit or edited the Unification Church related articles. Andries ( talk) 15:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC) JoshuaZ, you did not complain about Ed Poor's edits regarding the Unification Church, so I thought and still think that you are not involved. Who else do you think is involved apart from the users listed by Ed Poor? Andries ( talk) 16:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement user:Ed Poor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

In the whole time I've been topic-banned from Unification Church articles and talk pages, I have been asked many times to comment. Having thought that enough time might have passed, I responded as follows here, pointing out that I would be willing to join the discussion if no one objected. Unfortunately, this was not taken as a request to have the ban lifted but as an evasion of the ban.

Aside from that, I've simply been staying away. I'd like to return to editing, or at least to commenting when invited. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Ed Poor to Bishonen's list request

• Invitation to join AfD disscussion on Cult checklist. [23] Ironically, I was going to argue we keep it, even though it presents my church in a bad light. This, of course, is simply because I want Wikipedia to present each side of controversies fairly - regardless of what side I'm on.
• I've just suggested merging True Family into List of Unification Church members since the information in the first is mostly aready in the second. Please discuss if you like: Talk:List of Unification Church members#Merge in True Family. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 09:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC) [24]
• Hi Ed. Cirt and I has just started a discussion on the talk page about removing some of the extra examples and trivia from the page. Please join in if you care to. Thanks. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 23:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC) [25]

This is only three (not many), but if people are going to invite my input, why not let me respond? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Orangemarlin

NO fucking way. I could list another 25 recent edits of Ed Poor that would show his bias, quote-mining, use of non-reliable sources, and lack of understanding of NPOV, but to excuse date rape, to quote mine a right-wing Xtian article on contraception, and to try to state that there isn't a vast, solid, 99% support in the scientific community for Evolution is solid proof that Ed Poor should stay at Conservapedia, where, I am sure, his style fits well with their anti-science bias. Really, Ed Poor shouldn't be editing here at all, but I leave that to others. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Request by Bishonen

I used to spar with Uncle Ed on these matters a long time ago, and am dubious about the usefulness of the proposed amendment. Specifically, Uncle Ed gives an example above (one) of an editor who invited him to comment on a talkpage, but describes the overall situation as "I have been asked many times to comment." Can we see a reasonably healthy list of some of those many times, please, Ed? That might amount to "Evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary". Nothing on this page has provided such evidence so far. Aunt Bishonen talk 20:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

Comment on Andries' comment to me

I don't get it, sorry. I asked specifically for a list of examples (in other words, diffs) of some of the "many times" Ed Poor has been asked to comment, hoping that either you, Andries, or Ed would oblige, but that hasn't happened yet. Not sure what you're commenting on, but it's not on what I asked. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC).

Comment by 110.139.190.67 aka 125.162.150.88 ak by few former usernames

I've no involvement in any of this; have not even read it all... but a comment above by Andries caught my eye, and it warrants highlighting:

It is important not to discourage contributors in Wikipedia by giving them unnecessary editing restrictions.

110.139.190.67 ( talk) 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:KillerChihuahua

I think the amendment is unwise because

1. It is important not to encourage known POV pushers and edit warriors by removing controls which have clearly worked, keeping problems with a chronic violator down to what is virtually a no-offense level. Kudos to Ed for trying to follow the restrictions; I'm glad they are working.
2. According to the requester, "Ed Poor can help to prevent mistakes in the article. Reputable source contain sometimes blunders." - meaning, Ed will change articles to align with non-reputable sources? Not a good idea. I remind Andries that Verifiability, not Truth, is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia.
3. Ed is welcome to contribute to non-restricted areas of the encyclopedia, until and unless such time as he indulges in his POV pushing to such an extent as he gets topic banned from them as well. I am sorry to sound so cynical, but past history, along with OM's linked edits above lead me to believe that is the path Ed might well be on regarding such subjects as evolution, global warming and contraception - all of which he continues to try to skew towards his own narrow view - see his edits of 13 May 2011, for example, trying to insert a creationist POV into Climatology. OTOH, I will be pleasantly surprised if he sees the light, mends his ways, and figures out what NPOV actually means. If that unlikely event occurs, I would happily support an easing of restrictions. It has not happened yet. If ArbCom in their wisdom decide to give this repeat offender a nth chance, I recommend leaving intact Remedy 1.1 that "He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking." so that if this gallant (or foolhardy, depending upon one's persuasion) attempt does not lead to improving the encyclopedia, but rather to the same tired tactics we've seen from Ed since the beginning, the mistake can be easily rectified.

Statement by William M. Connolley

I'm in favour of lifting the sanction. It is time-expired. I'd also be in favour of the sanction being reimposable (with a lower bar than normal, preferrably without recourse to arbcomm) if Ed Poor abuses the lifting. The main reason is the time-expired nature. Another reason is (that despite the faults in his editing viewpoint) Ed is generally very good about not edit warring, so taking out his problematic edits isn't hard.

Another reason is diffs like the one KC puts forward [26] (or perhaps the ones that OM does, though I'm not judging those): Ed has the same problems at other articles, and the topic ban (obviously) doesn't help there. But no-one (as far as I can see) is arguing that his ban should be tightened.

William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I'm familiar with Ed's work in other areas (mainly climate-related articles). Granted he tends to make the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, but he's reasonably civil and doesn't edit war. I'd favor a lifting of the sanction with the knowledge that it could be swiftly reimposed at the discretion of any uninvolved admin if problems arise. (This is more or less in agreement with Killer Chihuahua's point 3.) Third Cousin Twice Removed Boris ( talk) 20:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hodja Nasreddin

Support lifting the sanctions, basically per William and Boris. I saw his edits in several areas, and he is definitely a highly dedicated and well-intended contributor. Hodja Nasreddin ( talk) 17:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by JoshuaZ

I haven't given any real thought to the matter. I'm just noting my confusion about which editors Ed thought should be alerted. I filed the RfAr leading to Ed's sanctions but had not been notified. KC on the other hand has had almost no connection to that and is notified? This confuses me. JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't file the amendment. Andries did, and I was puzzled about the same point. Shouldn't the regular contributors to the UC-related article have been notified? Like Kitfoxxe, Hrafn, Cirt, Borock, Steve Dufour, Exucmember, Marknw, Windl42 . . .? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement user:Hrafn

I must admit to being in three minds on this proposed amendment. Which is why, although I had been aware of this proposed amendment for some time, I had been holding off on offering a comment.

One the one hand, I have always found Ed Poor to be a problematical editor -- with an annoying mix of obdurate content (an inability to grasp WP:V and WP:RS, combined with a pervasive tendency to attempt to give equal validity to his personal views) and stylistic (a love of WP:QUOTEFARMs and a preference for bullet-points over prose) blindspots. On the other hand, I am not particularly comfortable with a permanent topic ban on anybody that extends to talk pages (it is after all not a restriction we normally impose, even on the most WP:COI editors). That smacks a bit too much of censorship. However, on the third hand, I can easily see how the inability to learn from his mistakes that Ed has demonstrated on article space could easily result in disruption even on talk (and can remember actually encountering such disruption on what was then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design (now Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Creationism) at a time when Ed was topic-banned from Intelligent design [27] [28] -- though that is some time ago now -- though nothing I have seen of Ed Poor since indicates to me that he has reformed).

