User talk:Communikat

welcome!  - David Biddulph (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

For more information on what is appropriate for a user page, see WP:UP. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC) ... to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry ... see WP:SOCK#LEGIT. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

• Cheat sheet for markup

Reported for violating the editing restrictions placed on you

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Communicat Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week per AE thread. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

As a note (and hopefully to avoid future problems), restrictions imposed by the Arbitration Committee are interpreted by admins on the basis of of the wording used by the Committee (which is often deliberately broad in order to provide admins with the discretion they need). Attempting to Wikilawyer this wording to add either additional precision or imprecision isn't going to work. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:LAWYERING does not invalidate good-faith attempts to establish for purposes of practability the WW2 aftermath time-line cut-of date. As per WP:WL, rather than tarring an editor with the wikilawyering brush when he seeks semantic clarity, you should instead consider assuming good faith and engage in relevant discussion productively. You and others have concurred silently and implicitly with my propsal in the AE proceedings that the last day of 1948 be the practicable, immediate aftermath cut-off date relative to my topic-ban. I shall cite that implicit concurrence should any future editing dispute or complaint arise from you in this particular regard. Communikat (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Communikat, silence doesn't equal agreement and that approach isn't going to be at all successful - particularly in relation to an Arbitration Committee sanction (which are taken very seriously). If you really, genuinely, think that the wording of the arbitration judgement is unclear (and I don't think that's a view many people are likely to share), the correct forum to raise this is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. I would appreciate a notification if you do choose to take this approach, as I'm sure would the other editors involved in the arbitration case. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Communicat, absolutely no one has concurred with your arbitrary selection of a cutoff date. If you wish to request a clarification from Arbcom, then you need to contact them , not assume whatever date you wish. If there needs to be a cutoff date, then the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 seems a reasonable point. 1948 is not. Also as a friendly suggestion, if you want to make a new start with a new nick, then stop engaging in the behaviors that led to Arbcom sanctions against you in the first place. Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you. The matter will be referred to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Communikat (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The following words quoted from the userpage of astute administrator KillerChihuah summarise my own position in a nutshell:

Attacking the victim when an editor is ... badgered, and they eventually respond with a snippy comment, that is regrettable; but let's be clear on who the aggressor is in this type situation. The snowball should be to jump on the aggressor, and offer support to the frazzled victim. Thank you KillerChihuahua Nicely put. Communikat (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Puh-leeze. Victims don't promote their own views and their self-published book so fiercely as you. I hold that Wikipedia would be the victim if you were allowed free rein. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The allegations you are making have long ago already been resolved satisfactorily in the appropriate forums. You are repeatedly trying to raise a WP:DEADHORSE and engaging in badgering and / or personal attacks on me. Please stop it. Communikat (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

My topc-ban prevents me from responding sufficiently to some of the remarks being posted here. So don't be offended if I simply ignore them from now on. Communikat (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Just don't try to paint yourself as the put-upon victim when your previous actions were so remarkably aggressive (and against the mainstream viewpoint) that you attracted the attention of a group of topic-expert editors who worked for months to halt the damage. That experience put you in a hole of your own digging, and soured others on your continued involvement.

The way forward, the thing that will convince others that you are worthy, is constructive action, not declarations of victimization. If you work successfully to improve, say, articles about South Africa, and you stay out of administrative trouble, others' assessment of your worth will improve. It will be a slow process. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adopting a civil tone. I respond accordingly: "Constructive action" may be easier said than done, given the well-known constraints and impediments of Systemic bias, the existence of which was recognised by the drafting administrator in the Arbcom case. As regards your reference to the "mainstream (i.e. American) viewpoint", again my topic ban prohibits me from responding adequately. Thank you for your interest. Communikat (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point in your Wikipedia experience, moving forward after your tangle with arbitration, I recommend you stay away from attacking perceived systemic bias head-on. Doing so will likely get you blocked again, since your perceptions have proven at variance to Wikipedia consensus. Rather, the constructive method I think you should take is to quietly build articles by adding information. That process can incorporate a shifting of systemic bias simply by having Wikipedia host new viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying; but let's be clear on one thing: my perceptions of Systemic bias have not been proven to be at variance to Wikipedia consensus. Arbcom, by its own admission, lacked the capacity to deal with content issues, and my claim of systemic content bias was accordingly deemed inadmissable by Arbcom. Nor has any Wikipedia community Rfc resolved or disproved my perception of systemic bias.

In any event, I doubt if any continued editing by me of articles outside my main field of interest and expertise, from which I am currently topic-banned, will have any impact whatsoever on alleviating the effects of systemic bias inherent in the overall Wikipedia system itself. I am not suggesting such bias is necessarily deliberate. It is a demographic and a design problem. It is also a symptom of system failure, which is defined as that which occurs when a system does not meet its requirements. If Wikipedia is to become truly encyclopedic in content, the subject needs to be addressed analytically by far more people than just myself, . Communikat (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Baiting

For anyone here who has done or might still be tempted to do so, WP:BANPOL states "it is inappropriate to bait banned editors, or to take advantage of their ban to mock them." Communikat (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)