TheUzbek

Archives

---

1. Archive I (2022–2024)

Communist state

You sure its a good idea to come back after a block and go right back to the same thing that got you blocked that is opposed by all participants thus far. Perhaps best you show the community you can edit the project in different areas? Moxy🍁 12:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that I am not editing Moxy; I am trying to get the two of us to work together. Instead of getting from you, "Yes, let's work together and find out what is wrong", you are declining, and I am wondering why. Why do you not want to collaborate with me to improve those articles? If the central problem was that I rammed through changes alone, why don't you want to work on ways to improve them collectively? I am trying to reach out to you and establish a "Wikipedia friendship" and a comradeship if you will, and I promise I will work fairly with you if you say yes. TheUzbek (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Need concrete proposals for change like A vs B ...not walls of text implying we are all dumb. Many have explained many problems ...At Talk:Communist state/Archive 6#Communist state or Talk:Communist state/Archive 6#Requested move 18 January 2024. This was also covred by one of your puppets at Talk:Socialist state#Merge communist state into socialist state....with many more walls of text that community has rejected over and over. Best move away from the time sink for some time. Moxy🍁 13:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

To be honest it might be best for you to Wikipedia:Clean start with a different approach so the past wont be a problem for you. Moxy🍁 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

First, I am not implying you are dumb, but I am implying that when it comes to facts on the subject, my edits are not subjective but based on academic sources. And you of all people know that.

Secondly, "Clean start" my ass, a clean start begins when you instead of referring to the past actually says "OK, let's work together. I will give you a chance." You decide if I get a clean start or not.

Thirdly, you are wrong. I reached an agreement with C.J. Griffin (look at his talk page) and as for " Talk:Socialist state#Merge communist state into socialist state", you are correct, I probably did not know any more about the subject than you did at that time. Socialist state is a specific concept; communist state is a overarching term used by scholars that encompasses all communist ruled states. For example, Laos is not a socialist state, but it is a communist state. The Communist Party of China does not use the term communist state, but Robert Service, Archie Brown, David Shambaugh and on other leading scholars in the field do.

Again, are you interesting in working with me or are you just going to use the past to retain a terrible article? Do you really believe the article as it is now is in good shape? TheUzbek (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Best go to these talk pages and make suggestions for edits like A versus B. You may be right in the majority of cases..... but avoid walls of text..... make a proposal and attach sources to it that people can review. Saying John Q and Smith J agree with you is not helpful. Moxy🍁 13:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Always going to be push back when people see -73,143 bits or whatever removed from and article with what people perceive as a concept change and fake accounts trying to back up those edits. Go edit by edit in an honest manner. Moxy🍁 14:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

What I want from you, Moxy, is that you read the "Communist state" content you reverted and say explicitly what is wrong. How can I make edits but know what is bad when the one that has removed it refuses to say anything about the content of the text? I am talking about this version.

I can also promise to reword and even remove any sentence you object to, but you need to spell out what is wrong with the text that I wrote. Do you understand that gaining consensus is impossible if the one opposing it refuses to say anything specific? You are forcing me into a bind. Note that I am talking about the "Communist state" article; you have clearly said what you dislike about the "Socialist state" article. I did not remove any content in the sense of removing information; I shortened it. For example, I merged "Judicial organs and socialist law" and the "Constitution" section into "Unified power through the highest organ of state power" section, but it says the same thing.

"Always going to be push back when people see -73,143 bits or whatever removed from and article with what people perceive as a concept change". That is highly problematic because users have sandboxes for a reason, right? TheUzbek (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Your merging the concepts ...when in fact communism and socialism are talked about in terms of their differences. Yes ...Karl Marx initially used the terms interchangeably, but today they are seen distinct with phase. The first phase is seen as a transitional system where the working class governs and controls the economy, but people are still paid based on their work effort, time, and quality. In this stage, elements of capitalism and limited private property still exist, which is commonly regarded as socialism. The second phase, fully realized communism according to Marx, features a society without class divisions, government, or private property. In this stage, the production and distribution of goods operates on the principle of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. ” This represents a complete shift from socialism to a society characterized by equality and communal ownership.very basic source Moxy🍁 14:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this since I wholeheartedly and totally agree with you. Communism (as in the communist mode of production) and socialism (as in the socialist mode of production) are not the same thing, and the "communist state" article I wrote makes that totally clear that that is the case: a communist state is one that seeks to establish communism.