Therefore although I would like to support this amendment, I cannot bring myself to to do so, even only extending to UC-related talk pages, without some fairly heavy behavioural probation attached. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

Essentially I agree with comments about this issue by Bishonen ( talk · contribs), Orangemarlin ( talk · contribs), and KillerChihuahua ( talk · contribs). -- Cirt ( talk) 21:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement Steve Dufour

I am also a Unification Church member, I have known Ed well in various online forums but have not met him in person. We often have had differences of opinion about the WP UC articles, since in my opinion his writing is too much addressed to "insiders" and sometimes intended to provoke controversy -- as others have mentioned. I'm not sure what he feels about mine. I do think letting him comment on talk pages is reasonable. He often makes valuable contributions there. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Waiting for more statements/Discussion. SirFozzie ( talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm torn here. I'll be honest, I think that the amendment is problematic as I think there's a high probability of unhelpful behavior reoccurring. I'd be willing to go with what David F and Coren stated below for a lifting of the talk page ban, with the caveat that lapses in behavior will see it reinstated quickly. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Also waiting for any additional input. Based on the comments so far I am leaning against the proposed amendment at this time, as I am not persuaded that the problems that led to the topic-ban here have been addressed. I note with interest that the remedy that was being enforced here, from 2006, is of a type we have not used much, if at all, in more recent years; it may be useful to bear it in mind where relevant in future cases. I also would say in passing that while I understand that arbitration-related requests sometimes bring out strong feelings, and I do not favor enforcing an artificial or excessive veneer of faux civility, it will be appreciated if all commenters would maintain a reasonable degree of decorum on this page. Strident, nasty rhetoric does not help us. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 08:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm all for lifting the talk page ban, with the understanding that any relapse is grounds for it being reinstated speedily. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think that a lift of the talk page ban would not be unreasonable at this point. —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Why not then - trial lifting, and any complaints of disruption that are upheld (and a low threshold of disruption will be judged to be disruptive) will result in revocation of amendment. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion

The scope of the topic ban placed upon Ed Poor ( talk · contribs) by Kafziel ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 2009-12-10 [29] as a result of enforcement of remedy 1.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 is amended to "any article related to Category:Unification Church, not including associated talk pages", effective immediately. Ed Poor is reminded that further disruption related to this topic may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

Support:

1. —  Coren  ^(talk) 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
2. SirFozzie ( talk) 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
4. I can accept this given that we are discussing only talkpages and given the last sentence, which hopefully won't become relevant, though it will be there if it is. (There is an argument that reimposition of remedies under the decision could come through an Arbitration Enforcement request rather than from the Committee, but I'll let that go unless the nuance interests other arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Can give this a try. Shell ^babelfish 01:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker ( talk) 01:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo 13:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 12:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Also per Newyorkbrad; the Unification Church talk page ban was placed as an AE-type action we should leave it open so it can be reimposed in the same way (should it prove necessary). – xeno ^talk 19:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Okay, as long as there is a low threshold for reimposition should problems arise. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. Jclemens ( talk) 01:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Initiated by :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| at 15:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• TeleComNasSprVen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• 195.82.106.244 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki)
• Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · SPI · cuwiki)

Statement by TeleComNasSprVen

On 12 January 2007, according to this notice on the IP editor's talkpage, he/she was placed on Probation by the Arbitration Committee for "aggressive biased editing", per the note near the bottom of the section located at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee. However, considering that the IP has been discontinued from use on 8 January 2007, per the analysis of its contributions, and now that a sockpuppet tag has been placed on the userpage pointing to User:Lucyintheskywithdada, the ban now seems a moot point, and I doubt that it was a productive use of our time. Therefore, I request clarification whether or not this ban should continue to be placed on the IP in question or that it should also extend to the Lucyintheskywithdada account and associated sockpuppets. (On a further note, perhaps the sockmaster account should just be site-banned altogether for misusing community trust, given the extensive sockpuppetry cases page.) :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 15:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Thank you for raising your concern, but I don't think any clarification or other action by the Committee is needed. A probation on an IP that hasn't edited in four-plus years is pretty much irrelevant now, unless it is affecting a new innocent user of the IP (which isn't happening), or unless it's shown that the IP is now editing under a specific account name and continuing the problematic behavior. To the extent it appears that the IP editor is the same person as Lucyintheskywithdada, as you note, he/she is already blocked indefinitely for socking and I don't know of any proposal to lift the block, so there's not much more we can do about the situation. Unless I am missing something (always a possibility), I'm not sure just what would need to be clarified here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree; there is no need to clarify whether the probation the IP is under would apply anywhere else, given the alleged sockmaster is blocked on sight. – xeno ^talk 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree there is no reason for clarification at this point, unless one of the aforementioned circumstances arises. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by   Will Beback  talk  at 23:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Will Beback ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Thekohser ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LessHeard vanU ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notification

Statement by Will Beback

Thekohser was banned by the community. Subsequently, the ban was suspended provisionally by the ArbCom. [30] One of the provisions to which Thekohser agreed was to use only one account, which he has since violated repeatedly. The account was eventually blocked indefinitely. The block notice specifically said that the conditions of the provisional suspension had been violated. [31] An admin, LessHeard vanU, recently opined that the user is merely blocked and could be unblocked by any admin. [32] [33] This current controversy was triggered by recent edits to the user page. [34] Is the ArbCom's provisional suspension of the community ban still in effect or has the ban been reinstated?   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that the ban is still marked as suspended in Wikipedia:List of banned users.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

What is all this fuss about removing his list of websites? Replace the whole page with {{banned user|time=indef|by=the community|link=[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/MyWikiBiz]]}} and {{Sockpuppeteer|proven}} (due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser/Archive), similar to his original account User:MyWikiBiz.

Also, having a user page is not an intrinsic editor's right, it's a privilege.

Also, LessHeard vanU's claim that TheKohser was blocked/banned by Arbcom is plain incorrect. Arbcom only made a temporal suspension, which seems to be over now. Consequently, the user is banned by the community and there is no need to ask Arbcom for permission to blank anything. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

The page was not blanked at the time of the re-instatement of the ban - if it should have, then fine and this clarification will resolve it. I have been keeping the page at the status quo when TheKohser was reblocked (and it notes the editor as indef blocked, and not banned), and protected it after a couple of edit wars regarding blanking or not. I am relieved that this is now being resolved.
As for being careful with (non) statements, I wonder where people got the idea that a suggestion was made that anyone would unilaterally unblock Kohs? I noted that an indefinite block was a defacto ban where no admin was prepared to unblock, and that in this instance this was not the case. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 12:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just tying things up - this is the discussion at User talk:Thekohser, and ANI discussion. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have now lifted the editing protection so, as is likely, when someone goes to blank the page they will not be doing so through protection - as has been the case prior to this clarification request. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Martinp

The ability of so many people to get hot behind the collar about Thekohser is amazing. He's pinpointed some of areas where the community is quite confused what it wants, and he's provoked overreactions from the best of us from Jimbo on down. He's done himself no favours with his own behaviour - attempts to bring him back have been significantly more disruptive than beneficial. The history shows no reason to believe this would change, and I see no evidence that anyone is really considering giving it another go. I would trust that noone would look at that history and be dumb enough to do so unilaterally.

