Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II

Request phase statements

 * The following statements were made whilst this case was in the request for arbitration phase (diff). They are preserved here for reference and should not be altered. AGK   13:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Communicat
My earlier request for arbitration was declined more than three weeks ago as premature, with the proviso that I could reapply within 10 days if Rfc/community-level involvement failed to resolve the dispute. Uninvolved administrator Georgewilliamherbert undertook to lodge the Rfc. A draft Rfc was opened for comment, resulting in further conflict between parties. To date the Rfc has not been formally opened.

The dispute essentially concerns NPOV and content issues. Editors at military history project consistently obstruct, disrupt, harrass and/or launch personal attacks on me whenever I attempt to introduce military history which they evidently construe as depicting the West in an unfavourable light. The World War II article, for example, relies on nearly 400 references from Western orthodox / conservative sources, to the total exclusion of non-Western and/or Western revisionist or significant-minority Western positions. I believe such bias through ommission violates WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and other Wikipedia policy rules.

Whenever I have attempted to resolve these matters, the essential NPOV/content issues are consistently evaded, deviated from and obscured by the parties concerned. This evasion, obscurantism and deviation from the central issues is invariably in the form of allegations of behavioural misconduct being directed at me, to the extent that the NPOV/content issue becomes buried and forgotten, and remains unaddressed.

I respectfully request the arbitration committee to focus specifically and exclusively on a review of what I contend is the systematic violation NPOV/content at the military history project, and not be sidetracked by diversionary allegations of my misconduct to the extent that sight is lost of the specific NPOV/content dispute at at hand. There has been no user conduct Rfc lodged against me, and my conduct is therefore not directly relevant to this request for arbitration. Questions of my alleged past misconduct have recently and comprehensively been replied to by myself at this thread.

I further request the arbitration committee not to allow separate and prejudical lobbying by involved parties on the respective user pages of individual committee members, as is known to have taken place during the course of my earlier request for arbitration. Communicat (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Communicat response to statements

Arbitrators may note that what IMO is the core issue in this application has been completely circumvented in statements of the involved editors. Namely: the question as to why, in a main military history article about World War II, there are nearly 400 individual references attributed to orthodox/conservative Western sources, but not even one source reflecting a non-Western or Western revisionist or significant-minority position. Such ommission, as already stated, violates the fundamental principles of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE among others.

I endorse fully the very pertinent statement of uninvolved editor Fifelfoo.

I reject entirely the contents of all the other statements, in particular the statement of Edward321, with the exception only of the latter's observation that I falsely claimed Tony Judt had endorsed my edits.. It was an unintentional error on my part. I misread and thus attributed inaccurately the posting in question which describes my work as "valuable". That description, along with an accompanying quote from Tody Judt, was in fact provided by Novickas. My apologies for the unintentional error.

Edward321 complains in his statement that I have failed to provide evidence of his past alleged actions that have served to bring wikipedia into disrepute. Here below is an extract from one popular website, posted by one Jonathan Goldman | August 6, 2009 10:08 PM:

''On July 29, 2009, one user by the name of "Edward 321" tagged 13 legitimate articles about Spanish nobility as hoaxes for removal- based on nothing more than his own uninformed opinion and prejudice against royal subject matter. Users like Edward 321 have an agenda- they screem "hoax" in a vain attempted to have articles that they don't like removed- at the cost of loss of valid knowledge to the rest of us. Bogus hoax accusations are libelous, of which Wikipedia seems to do little to curb.''

''The users that police Wikipedia articles are really a little "clique" of shall we say "computer nerds" who feel that they are entitled to block any user they feel like to in order to flex their power, or more accurately, abuse their blocking rights to suit their personal agendas. They will often create false hoax files that they use to justify blocking and /or removal of topics on Wikipedia- with all critics silenced by being blocked or said to be a "sockpuppet" (the same person using a differnt account). These are just a few of Wikipedia's outrageous behaviors- that seem to go unchecked.''

A keyword search at the same site will disclose further reference to Edward321. I am able, on the basis of my own experiences, to provide copious further evidence of gross misconduct on the part of Edward431 and the other involved parties. Such evidence would run into many thousands of words along with countless links and diffs, the end result of which would make an assessment of the merits of this application quite unmanageable.

I none the less thank the committee for agreeing to accept this application, which means in effect that it is no longer necessary for me to throw my toys out of the cot in the futile hopes of drawing attention to my displeasure. Communicat (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

An extract from the concurrent thread at WP:RS/N discussing Progress Publishers, as referred to in the statement below by uninvolved editor Fifelfoo, merits duplication here because of its direct relevance to my request for arbitration. The thread concerns a recent and very typical disagreement between involved party Nick-D and myself, in relation to an allegedly "dubious" source provided by me in Aftermath of World War II article. I quote from the RS/N thread:
 * Note

''There is disagreement over the reliability of Ambient Conflicts: History of Relations between Countries with Different Social Systems, Yefim Chernyak, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987. Additional input would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)''

Response by RS/N editor:

''Looks reliable to me. I am going to guess that the argument against is... it's a Communist source and therefor "unreliable" (yes?) If so, that is a false argument. The fact that a published source supports a particular POV does not make it unreliable. The trick is to make the reader aware of the source's POV and to balance it with statements based on sources that support other POVs. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)''