In fact, my whole point with terms such as people's democratic state and socialist state is that these communist states often widened that transition. Not only from capitalism to socialism to communism but capitalism to people's democracy to socialism to advanced socialism and finally communism. I am not saying this is bad. Officially, they used Marxism-Leninism to interpret the universal laws of history to designate the correct development stage society was in.

If this is you're mean main argument, you cannot have read my text because I agree, and the communist state article that I wrote did not refute that claim. TheUzbek (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

But there are other concerns by others as per Talk:Communist state/Archive 6#Communist state. Again need to bring all this up on talk there. Must also understand many article have stewards that have been watching over the articles for a decade or more...although not FA articles they have WP:FAOWN applied because of years of debate. Moxy🍁 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

As I have said countless of times, I and he reached an agreement. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that? Even if you refuse to acknowledge it, that means that you were wrong in reverting the article wholesale. You could have simply readded that section instead... This means if you are to logically conclude from what you wrote, we can simply read everything I wrote and include the section I removed in it. Why did you revert the whole thing when you could simply have readded one section? TheUzbek (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheUzbek, any big removals like that are going to raise hackles. You may prefer to exist in an ideal world where that does not happen, but that's not the one we live in, so you should reset your expectations accordingly. It's hard to convince other editors you agree with them when you're making drastic changes. But this article in particular - one you were willing to accept a pblock from - is probably one you ought to be staying away from voluntarily in any case. -- asilvering (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to make an edit there, asilvering; I was merely trying to reach a working relationship with Moxy, which he has refused to do countless times. A question for you: Would it be possible to have a neutral arbiter on this case? I feel like I have proven in this thread that Moxy never read my edits to begin with and opposed just because he could.

I also received countless compliments and thanks for my edits on the "Communist State" article. We are pretending that Moxy has a consensus here when he is literally using the WP:CONSENSUS rule to hack the system and get his way. Why is @Moxy:'s revertion so much more worth than the thanks and compliments I got for my edits? TheUzbek (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You can get a neutral arbiter on content questions with just two people from WP:3O, but for something larger the options are a WP:RFC or WP:DR. DR requires the participation of parties on all sides of the issue, while RFCs don't, but RFCs typically work best only with simple, clear questions. If you wanted to try an RFC to resolve something where communication has totally broken down, my advice would be to ask a third party to draft the question so that you don't start out by shooting yourself in the foot.

Moxy's revert isn't worth more than any of your edits in principle (though in the standard WP:BRD cycle, a revert does in some ways have more "weight", since it's what forces the discussion). But if the discussion becomes a dispute, you'll be starting it off in a much weaker position - for one, policy is on Moxy's side (in general, reverting/deleting contributions by block-evading editors is acceptable and even encouraged), and for another, you're just now coming off a block and have a pretty lengthy rap sheet, while Moxy's block log is clean. In frank terms, the moment anyone makes this content dispute into a conduct dispute, you will probably lose, and it will be very easy for someone to frame it as a conduct dispute.

It's possible that Moxy is, in full awareness of all that, simply stonewalling your changes for the fun of it, but I don't see any reason (yet? please don't prove me wrong, Moxy) to discard the assumption of good faith. Best go to these talk pages and make suggestions for edits like A versus B. You may be right in the majority of cases..... but avoid walls of text..... make a proposal and attach sources to it that people can review. Saying John Q and Smith J agree with you is not helpful. is precisely the advice I'd be giving you (long before 3O/RFC/DR), if you weren't just coming off a block. Since you are, my suggestion is instead to go write a new article that hasn't got any baggage for you, which it looks like is your plan anyway.

(fyi, re: WP:CLEANSTART, Moxy's right there, too - read the link. Where I think Moxy is wrong is that it would be "best" for you - this is why I didn't think a TBAN would work as an unblock condition. Clean starts don't work where someone has a really strong interest in a particular topic and a distinctive way of communicating. I don't think I'd be able to do one. For better or for worse, I don't think you can, either.) -- asilvering (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You are indeed correct on every point. You are doing a good job.

1. I will wait at least half a year or more before I take it to these boards. I will first have to prove that I have turned a new page :)
2. Thanks for helping me, I appreciate that! :)

TheUzbek (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Welcome back! How has it been off Wikipedia? It's been a long while since the last time we've interacted and I'm happy to see improvements and new work being done on articles pertinent to Yugoslav communist history. All the best going forward! –Vipz (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, a message of support was needed :) TheUzbek (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)