As to the user page - I would stay away from unnecessary confrontational arguments about entitlement to pages, etc. Pragmatically, user pages need to be maintained by their users. A state of affairs where a user is unable to maintain their user page due to being blocked for a long period of time, and yet cares enough about keeping them updated to request others to do so is clearly suboptimal. That is an argument why long term blocked (whether or not banned) users should have their user pages blanked, though I don't see why in general we can not extend the courtesy of a single and simple link pointing people who might wish to contact them somewhere else, under the proviso that no updating or maintenance of this link will be done going forward. Martinp ( talk) 23:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I tried at one point to mend fences between Thekohser and some members of the community, but it was a futile endeavour)

Statement by other user

I would like to add that whether the ban is considered to come from the community, from ArbCom, or from me directly, he is banned. After years of experience and his ongoing and current claims of sock puppeting and paid editing, there is no reason to even consider this. As to what to do with his user page, I have no opinion. Whatever causes the least drama all around. :-)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I see no personal reason why this block should be lifted by any one unilaterally.. either the ArbCom suspension of the Community Ban is over and we need the usual discussion to overturn a community ban, or we have a user who has been indefblocked for violating the terms of his unblock several times over, in which case .. well.. we need the usual discussion. I, personally would consider risker's re-block as an acknowledgement that the provisional suspension of the ban has been lifted and that the Community Ban is in full effect. SirFozzie ( talk) 23:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, put simply: the committee suspended a community ban, and the conditions to that were violated. Back to the default community ban (which would require consensus to undo). —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• As the reblocking administrator/arbitrator, I was reinstating the community ban as the unban conditions had been violated. As such, it would require a broad consensus of the community to unban him, at minimum. Thekohser is also globally banned due to his inappropriate behaviour on other projects, and it is my personal opinion that individual communities should not overturn the effects of a global ban. As to the link to his personal websites, I would be inclined to remove them. Indeed, I'm not entirely clear why his userpage isn't blanked, as is our usual community practice for banned users. Risker ( talk) 02:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with all above. Risker's block note says it all: [35]. The provisional suspension of the ban was revoked with the reblock; ergo, the ban was put back in place. – xeno ^talk 03:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing why the page isn't blanked as per SOP with banned users, and concur with the above as per regarding the status of the ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• I concur with the above, current status is community-banned and most practical way to manage the userpage is blanking. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} at 15:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Case affected

Russavia-Biophys arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted
2. Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Russavia ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Miacek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [36]

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted and Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted
• Amend restrictions to allow interaction between Russavia and Miacek

Statement by Russavia

Both restrictions prevent two-way unnecessarily interacting between myself and Miacek, however, for the betterment of the project, it is necessary that the two of us be able to interact and collaborate onwiki.

Some interactions between Miacek and myself include the following: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and it can go on. I also commented at his request to have his topic ban lifted, because as Miacek mentions in that very request, relations between the two of us are normal. We have also been in occasional email contact, the last time just the other day, when I emailed him for fixing an issue on the Donavia article after he saw my note on my talk page.

All interactions between the two of us have been cordial, collaborative and consentual, therefore, it makes no sense to have bureaucratic restrictions in place which prevents two editors from interacting for the betterment of the project.

I am asking the Committee to amend the two restrictions to specifically allow interaction between myself and Miacek. And I foresee no reason why the Committee would not agree to this amendment request, as it serves as an example of what editorial interactions in EE topics should be like.

Statement by Miacek

Russavia has informed me of the amendment request and I do support this request. As Russavia has summed up above, the relations between two of us are constructive and there's no need for the clauses. In fact, only yesterday did I realize that it's still forbidden for me to interact with Russavia - my topic ban was lifted in the summer of last year, but the other clauses remain in force. All things considered, I see no reason for restricting our interaction anymore and ask for the clause to be lifted. In fact, I actually look forward to a point in the future when the clause could also be lifted viz-a-viz other ex-EEML members. Miacek 16:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys

I support this request because Russavia and Miacek had no conflicts at the first place. They have always had good relations and share similar political views.

The bans between Russavia and other former EEML members can also be lifted if two conditions are met: (a) the sides did not violate their bans (this is standard), and (b) they demonstrated an ability to constructively edit the same article(s) (not prohibited per WP:IBAN), and especially such article(s) where they had problems in the past. Biophys ( talk) 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with statement by AGK below. Biophys ( talk) 22:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG

I see no valid reason to keep this restriction in place. - BorisG ( talk) 07:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

I am an administrator who recently enforced the EEML interaction ban, and who is active in arbitration enforcement, so perhaps my view (for whatever it's worth) would be useful. In my experience, there has not been any problem with contact between Russavia and Miacek, and in this case alone I would be happy to support an exemption being made to the general interaction ban. Having briefly checked the overlapping contribution history of the two users, I see no reason not to go with my general and initial impression. As an aside, in the event that an amendment precipitates similar requests from other editors who are affected by the interaction ban, I would caution against making similar exemptions without fully examining the history of the two users; off-hand, I can think of several editors between whom contact is disruptive to some degree. AGK [ • 21:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Allowing a few days for any further statements, but tentatively support this request, based on the agreement of both parties that they feel able at this point to interact civilly and collegially. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 07:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• This seems to be a reasonable request. As the two interaction bans were fairly widely-construed, I see no reason not to narrow them as requested. – xeno ^talk 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Have no problem with narrowing as requested SirFozzie ( talk) 23:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see any problem with this request. Shell ^babelfish 02:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Seems appropriate. I know firsthand that wiki-relations can thaw and one can work hand-in-hand with former "sworn enemies" (if such truly exist...) Jclemens ( talk) 05:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Motion proposed below. – xeno ^talk 14:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek.

Support

1. Proposed. Feel free to tweak or copy edit as needed. – xeno ^talk 14:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
3. In the interests of collaborative editing, yes. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
4. —  Coren  ^(talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens ( talk) 03:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
6. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 10:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
10. PhilKnight ( talk) 20:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

---

---

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:

• Communikat (initiator)
• Binksternet ( talk)
• Edward321 ( talk)
• Nick-D ( talk)
• Petri Krohn
• ( Hohum  ^@)
• TomStar81 ( Talk)
• Stor stark7 ^Speak
• Paul Siebert ( talk)
• Jim101 ( talk)
• Habap ( talk)
• Fifelfoo ( talk)
• BorisG ( talk)
• T. Canens
• Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]}
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Novickas ( talk)

Confirmations of notices sent:

• Binksternet
• Edward321
• Nick-d
• Petri Krohn
• Hohum
• TomStar81
• Stor_stark7
• BorisG
• Shell_Kinney
• Paul Siebert
• Habap
• Fifelfoo
• Jim101
• Timotheus_Canens
• K Lokshin
• GWH
• Novickas

Statement by Communikat

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:

• There exist two distinctly separate Wikipedia articles. One is titled Aftermath of World War II the other is titled Effects of World War II.
• The aftermath of World War II has long been defined here by one (then) active editor as meaning the "state of the world immediately after World War II", whereas the " Effects of World War II cover the long lasting effects of the war." (My emphasis added). I concur with this definition, which has never been disputed.
• Another (then) active editor has pointed out here that content going beyond the immediate aftermath period would amount absurdly to an "Aftermath of the Aftermath". Nor was that ever contradicted or disputed.
• 1948 is the most frequently cited date in the text of the [[Aftermath of World War II] article, and for practical purposes this should be the end of the Aftermath of World War II, to which part of my topic-ban applies.