What Blueboar is recommending above is precisely what I have for a long time been attempting to accomplish in the interests of NPOV, while the involved parties have consistently reverted, disrupted and prevented me from doing so. I would add it is not merely one or two Russian sources that have been obstructed by the involved parties. A range of other, reliable Western and non-communist sources have similarly been disputed, evidently because the positions those sources represent differ substantially from the dominant conservative/orthodox historical narrative upon which the milhist project relies exclusively and in contravention of NPOV. Communicat (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Huhum suggests that I add the military history coordinator as a party to this matter. In fact, I was under the impression that Hohum himself was the coordinator, which is why I included Hohum as a party. It seems, however, that I was under a mistaken impression. So I'm now withdrawing Hohum as a party. I apologise to Hohum for any inconvenience. Communicat (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Hohum statement

Habap, of all the parties involved in this matter, has in my experience proved by far to be the most troublesome. His statement IMO is riddled with falsehoods and provocations. I have come to believe that the best way to deal with his provocations is simply to ignore them — otherwise I might end up being blocked again. All the "points" Habap raises have already been rebutted comprehensively in other forums and discussion threads, the most recent of which is at this thread, which speaks for itself. I shall seek an interaction ban on Habap in the event of my being allowed to continue editing military history articles. Communicat (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Habap statement


 * Habap, in his highly prejudical statement and without providing evidence, claims falsely Communicat has had similar negative interactions, as the Committee may wish to either involve them or review the interactions: Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. Since Habap has now involved directly the six editors referred to, I believe the onus is on Habap to inform those editors that he has involved them, so that they may speak for themselves, if at all. Habap is not their legitimate spokesperson. Communicat (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect
The committee should likely examine whether "Progress Publishers" (which was apparently directly owned by the Soviet government, and whose parent company remains in Moscow), which may fall into a very murky area, fills WP:RS as that policy was intended for this topic. Collect (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Fifelfoo
My attention was drawn here by an WP:RS/N thread discussing Progress Publishers.
 * Military history is one of the most successful encyclopaedic projects in the humanities area.
 * Military history's policies and style regarding sourcing and verification are transcluded upwards into the History project generally.
 * Humanities and social science articles generally have terrible problems with:
 * high order taxonomic classification and naming;
 * classification of academic sources by literary tradition and weight;
 * characterisation of academic traditions, their credibility, their literary influence;
 * 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—in the ambit of a core, successful humanities project 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 (Eastern Europe, for example), to resolve the problem of production of encyclopaedic content.
 * As this issue exemplifies a threat, and itself threatens, the encyclopaedic project in the humanities and social sciences area it should be taken to arbitration. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional notifications
Per Communicat's request, I have notified Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. --Habap (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, all of them, except Parsecboy, were named in the Request for Mediation in mid-August. --Habap (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification (June 2010)
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: color="Red">@ ]])
 * Communikat (initiator)
 * Binksternet (talk)
 * Edward321 (talk)
 * Nick-D (talk)
 * Petri Krohn
 * (Hohum [[User talk:Hohum|<font
 * 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.

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.
 * Further requests for clarification

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)

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 Sir Fozzie comment:

Re: As 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)
 * Response to Nick-d statement
 * 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)

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”.''
 * Response to arbitrator(s) questions etc

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)

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)
 * Response to Edward321 statements


 * 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)

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)
 * Response to Hohum remark
 * 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)

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.
 * Response to Binksternet comments

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)

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)
 * Response to TomStar81 comment

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)
 * Request to arbitrator(s)

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.
 * Response to arbitrator Risker question

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)

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


 * 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)

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)
 * Response to Statement by Timotheus Canens
 * 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)

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:
 * Closing statement
 * 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)

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 statement of Georgewilliamherbert

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
 * Response to criticisms of filing party's behaviour

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)

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.
 * Where are we at?

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)

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)
 * Mutual interaction ban requested


 * 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)

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.
 * Response to Boris-G

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:,. 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 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 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 he has stated that he is in fact the author of this book:. 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:

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: ("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 ")
 * He has attempted to continue on the dispute regarding the World War II article (with further personal attacks included in the first three diffs):    (note the fourth and last two bullet points)  ("To do would result only in biassed unpleasantness")
 * He has also attacked and myself for him having been blocked, and refers to the reasons for these blocks as 'alleged':
 * 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 / 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,     , previous denials of this during pre-arbitration discussions (for instance: ) 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:  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: (lifted directly from the source) and  (source) Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And another personal attack (on me) below: . The copyright violations were blatant copy and pasts of text. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More personal attacks on me:  and edit warring to restore the copyright violations:, . The South African Government website is under copyright:  and the UNHCR's website also claims copyright over its content  (see the very bottom of the page). Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Further personal attacks:, , , (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)

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)
 * Communikat query

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)

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.
 * Nick-D's "motion"

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 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.  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. Communickat appears to have no interest in doing so  and in fact wants to have his topic ban reduced by a cutoff date of 1948.  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. Kirill Lokshin was correct in labeling Communickat a single purpose account.  That purpose is advocating Stan Winer, who Communckat has specifically claimed to be  and specifically denied being Winer.  Even after everyone else repeatedly rejected Stan Winer as a source, Communickat is still trying to push Winer as a source  and using his talk page to advertise Winer's website. 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." Kirill Lokshin, 67.117.130.143  and Georgewilliamherbert  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" I gave a cursory look at the article and found a dozen. 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. 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)

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 &mdash; 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).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)