Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 54: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) fix closing strikethrough tag |
m Fixed Lint errors |
||
Line 99:
==== Statement by [[User:ZjarriRrethues|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.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:ZjarriRrethues|<
:'''Additional Comment''': I don't know how accurate these ''uninvolved'' labels users are applying to themselves are since for example [[User:Vecrumba|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.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:ZjarriRrethues|<
==== Statement by uninvolved Vecrumba ====
Line 145:
(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. '''[[User:Horologium|<
====Statement by uninvolved Miacek====
Line 160:
**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, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk: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? — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 13:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
*Either a narrowing, or a lifting - with the "caveat" suggested by FPAS [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&diff=432850304&oldid=432849026] - seems reasonable. –[[user:xeno|<
* I think a narrowing would be the best option here. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
* Lifting the restriction seems reasonable at this point. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]] [[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[prof]]]</sup> 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 171:
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
:# [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 18:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
:# –[[user:xeno|<
:# [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
:#
:# Well-worded; full support for each aspect of the motion. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
:# [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 196:
{{atop}}
'''Initiated by ''' [[User talk:AGK|<
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
Line 203:
=== Statement by AGK ===
Further to the confusion generated in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=433039158#Alinor 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? [[User talk:AGK|<
: 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? [[User talk:AGK|<
=== Statement by other user ===
Line 214:
=== 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.<br />In any case, Newyorkbrad [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=432880446&oldid=432878325 suggested] that the more recent [[WP:ARBMAC]] decision be leveraged instead, and it appears this was done. –[[user:xeno|<
*:@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]]. –[[user:xeno|<
*Concur with Xeno, including his (and AGK's) suggestion of a cross-reference. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
*I too concur with Xeno and his (and AGK's) suggestino of a cross-reference. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk: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.. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
* Me five-ish? The cross-ref idea seems a good one.
*Pile ON!!!1! — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
----
Line 323:
:Your reply is off topic. My request for amendment is only about the talk pages of Unification Church related subjects. [[User:Andries|Andries]] ([[User talk: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. --[[Special:Contributions/69.165.135.150|69.165.135.150]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Orangemarlin|<
===== Reply by Andries to comment by user:KillerChihuahua =====
Line 351:
====Statement by Orangemarlin====
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objections_to_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=431434019 NO] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Date_rape&diff=prev&oldid=430146815 fucking] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstinence-only_sex_education&diff=prev&oldid=429473325 way]. I could list another 25 recent edits of Ed Poor that would show his bias, quote-mining, use of [[WP:RS|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.[[User:Orangemarlin|<
====Request by Bishonen====
Line 396:
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 [[WP:GEVAL|give equal validity]] to his personal views) and stylistic (a love of [[WP:QUOTEFARM]]s 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]] [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Creationism&action=historysubmit&diff=212602693&oldid=192264132][https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Creationism&diff=next&oldid=212605229] -- 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. <
====Statement by Cirt====
Essentially I agree with comments about this issue by {{user|Bishonen}}, {{user|Orangemarlin}}, and {{user|KillerChihuahua}}. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 21:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 411:
**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. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk: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.
*I think that a lift of the talk page ban would not be unreasonable at this point. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 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. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 08:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 421:
:# — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
:# [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
:#
:# 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.) [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
:# Can give this a try. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 01:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 427:
:# [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 13:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
:# [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 12:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
:# 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). –[[user:xeno on an iPhone|<
:# Okay, as long as there is a low threshold for reimposition should problems arise. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 11:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 443:
:'''''[[Special:Permalink/436527709#Request for clarification: 195.82.106.244|Original discussion]]'''''
{{atop}}
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
Line 454:
=== Statement by TeleComNasSprVen ===
On 12 January 2007, according to [[User_talk:195.82.106.244#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FBrahma_Kumaris_2|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 [[Special:Contributions/195.82.106.244|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.) [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<
=== Statement by other user ===
Line 464:
=== 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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk: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. –[[user:xeno|<
*Agree there is no reason for clarification at this point, unless one of the aforementioned circumstances arises.
----
{{abot}}
Line 472:
:'''''[[Special:Permalink/436529721#Request for clarification: Thekohser|Original discussion]]'''''
{{atop}}
'''Initiated by ''' <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
Line 480:
=== Statement by Will Beback ===
[[user:Thekohser|Thekohser]] was banned by the community. Subsequently, the ban was suspended provisionally by the ArbCom.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=297084049&oldid=294512602] 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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AThekohser&type=block] An admin, [[user:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]], recently opined that the user is merely blocked and could be unblocked by any admin.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ckatz&diff=435510860&oldid=435485407][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ckatz&diff=435529697&oldid=435518357] This current controversy was triggered by recent edits to the user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thekohser&action=history] Is the ArbCom's provisional suspension of the community ban still in effect or has the ban been reinstated? <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
:Note that the ban is still marked as suspended in [[Wikipedia:List of banned users]]. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
=== Statement by Enric Naval ===
Line 517:
*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). — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 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. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
*Concur with all above. Risker's block note says it all: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThekohser&diff=316529381&oldid=316487079]. The provisional suspension of the ban was revoked with the reblock; ergo, the ban was put back in place. –[[user:xeno on an iPhone|<
*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.