Further requests for clarification

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)

Further, please clarify if, for argument's sake, the wording of the already six-months old Arbcom enforcement decision is amended retrospectively to read: "Communikat is topic banned from editing or discussing articles about 20th century military and political history", as has been proposed implicitly by several parties, would such retrospective amendment be considered normal by Arbcom, and if so, what would be the relevant policy guideline? Communikat ( talk) 16:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Sir Fozzie comment

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)

Response to Nick-d statement

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)

In terms of the specific substance of my request for clarification, Nick-d has confusingly paraphrased David Fuch's comments almost beyond recognition.

As regards Nick-d's claim that I am "continuing the dispute over the World War II article": that is not true. I have simply acknowledged Binksternet's continuation of the WP:DEADHORSE dispute over WW2 article. If it is Nick-d's intention to have me gagged completely, then he should just say so. WP:CENSOR has relevance. Nor am I trying to "have softened" the editing restrictions upon me. I am trying to obtain clarification as to the exact scope of those restrictions, so that I may edit productively and avoid further tedious and disruptive disputes with him and others. Nick-d's failure to assume good faith is apparent. Communikat ( talk) 11:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not acknowledge as legitimate the "motion" that Nick-D has filed below. It seems to me that his "motion" should properly be filed separately as a request for enforcement. He appears to be trying to impede this present request for clarification. His "motion" may none the less have a predjucial effect on this current discussion. So, while not recognising the procedural and substantial validity of his "motion", it is never the less probably advisable for me to respond to the contents of his "motion".

Nick-D claims falsely that since "returning to editing as Communikat he has stated he is in fact the author of Between the Lies, (and) this represents a significant change to the evidence which was available at the time of the arbitration case." In fact, this was disclosed and understood implicity during workshop discussions in that case. The relevant discussion is worth repeating verbatim:

Request for restraint in efforts to "out" Communicat

... a number of past attempts have been made by various parties to "out" me as Stan Winer, author/copyright holder of the book Between the Lies. I do not admit that I am Stan Winer. I'd be obliged if no further such "outing" bids are made. Winer happens to be living in a high-risk, politically sensitive environment where people are known to be targeted by violent reactionary elements if or when something is stated (by someone like Communicat) that might be deemed by such elements to be unacceptable and/or provocative. I do not admit that I am Stan Winer. Thank you. Communicat (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D will note the deliberate wording "I do not admit I am Stan Winer" is not the same as saying "I am not Stan Winer". The meaning and intent were clear to everyone concerned, (except Nick-D perhaps), as acknowledged immediately by Newyorkbrad:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted. The parties are asked to refrain from further discussion of Communicat's possible real-world identity. The committee will be able to decide the case without this information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My veiled "confession" resulted in Arbcom effectively clearing me of plagiarism and copyright violation. When I returned recently to editing, and to avoid predictable charges of sockpuppetry or whatever, I made my identity quite evident on my userpage. Nick-D's allegation in the above regard is therefor false and misleading, and should be dismissed as such.

As for Nick-D's repeated complaints of "personal attacks", and his and others' predilection for continually reviving matters that have already been arbitrated and ruled upon, it may be appropriate for me to remind them of AGK's pertinent observation during that case: "Offensive inferences" are intrinsic to the arbitration process — which, amongst other things, examines the conduct and behaviour of editors. AGK 21:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In any event, the reporting to Arbcom of suspected administrator misconduct should not be construed automatically as a "personal attack." Unless perhaps if the reported administrator(s) wishes to avoid Arbcom's considered opinion on the merits of the report. Communikat ( talk) 23:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

With further regard to Nick=d's false and misleading claim that since "returning to editing as Communikat" I have revealed that my real-life identity is Stan Winer and this allegedly "represents a significant change to the evidence which was available at the time of the arbitration case": The record shows further that during that case, reference was made to my real-life identity by virtue of information provided for copyright reasons on Commons. As stated at the time by editor Petri Krohn: " ... it is against Wikipedia WP:OUTING policy to out people based on information they have revealed for copyright reasons on Commons. Wikimedia Commons is a site external to Wikipedia, and its use here to out or smear people is no more legitimate than, say Encyclopædia Dramatica. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC) This is further evidence proof that Nick-d's claim in his "motion", implying that I tried deliberately to deceive Arbcom, is patently false and it amounts to an outrageous personal attack. Arbcom had been made fully aware by me and by at least one other of my real-life identity, contrary to Nick-d's false claim as contrived unfairly to have me blocked for a further year, and presumably to have me blocked from this ongoing request for clarification. I trust Arbcom applies impartially the rules on misconduct, especially when an administrator is involved. Communikat ( talk) 09:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Regretably, this thread has become almost hopelessly forked and ambiguated. Nick-d's latest comments and my further responses are contained at the separate section Nick-d started and continues for his "motion". Communikat ( talk) 16:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to arbitrator(s) questions etc

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)

It seems from a recent arbitrator comment that there may still be confusion as to what this request for clarification is all about. So I repeat here what I've already posted separately for the edification of one editor: 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" and/or pounced upon as relating to the longterm effects of World War II, resulting predictably in consequent complaints of allegedly breaking 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 time in future tedious disputes, if and when I decide to return to active editing. As it is, this present request is taking up far more time than anticipated and/or than the endeavour merits. I shall not be posting anything more in this regard, and await Arbcom's clarification or further banning, if any.

PS: 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." Those comments may be a minority view, but it is IMO the only credible view. Does Arbcom have any thoughts on this? Communikat ( talk) 10:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to arbitrator Xeno: I am sorry that I have been forced to write 7,500 words in order to refute through reasoned discussion the arguments of the majority. The 7,500 words, including repetitions to counter WP:IDHT, have IMO not been disproportionate to the cumulative size of the unreasonable arguments of the majority, both here and in the past. This has been as tiresome to me as it is, no doubt, to the arbitrators. I mean no disrespect; I apologise for the inconvenience.

The question here is not what specific articles I propose to become involved in outside of my topic ban, but rather, do I want to become involved in editing any articles at all? I have not yet identified in my mind any specific articles that I am potentially interested in, and shall not be doing so until Arbcom gives the green light by clarifying the scope of my topic ban. It is true, as NewYorkbrad has agreed, that what we have here is a question of line-drawing. He has also stated: "The scope of the topic-ban should be interpreted broadly but reasonably". Sadly, however, a number of individuals both here and in the recent past have made it very clear to me they intend to construe as broadly and unreasonably as possible the scope of the topic ban, and no doubt to pounce upon me accordingly, unless of course Arbcom states definitively and conclusively where the line is to be drawn.

Moreover, considering the recent one-week block that was IMO unfairly imposed on me, there appears also to be a slight semantic problem as to what the word "discussion" means in terms of restriction on my "editing or discussing" articles from which I am topic banned. Does that mean I am not allowed to refer in any way, not even in passing, to World War II and its Aftermath? The Oxford Dictionary defines "discussion" as "to analyse in detail", whereas "refering" to something is just that: a reference, not a discussion. Communikat ( talk) 00:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Re Arbitrator Coren's edit-summary remark "be conservative": Far as I'm aware, five pillars imply nothing about "being conservative", but rather "be neutral", of which there is an evident paucity relative to the articles from which I am topic banned.

Coren's posting refers further to the term "broadly construed", which does not appear in the wording of Arbcom's topic ban upon me, and which has not been amended. Four parties here are agreed that the present wording of the topic ban is unclear; and the drafting arbitrator has himself acknowledged "what we have here is a question of line-drawing."

In any event, I'd be much obliged if Coren or any other arbitrator would care to address the issues of hounding, harassment and vandalism as reported recently by me, and commented upon relative to articles that are well outside the topic-ban no matter how broadly the ban is construed to be. Communikat ( talk) 13:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to Edward321 statements

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)

Further, re Edward321's suggestion that Aftermath cut-off date to be "broadly construed" as 1991: if that suggestion is indeed adopted, then I'd need some hard convincing it does not go against the letter and spirit of WP:CENSOR. Communikat ( talk) 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Edward321's erroneous claim that I have "falsely tried to claim consensus" as to 1948 being the Aftermath practical cut-off date relative to my topic-ban. The true version is: prior to lodging this present clarification request, I tried repeatedly but without success to engage Nick-d in discussion as to Nick-d's view on a suggested cut-off date. I proposed 1948/9 as a practical date. Nick-D failed to respond. It was important to me to obtain Nick-d/s view because he was repeatedly reporting me after I had unintentionally broken my topic-ban, and I sought to avoid doing so again. At the same time, I also tried to elicit from Nick-d some clarity as to whether or not my topic-ban prohbited me from responding to personal attacks, and/or from referring to the Arbcom case in a related discussion that had given rise to Nick-d reporting me for breaching my topic-ban. He failed to respond in any way. I was subsequently blocked for one week, as a consequence of Nick-d's allegation. I did not bother to appeal. I accepted Nick-d's silence on the cut-off date as tacit concurrence that 1948/9 was accepted by him as practicable, and I informed him accordingly. It is common practise that tacit concurrence may be inferred in the absence of contradiction, opposition or open discontent. Maybe things work differently on wikipedia; I don't know. In any event, Nick-d subsequently reneged on what IMO amounted to tacit concurrence. At no time have I "falsely tried to claim consensus" as wrongly alleged by Edward321 and by Nick-d himself. Consensus is what I am seeking here in this present request for clarification. Communikat ( talk) 18:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re claim "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." The words "briefly discusses" are a euphemism for "hardly discusses" or "fails to discuss". Each of those events are reduced in the article to terse, single sentences, and they are there simply for contextual purposes, including reference to the Korean War. I repeat my statement in support of this present request for clarification, which you seem to have missed:

I propose the word "aftermath" be agreed upon as meaning the immediate aftermath of World War II ...

• There exist two distinctly separate Wikipedia articles. One is titled Aftermath of World War II the other is titled Effects of World War II.
• The aftermath of World War II has long been defined here by one (then) active editor as meaning "(T)he state of the world immediately after World War II", whereas the " Effects of World War II cover the long lasting effects of the war." (My emphasis added). I concur with this definition, which has never been disputed.
• Another (then) active editor has pointed out here that content going beyond the immediate aftermath period would amount absurdly to an "Aftermath of the Aftermath". Nor was that ever contradicted or disputed.
• 1948 is the most frequently cited date in the text of the [[Aftermath of World War II] article, and for practical purposes this should be the end of the Aftermath of World War II...

As regards the rest of your submission: I repeat to you what I have already stated to Binksternet: you are persisting in exhibiting WP:DEADHORSE and WP:IDHT and WP:SOAPBOX, to the point of disruption and harrassment. Wikipedia is not a place to hold WP:BATTLEGROUND grudges, import personal conflicts, or carry on ideological battles that have already been arbitrated and ruled upon.

As for your "tattered remains of this equine cadaver", I might as well further repeat the view of very active and experienced WW2 editor Paul Siebert, which you also seem to have missed: “ ... 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”.

Thank you for pointing out my inadvertent omission of two involved participants. I shall rectify that. Communikat ( talk) 16:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that you managed to identify only one revisionist source among approx 400 references cited at WW2 article. This is clear proof that the article fails to comply with NPOV, and it proves also that Binksternet's claims are inaccurate and misleading in his tendentious statement below. Communikat ( talk) 23:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Hohum remark

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)

Hohum, I think you are confusing the issues here. "Outing" is not the issue here. Read my observations posted under Response to Nick-d statement, re Nick-d's "motion" concerning supposedly inappropriate conduct about disclosure or nondisclosure of my identity. In any event, I had been "outed" so many times already that disclosure by me of my real-life identity was hardly necessary, except for the purposes of avoiding sockpuppetry or COI or whatever opportunistic complaints. And even that didn't work; complaints were inevitably made, regardless. Communikat ( talk) 10:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hohum, please state explicitly your position on feasible/practical Immediate Aftermath cut-off date. Firstly, do you agree or disagree with these submissions: 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? You earlier implied Cold War might be taking it too far, without actually agreeing or disagreeing in the first instance that clarification might be in order. If you do agree that clarification is indeed warranted, what is your suggestion for feasible/practical Immediate Aftermath cut-off date? Thank you. Communikat ( talk) 11:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I thank Hohum for his kind words, and for stating his valued opinion that an immediate aftermath cut-off date of 1948 is acceptable to him, and that "the arbitrators need to give a solid answer on this page to draw a line under the issue." I agree entirely. I disagree, however, with Hohum's speculative assumption that I intend to work on the Cold War article. I intend avoiding as best I can any articles where there might exist perceived issues of WP:OWNERSHIP.

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. Communikat ( talk) 12:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of "lies", which Hohum raises, I remind him of his posting here about the revocability of CC license, to which I responded here. Mindless tirades are unlikely to further the cause of this present request for clarification. Communikat ( talk) 13:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to Binksternet comments

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)

Blinksternet persists in exhibiting WP:DEADHORSE and WP:IDHT and WP:SOAPBOX, both here and at other pages, to the point of disruption and harrassment. Wikipedia is not a place to hold WP:BATTLEGROUND grudges, import personal conflicts, or carry on ideological battles that have already been arbitrated and ruled upon. I am somewhat reluctant to legitimise his stated views by actually responding to them, yet again.

As regards the issue of WP:CENSOR that he refers to in his latest posting: it is interesting to note the WP:CENSOR policy document which I relied upon has of late disappeared suddenly and without trace. The original WP link seems to have been forked to a shorter and IMO less comprehensive WP:CENSOR policy statement at this page. But not to worry, if there is any serious doubt in Binksternet's mind as to the existence of military history censorship at wikipedia, then he should take a look at a certain Serendipity webpage exposing military history censorship at wikipedia. The relevant webpage has been blacklisted by wikipedia, preventing the provision here of a link.

Meanwhile, it is noted with regret that Binksternet has digressed completely from the core issue here, namely: my uncertainty as to the precise scope of the topic-ban upon me; nor has Binksternet made any contribution to the relevant matter of systemic bias. If there is further doubt in Binksternet's mind as to the existence of POV-bias in certain military history articles, I refer him to drafting arbitrator NewYorkbrad's (not yet blacklisted) observation at close of the Arbcom case: "... it is fair to acknowledge the kernel of truth in (Communicat's) perception (of POV-bias at the World War II project)."