*I concur with the above, current status is community-banned and most practical way to manage the userpage is blanking. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 20:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
----
Line 570:
==== 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. [[User talk:AGK|<
==== Clerk notes ====
Line 576:
==== 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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk: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. –[[user:xeno|<
* Have no problem with narrowing as requested [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 23:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
* I don't see any problem with this request. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 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...) [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 05:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
* Motion proposed below. –[[user:xeno|<
=====Motion=====
The remedies of the [[Wikipedia:EEML#Editors restricted|''Eastern European mailing list'']] and [[Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia restricted|''Russavia-Biophys'']] cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between [[User:Russavia]] and [[User:Miacek]].
;Support
:# Proposed. Feel free to tweak or copy edit as needed. –[[user:xeno|<
:# [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:# In the interests of collaborative editing, yes. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 11:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 591:
:# [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:# [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 04:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
:#
:# [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]] [[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[prof]]]</sup> 10:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
:# [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 05:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 616:
*[[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]])
*[[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]]
*([[User:Hohum|<
*[[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]])
*[[User:Stor stark7|'''Stor stark7''']] <sup>[[User_talk:Stor stark7|'''Speak''']]</sup>
Line 682 ⟶ 681:
:: Nick-D claims falsely that since "returning to editing as Communikat he has stated he is in fact the author of [http://www.truth-hertz.net/part1.html 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II/Workshop#Request_for_restraint_in_efforts_to_.22out.22_Communicat 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)''
Line 734 ⟶ 733:
::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. [[User:Communikat|Communikat]] ([[User talk: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.<s> I repeat my statement in support of this present request for clarification, which you seem to have missed:</s>
:::<s>''I propose the word "aftermath" be agreed upon as meaning the '''immediate aftermath''' of World War II ...''</s>
:::*<s> There exist two distinctly separate Wikipedia articles. One is titled [[Aftermath of World War II]] the other is titled [[Effects of World War II]].</s>
:::*<s> The aftermath of World War II has long been defined [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aftermath_of_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=283475604 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.</s>
:::*<s> Another (then) active editor has pointed out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAftermath_of_World_War_II&action=historysubmit&diff=432109936&oldid=401702232 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.</s>
:::*<s> ''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]]...''</s>
:::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.
Line 817 ⟶ 815:
; <s>Closing statement</s>
<s>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:</s>
*<s> Only the usual suspects showing up, with their same tired, old gripes that have already been arbitrated and ruled upon</s>
*<s> Nobody (so far) capable of answering unequivocally the question: what is the scope of my topic ban?</s>
*<s> Everyone playing the behaviour card while engaging in diversionary tactics </s>
*<s> Nobody tackling the issues of systemic bias and/or deliberate POV bias through omission</s>
*<s> Everyone skirting around the implications of censorship</s>
*<s> The same, old, thinly veiled agenda to maintain the status quo in a project that is supposed to be dynamic, not static.</s>
*<s> 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.</s> [[User:Communikat|Communikat]] ([[User talk:Communikat|talk]]) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC) -- strike as premature [[User:Communikat|Communikat]] ([[User talk:Communikat|talk]]) 15:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
;Response to statement of Georgewilliamherbert
Line 865 ⟶ 863:
=== 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. ([[User:Hohum|<
:It seems to me Communi[ck]at prefers wikipedia to change the way it operates, to fit with his behaviour, rather than the converse. ([[User:Hohum|<
::I think his "closing statement"'s soapboxing clearly reveals his single purpose. ([[User:Hohum|<
:::Regarding allegation of outing. Communikat/196.215.76.234 voluntarily outed himself on wikipedia, regarding a wikipedia issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Communicat here], and on his wikipedia user page.
:::Talking about himself in the third person:
Line 873 ⟶ 871:
:::Then clarifying that person talking was himself:
{{quotebox|And yes, the present and newly registered username "Communikat" is in fact the erstwhile Communicat and the above IP 196.215.76.234 (talk signatory who now rejoins wikipedia under a new username following a refreshing six-months sabbatical. - signed Communikat}}
:::([[User:Hohum|<
{{od}}Since Communi[ck]at has asked me directly of my opinions on his editing restrictions.
Line 882 ⟶ 880:
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. ([[User:Hohum|<
=== Comment by BorisG ===
Line 1,033 ⟶ 1,031:
:::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. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk: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.
*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? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,044 ⟶ 1,042:
* '''Recuse''': [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 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. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 22:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
*Communikat, you've now posted over 7500 words on this clarification request. Echoing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&diff=437895390&oldid=437891360 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. –[[user:xeno|<
*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''.<p>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). — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 03:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)</p>
----
{{abot}}
| |||