WP:NPOV is a core community principle in compiling the encyclopedia. If, for example, the Russian academic consensus and the verifiable Western revisionist academic opinion on aspects of WW II history are different from conservative US / Western consensus on specific points or opinions it does not matter. They are notable opinions and must be included as alternate interpretations of the history, if wikipedia is to live up to the principles set forth in its policies by including under-represented perspectives. Communikat ( talk) 14:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet in his statement refers confusingly to "historiography" and "history" as though the two words are mutually interchangeable and mean the same thing, which they do not. He implies that revisionist accounts (accounts that deviate from conservative mainstream paradigm) of World War II and its aftermath are fully accommodated in the relevant wikipedia articles, thus allegedly conforming perfectly to NPOV rules. He claims explicitly: " This (revisionist) information is already part of the historiography of WWII and its aftermath but Communikat wants to highlight the issues in a non-neutral way." In fact, a

survey conducted painstakingly by Edward321 during the course of the Arbcom case managed to identify only one revisionist source among the approximately 400 citations in the World War II article. Binksternet's statement in this regard is therefor utterly tendentious, inaccurate and misleading. Communikat ( talk) 12:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to TomStar81 comment

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)

Request to arbitrator(s)

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)

Response to arbitrator Risker question

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)

I have deleted Shell Kinney from the "involved" list, and have added administrator T Canens to the list and notified him accordingly. It may be worth noting T Canens is currently under administrator review. Communikat ( talk) 14:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Habap claim

Avoidance of Russophobia does not mean my edits are "emotionally" invested, as falsely alleged. Communikat ( talk) 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Korean War started in 1950, not 1948 as stated inaccurately by this military history editor. Communikat ( talk) 17:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Habap claim that I am "trying to edit" articles similar to those from which I am topic-banned. Just for the record, I have not even thought of editing "similar" articles. To do would result only in biassed unpleasantness and a waste of my time. All I want is clarity on the scope of my topic-ban, which is presently undefined. Communikat ( talk) 17:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I walked away from the exasperating Arbcom case, viz., I didn't bother to appeal. Communikat ( talk) 16:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop speculating about the articles I supposedly "want to work on". If any, I assure you they're not going to be articles offering a likelihood of interaction with you and/or your pals peers -- unless of course you and/or they hound me there for the express purposes of harrasment and disruption, which is not inconceivable. Communikat ( talk) 21:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Your remark, unsupported by diffs or evidence, that my work focuses only on "the evils of capitalism", amounts to little more than disruptive WP:BATTLEFIELD sniping and mudslinging. Please stop it. Communikat ( talk) 09:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Try getting some fundamental facts right: e.g. My topic ban does not expire "in six months time" as you insist on putting it. I'm indefinitly topic banned. Communikat ( talk) 00:05, 1 July 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)

I suggest Habap curb his condescension about my perceived need to "learn how to edit". I have more than 1000 edits to my credit since around early last year, many of them in article space, and I know precisely who and what I am up against. Communikat ( talk) 14:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have never used the word "cabal". I have used the word "clique" WP:TIAC. Communikat ( talk) 20:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to Statement by Timotheus Canens

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)

Timotheus Canens will recall he was the administrator who recently blocked me for one week after Nick-D reported alleged disruptive behaviour and breaches of editing restrictions imposed on me by Arbcom. During discussions in that matter, I repeatedly asked the administrator and the complainant Nick-d whether my topic-ban prohibited me from replying to personal attacks and from referring to the earlier Arbcom proceedings, as had occurred during the course of separate CCI discussion that gave rise to Nick-d's complaint. The record shows that both of these administrators failed to reply. The record also shows I tried repeatedly and without success to elicit experienced guidance from them about the scope of the topic-ban upon me. This is why it consequently became necessary for me to take up Arbcom's time in this present request for clarification, which IMO could and should have been avoided if these two administrators had taken it upon themselves to behave in an appropriately collegial manner. Timotheus Canens is therefor directly involved in the cause of this present clarification request, and I am listing him as such.

I further put it to administrator Canens: Given that WP:BAN states it is inappropriate for editors to bait or mock a banned editor, does he really consider my conduct to have been unreasonable or in breach of my topic-ban by virtue of responding to personal attacks and false statements about me? It may be recalled that one other editor present in the discussion supported the view that my actions were not unduly disruptive. Communikat ( talk) 21:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask a clerk to retain T Canens on the list irrespective of WP:INVOLVED, because significant questions have been raised as to this administrator's conduct which, among other factors, contributed to the reasons for this request for clarification being filed in the first place. Communikat ( talk) 23:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Closing statement

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:

• Only the usual suspects showing up, with their same tired, old gripes that have already been arbitrated and ruled upon
• Nobody (so far) capable of answering unequivocally the question: what is the scope of my topic ban?
• Everyone playing the behaviour card while engaging in diversionary tactics
• Nobody tackling the issues of systemic bias and/or deliberate POV bias through omission
• Everyone skirting around the implications of censorship
• The same, old, thinly veiled agenda to maintain the status quo in a project that is supposed to be dynamic, not static.
• Nobody admitting openly that the only contributions not objected to in the field of 20th Century military history are those that derive from the capitalist mode of information production. Communikat ( talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC) -- strike as premature Communikat ( talk) 15:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to statement of Georgewilliamherbert

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)

Response to criticisms of filing party's behaviour

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)

I see regretfuly from arbitrators' comments that none has addressed the issue of others' behaviour, in particular Nick-d's misplaced bid to have me banned on the basis of false claims, which I have already refuted. But never mind; I think we all know what is the situation, and where we stand in relation to it. An interaction ban would IMO be an appropriate solution. Communikat ( talk) 18:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Where are we at?

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'm especially puzzled as to whether or not I am disqualified from contributing to wikipedia by virtue of the fact that I am the published author of three books and countless off-wiki articles. Communikat ( talk) 16:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Mutual interaction ban requested

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)

It is all very well for arbitrators to tell me to "find another topic" without taking into account the fact that no matter what topic I might move to, I will be hounded, harrassed and disrupted unless an interaction ban is imposed on Nick-D and Edward321 in relation to myself. Edward321, e.g. has recently hounded me to History of South Africa where he reverted my edits, claiming falsely that I was breaking my topic ban. Fortunately, an independent editor stepped in to settle the issue. I may not always be that lucky. Nor is Edward321's behaviour a recent phenomenon. He had done much the same in the distant past, forcing me to leave the article I was working on and simply walk away from the unpleasant experience of being hounded, harrassed and disrupted by someone who is clearly pursuing a personal vendetta, and who has not previously worked on the article or expressed any interest in it until I started editing the article. In more recent times, both he and Nick-d have hounded me to the South Africa article, for apparently the same reasons and with the same intentions, while tendentiously splitting hairs, introducing garbled text, embracing such convoluted arguments and "rewording" my edits to such an extent it is virtually impossible for me to even sort out the relevant diffs to present here. Communikat ( talk) 19:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

NewYorkbrad has stated explicitly that if I seek to find a new field to edit, "artificial connections between World War II and that field should not be traced." (My emphasis). Yet this is precisely what Edward321 has done in his evident pursuit of WP:HARASS. Nick-d, for his part, has separately flaunted WP:CANVASS by lobbying a previously uninvolved editor, stating that my behaviour is under discussion by Arbcom, without of course mentioning that his (Nick-d's) own behaviour is also under discussion. The result is/was prejudice against me on the part of the editor lobbied, causing further unpleasantness at the South Africa, which I was trying to improve.

Make no mistake here as to who is the victim and who is the agressor. If Arbcom intends validating (by ignoring) the informal, insidious and IMO demagogic site-ban that the two named editors are in effect trying to impose on me, then I would be much obliged if Arbcom would confirm explicitly its intentions. Alternatively, Arbcom should formalise its own site-ban on me, so that we all know where we stand; or further alternatively and preferably, an appropriate interaction ban should be considered seriously, as already twice requested by me. Communikat ( talk) 13:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: My thoughts on the effects on content of editor(s) who hound me for purposes of WP:HARASS to topics of which they have no knowledge or insight whatsoever are contained here. Communikat ( talk) 15:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to Boris-G

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)

Statement by Hohum

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)

It seems to me Communi[ck]at prefers wikipedia to change the way it operates, to fit with his behaviour, rather than the converse. ( Hohum  ^@) 19:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think his "closing statement"'s soapboxing clearly reveals his single purpose. ( Hohum  ^@) 20:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding allegation of outing. Communikat/196.215.76.234 voluntarily outed himself on wikipedia, regarding a wikipedia issue here, and on his wikipedia user page.

Talking about himself in the third person:

Then clarifying that person talking was himself:

( Hohum  ^@) 00:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Communi[ck]at has asked me directly of my opinions on his editing restrictions.

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)

Comment by BorisG

@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)

Statement by Nick-D

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: [37], [38]. 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, the comment from David Fuchs is below (his signature is Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs). Nick-D ( talk) 12:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Communikat's above comments are continuing the dispute over the World War II article and related arguments that led to, and were discussed in the arbitration case, and actually seem to be a clear violation of the editing restrictions he's trying to have softened. Nick-D ( talk) 22:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The above 'Closing statement' demonstrates that Communicat/Communikat has learned nothing from the arbitration case and will probably continue to edit unproductively. Nick-D ( talk) 10:47, 29 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)

Proposed motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat

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: [39]. 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: [40] [41]

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:

• He has made further personal attacks on other editors: [42] ("As regards the rest of your submission: I repeat to you what I have already stated to Binksternet: you are persisting in exhibiting WP:DEADHORSE and WP:IDHT and WP:SOAPBOX, to the point of disruption and harrassment ") [43] [44]
• He has attempted to continue on the dispute regarding the World War II article (with further personal attacks included in the first three diffs): [45] [46] [47] [48] (note the fourth and last two bullet points) [49] ("To do would result only in biassed unpleasantness")
• He has also attacked Timotheus Canens ( talk · contribs) and myself for him having been blocked, and refers to the reasons for these blocks as 'alleged': [50]
• It's worth noting that most of the above comments were made after it became clear that Communicat's request to have his editing restriction varied was not going to be supported by the arbitrators who have commented below

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)

As another note, I've posted notifications on the talk pages of the arbitrators on the advice of one of the arbs - apologies if this was annoying rather than helpful. Nick-D ( talk) 13:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Communicat, the issue isn't whether your identity was known in the arbitration case (as you had be be assumed to be another person due to your repeated statements that Stan Winer was another person with whom you were in contact (for instance, [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56], previous denials of this during pre-arbitration discussions (for instance: [57]) and lack of any clear evidence otherwise), but what your subsequent self-identification means. It is my view that this changes the context of your past behavior quite significantly, and as a result makes your current behavior a more serious matter. Nick-D ( talk) 12:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Two more personal attacks by Communicat today and yesterday: [58] [59] Nick-D ( talk) 23:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The main article Communicat has edited since returning is the South Africa article. However, these edits contain copyright violations: [60] (lifted directly from the source) and [61] ( source) Nick-D ( talk) 23:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And another personal attack (on me) below: [62]. The copyright violations were blatant copy and pasts of text. Nick-D ( talk) 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks on me: [63] [64] and edit warring to restore the copyright violations: [65], [66]. The South African Government website is under copyright: [67] and the UNHCR's website also claims copyright over its content [68] (see the very bottom of the page). Nick-D ( talk) 02:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Further personal attacks: [69], [70], [71], [72] (what Communikat calls "hounding, harassment and vandalism" was actually the removal of the blatant copyright violations he added to the South Africa article by myself and others). These are all clear-cut violations of Communikat's editing restriction against personal attacks. Nick-D ( talk) 11:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Communikat query

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)

NB: In the absence of any clerical assistance, I have responded in the sub-section "Response to Nick-D statement", to some of the predjudicial contents of Nick-d's "motion" above. Communikat ( talk) 00:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D has forked / ambiguated this matter to such an extent that it is rapidly becoming unmanageable. In the absence of clerical response, I still fail to recognise the validity of Nick-D's "motion", and so I've responded to some of his claims at the relevant sub-section "Response to Nick-d statements" above.

As regards his latest posting above in this "motion" section, and simply for the sake of convenience, I counter here as follows:

Contrary to Nick-d's new assertion "the issue isn't whether (my) identity was known in the arbitration case", that is precisely the issue. Nick-D stated earlier: "Since returning to editing as Communikat he has stated that he is in fact the author (Stan Winer). This represents a significant change to the evidence which was available at the time of the arbitration case." In other words, Nick-d is implying that Arbcom should amend retroactively its already six-months old decision in that case, because the decision was made in the absence of evidence that has subsequently and allegedly become manifest. Nick-d's serious innuendo is that I deceived Arbcom, which I did not, and it is a clear attempt to discredit me for the purposes of having me banned for a further year and presumably from any further participation in the current clarification request proceedings.

In any event, a Commons copyright issue was discussed openly and at length during the case, with every-one thus being fully aware I was in fact the author/copyright owner of the book under discussion. It is therefor false to say my authorship was hidden by me "at the time of the arbitration case." What Nick-d has done here is to disruptively revive and distort WP:DEADHORSE issues that have already been arbitrated and ruled upon, while simultaneously displaying WP:IDHT, for tendentious purposes. The issue is whether his conduct can be viewed as consistent with wikipedia's rules of conduct, in particular those that pertain to administrators. It is for Arbcom to decide. Communikat ( talk) 15:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My reason for refering to Winer in the third person voice, which Nick-d implies is "evidence" of deception / duplicity on my part, was dealt with satisfactorily in the Arbcom case here. Communikat ( talk) 18:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Nick-d, is hounding me to an article upon which he has never worked, and now harassing me (see above) by incorrectly claiming copyright violations. The brief lines of reworked text he is referring to have been properly attributed to the sources cited. There has been no copyright violation, at least not as far as I am aware. In any event, why is he inappropriately and disruptively raising this here and not at CCI noticeboard, if he is so concerned? Or why is he not discussing it in a civil manner at relevant article talk page, or better still, why doesn't he just fix it himself, since he apparently thinks he knows best. As for the latest round of "personal attacks" he is complaining of, he seems not to know the difference between a personal attack and a statement of fact. His own continuing personal attacks on me, and his disruptive tendencies, will hopefully not go unnoticed by Arbcom. Communikat ( talk) 00:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would add for Nick-d's edification that works of the United Nations that are not offered for sale, such as the documents I have cited, are in the public domain. I would further add that works of the South African Government Communications and Information Service, such as the other documents I cited, are inherently in the public domain since they are a source of public information. (See here re "inherently"). This is clear proof that Nick-d's claim is completely unfounded. It brings into question his competence both as an editor and an administrator. Mostly I would add that Nick-d's latest complaint above regarding alleged copyright infringement is a shining example of precisely the kind of potential hounding and harrassment I was hoping to avoid by obtaining clarity from Arbcom relative to my current request, which Nick-d is evidently attempting to disrupt. His open and continuing misconduct merits serious attention by Arbcom. Communikat ( talk) 01:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nick-d seems to be having difficulty in distinguishing between "copyright violation" and "plagiarism". He's wrong on both counts. I've already refered him to the relevant State of Florida laws that apply to wikipedia. My edits were not "blatant" copy and pastes of text. The text was reworked and can't be further reworked without becoming completely meaningless. In any event, this is not the place to be discussing the South Africa article. Please use the relevant article talk page if you're really interested in improving this article upon which you've never shown any interest previously. Communikat ( talk) 03:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D's "motion"

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)

As regards Nick-d's false and repetitive allegations of "personal attacks" by me, I'm not sure if he knows the meaning of the phrase "personal attack". It seems not. I refer him to WP:NPA#WHATIS and ask that he refrain from repeated misuse of the term. He might also take cognisance of WP:AVOIDYOU where it states: "... when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack."

Nick-D has a history of successfuly dodging obvious and important content issues on the basis of an opponent's "behavioural problems". Viz., using one set of rules to invalidate another set of rules. IMO this represents a flaw or loophole in the system, or at worst, a symptom of system failure. I leave it to the experts to agree or disagree, and to remedy if necessary, in the interests of improving Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Communikat ( talk) 15:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Binksternet

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)

• Response to Communikat: You have quoted WP:CENSOR as being relevant but I see no connection between that guideline and anything about this case. Nothing you have written about World War II or its aftermath has anything to do with the censorship of shocking material. As well, the guideline at WP:CENSOR does not overrule WP:NPOV—it does not open Wikipedia up to allow a non-neutral tone or undue weight. Binksternet ( talk) 01:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Edward321

Communickat has already falsely tried to claim consensus for his proposed cutoff date. [73] [74] 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. [75] Communickat appears to have no interest in doing so [76] and in fact wants to have his topic ban reduced by a cutoff date of 1948. [77] 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. [78] Kirill Lokshin was correct in labeling Communickat a single purpose account. [79] That purpose is advocating Stan Winer, who Communckat has specifically claimed to be [80] and specifically denied being Winer. [81] Even after everyone else repeatedly rejected Stan Winer as a source, Communickat is still trying to push Winer as a source [82] and using his talk page to advertise Winer's website. [83] 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." [84] Kirill Lokshin, [85] 67.117.130.143 [86] and Georgewilliamherbert [87] 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" [88] I gave a cursory look at the article and found a dozen. [89] Communickat still hasn't made good his promise. Edward321 ( talk) 14:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by TomStar81

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)

Statement by Habap

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)

Sorry, I was unclear in my statement about the Korean War. I meant that using 1948 as the cutoff date would include the Korean War as one of the topics which Communikat would be able to edit. I think he would be unable to edit such articles without engaging in his prior behaviour. -- Habap ( talk) 14:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Communikat's statement that his behaviour is not emotionally motivated, I have stricken that from my statement. Since I cannot know why he has behaved in the manner that led to his topic ban, it was inappropriate for me to ascribe it to his emotions. My apologies. I do not know why he exhibitted and apparently continues to exhibit bannable behaviour, but would still recommend that he edit other articles in different areas to get into good editing habits while he is topic banned, rather than trying to edit similar articles in which he seems to continue to exhibit such behaviour. -- Habap ( talk) 14:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Communikat, how can you assert you walked away before anything was decided when you posted your attempt to withdraw your RFA 13 hours after the Arbitrators started voting to topic-ban you? You didn't post your "so long cowboys" until the 9th, after all Arbitrators had voted in favor of the topic ban. Hardly in abstentia. More like "you can't fire me, I quit!" -- Habap ( talk) 15:57, 29 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, I did not state that your work focuses only on "the evils of capitalism", merely that it would be wise for you to avoid issues that inspire you to complain about Nobody admitting openly that the only contributions not objected to in the field of 20th Century military history are those that derive from the capitalist mode of information production. [90] You seem not to be hearing the point, which is, for the next six months, while you are topic-banned, edit something no one will argue with you about. Once you've done that, come back to such articles with better habits. -- Habap ( talk) 18:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you are right. My mistake. I thought it was only a year, but that was the behaviour restriction. Of course, if you started to exhibit good behaviour, the topic-ban could be terminated or modified. In fact, it could be changed in a couple of weeks if you requested and they agreed. So, my advice stands. Learn to edit using articles on which you are unlikely to encounter arguments before editing those on which the possibility exists. Surely you have other interests? Sports teams that you follow? Beverages you enjoy drinking? Hobbies? If you edit in such articles, you might have a less contentious experience. -- Habap ( talk) 15:46, 1 July 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)

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Why exactly wasn't Communi[ck]at site-banned, again? T. Canens ( talk) 18:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask that a clerk remove my name from the involved section. Per WP:INVOLVED, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area". T. Canens ( talk) 22:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

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)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

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)

Agreed with BorisG's statement, Communicat, find another subject other then WW II please. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think all the parties would be better served with heading back to their usual areas (and Communikat finding a new topic area to edit) rather than endlessly arguing here. SirFozzie ( talk) 16:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• If Com.'s editing problems persist, than explaining a distinction does nothing to address the fact that the problems will creep in. There's really no magic date that can address behavioral issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• The scope of the topic-ban should be interpreted broadly but reasonably; I agree that what we have here is a question of line-drawing. It was by a narrow margin, as the author of the decision, that I decided to propose a topic-ban rather than a full site-ban for Communicat. I am concerned that if he returns to editing topics closely related to on which he edited problematically in the past, he will continue to do so. Communicat, do you have any thoughts on what you might do going forward that would minimize the risk of such problems? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Having reviewed the subsequent input carefully, I agree with Shell Kinney and Jclemens, below. Communikat (formerly Communicat) should avoid editing articles, or making edits, relating to the consequences of World War II, regardless of the time-frame involved. That would cover, for example, Cold-War consequences extending into the 1950s and 1960s, rather than having an arbitrary stopping point of 1948 or any other time. On the other hand, if Communikat genuinely seeks to find a new field to edit, artificial connections between World War II and that field should not be traced. With regard to Nick-D's proposal, this was almost the outcome of the case, and it still may wind up being the outcome; Communikat needs to improve his pattern of participation if he wishes to retain any role on Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Before going any further, I'd like Communicat to explain why Shell Kinney is listed as an involved editor; indeed, I'd like to know why each of those users is "involved". Risker ( talk) 20:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• No idea why I was listed as involved here, but I'll reiterate my advice from the reply to your email while blocked - avoid anything that reasonably could be considered related to WWII or it's aftermath. Shell ^babelfish 14:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Recuse:   Roger Davies ^talk 08:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• I find Nick-D's proposal more compelling than any suggestion that Communi[ck]at's restrictions be lifted. Having said that, I'm not sure Nick-D's proposal is strictly necessary... yet. Jclemens ( talk) 22:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Communikat, you've now posted over 7500 words on this clarification request. Echoing Habap, it would be helpful (to me, anyway) if you clarified what articles you wish to edit that you think might cause others to question whether they violate your topic ban. If this is already noted somewhere above, feel free to point it out. – xeno ^talk 17:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• I think that, in general, any topic ban stated to be broadly construed need to be interpreted literally. As a rule, this means that if you genuinely believe that whether and article falls in the broad topic or not could be reasonably disputed, then it does fall within the topic — that's what "broadly construed" means.

  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)

---