The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Remedies applied and logged.

• Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Relevant remedy found here. Can someone explain to me the various reasons for why these edits don't represent a violation of the ArbCom remedy? Thanks, Avruch 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Actually, Giano is already blocked for 3 hours for one of these diffs (the one directed at Avruch). I am entirely neutral about said decision to block, maybe even slightly in favour. Giano, could you not call people "very stupid" for no particularly good reason? It doesn't help your cause, and is logically fallacious. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are retarded. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The last diff is slightly uncivil, and appears to be assumming bad faith, so I guess a 12 hour block could be justified. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's been blocked for 3 hours. This is the 4th block for violating the remedy. Is 3 hours (the shortest so far) appropriate? It should be logged under the case. Avruch 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It may not be appropriate, but it's the best length for avoiding drama. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) (response to Avruch's original post) The only answers I could give to your question would be excessively cynical. I'll just say that for my part, I don't enforce "civility parole" on principle, because I find it to be a ridiculous and fundamentally flawed concept. If not for that principle, this edit in particular would unarguably merit a block under the terms of the ArbCom finding. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Superceded by events.Reply[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC#Log_of_blocks_and_bans there has already been a 31 and a 48 hour block for incivility. -- Avi (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will be a bit of a minority voice here but the remedy includes comments by Giano "which are judged by an[y] administrator to be uncivil". This is nonsense. It is a licence for every crank and enemy of the sanctioned editor shoot on sight. Arbcom must become more logically rigorous and more transparently fair - in Catholic theology Bad Laws have no moral standing. Avruch why are you pursuing this? Are you really so offended? Sarah777 (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MastCell - I was admiring you comment and then - zap. What events? Sarah777 (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Sarah. Drama enhancement is the only value of the remedies from the IRC case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ArbCom decides on remedies that are enforceable by the community. They've found that certain types of remedies work better than others. If you'd like to request that the remedy be altered you may make a request on WP:RFAR. It is inappropriate to simply say that you disagree with the remedy and so it should not be enforced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getting the arbs to admit they made a mistake with that silly sanction would be like pulling teeth. They don't seem to care that "incivility" is in the eye of the beholder. Tex (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support close - Administrative action has already been taken. Giano is blocked, and an edit has been reverted. No need to wheel war with William M. Connolley. Further drama is not required here. Risker (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support motion endorsed by Risker. Renew sanctions when new incivility occurs. Last chances are probably flung around here regardless, but wheel-warring is inappropriate. There is zero point in extending the block when it'll probably run-out by the time this discussion has ended. Block again when further evidence can be garnered. Rudget (logs) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support close - block was correctly applied. PhilKnight (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support close. It's been handled. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Per consenus here, it is acknowledged that Vintagekits did break the terms of his parole, but they were relatively minor infringements, and most probably an honest mistake.. I have already made it clear to him since his block that his restrictions (especially #6 and #8) apply throughout Wikipedia, including user and user talk pages. Vintagekits is now to be unblocked and his probation reset for three months. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copied from WP:ANI...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 15:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vintagekits' edit here referring to a murder carried out as part of the Troubles as an "honourable deed" seems to be a blatant violation of item 8 of his probation: "For the three month trial, he will not make any reference or comment anywhere on Wikipedia (in article, talk, image or project space, edit summaries or via links off-site) concerning The Troubles."

I attempted to ask Vintagekits about this directly on his talk page to make sure I hadn't somehow misunderstood the intent of the comment (although it seems crystal clear to me) however he deleted my question and flat out refused to respond to it in a civil manner leaving me with no other option but to come here as per the terms of his probation. -- ExNihilo (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically, userspace isn't mentioned in the item - but it does say anywhere on Wikipedia and in edit summaries and, as such, I support some form of punishment...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For reference: Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), warnings and responses (see the intermediate revisions)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be exact: warning,removal by VK (with accusation of sockpuppetry),revert by EN,removal by VK,revert by EN,uncivil removal by VK,VK warning EN about 3RR...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referring to a murder as "pest control/honourable[sic] deed" is really out of line, probation or not this is actionable. The fact that it is in userspace does not make a shred of difference. _{1 != 2} 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why the "sic"? DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It means quoted as it was, despite the spelling. See sic. _{1 != 2} 15:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get off yer high horses - the man just died today have a bit of frickin respect!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remember WP:CIVIL ('frickin' can be seen as unnecessary bad language)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 14:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you for real?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(ec)And why don't you show some respect for the man Crip murdered - calling him a 'pest' and his murder an 'honourable deed' will make his family feel great won't it?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I'm real...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 14:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-educate me - Vk wasn't allowed to comment on the Troubles at his own page? GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct - he's not allowed to mention them anywhere on Wikipedia, much less insult a murder victim and call the horrendous crime against them honourable pest control...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 18:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the summary of the ruling from the current version of his user page is right, and I'm assuming here it is, the above statement is not entirely accurate. The full quote of number 8 is "he will not make any reference or comment anywhere on Wikipedia (in article, talk, image, or project space, edit summaries or via links off-site) concerning The Troubles." While that statement does include the statement "anywhere in Wikipedia", it then goes on to itemize several areas, not including user page, which in context at least implies that the definition of "anywhere in Wikipedia" being used here does not necessarily include his own userpage. However, it might be possible to ask for a clarification from ArbCom itself regarding this, if for whatever reason the editor is not banned permanently as a result of this matter. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was the probation for? to stop VK editing in a disruptive manner and to stay away from Troubles articles - and that I think he has done.--Domer48 (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block and ban proposal[edit]

This is a clear probation violation. Item 10 thereof (10. If he breaks the terms of these conditions, in any way whatsoever, he will be banned from editing indefinitely.) calls for a ban from wiki. I've blocked him and propose the ban be invoked. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His response on his talk page was "You are joking right!?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)" — Rlevse • Talk • 14:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re above, no I'm not joking. I totally agree with this stmt from above "Referring to a murder as "pest control/honourable(sic) deed" is really out of line, probation or not this is actionable. The fact that it is in userspace does not make a shred of difference. 1 != 2 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)" — Rlevse • Talk • 14:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good call - I fully endorse a ban...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 14:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm about to endorse, but is this also a violation, creating a redirect to an article that he's banned from editing? D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it's related to The Troubles, yes, I would have to say. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are we running here? what's our core business? Is it producing a encyclopaedia or is it running a virtual rest home for people who cannot get along with others ? At this stage, the sheer amount of time he takes up, clearly outweighs his value to us in performing our core business. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take that as a ban endorsement. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

::::: You Sure can and let's make sure of that - endorse - his prohibition is clear and explicit - and that edit is clearly going to create wikidrama around his prohibition. I have seen no signs that he suffers from any form of mental deficit that means he cannot understand his prohibition and therefore I can only conclude he made such an edit because he likes the drama. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It's hard to understand what VK was thinking when he made that edit to his user space. He had to know that that was obviously a violation of his agreed probation terms. The community gave him a last chance and he's just thrown it back into the community's face. I endorse the indef block. It will be interesting to see how ArbCom react to this--Cailil ^talk 15:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • "Are you in the right place?" No, you're not. Without wishing to lawyer VK's ban—I haven't been following the case, other than from a distance—this here is WP:ANI. Please take matters of arbitration enforcement to Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Bishonen | talk 15:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Copied to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, make all further comments there...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 15:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The community set clear standards, which were not obeyed. Enough is enough. Endorse. _{1 != 2} 15:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse The trail failed. In that VK cleared his userspace of previous content when posting the comment it appears that he was aware that his tenure was likely to be ended by his action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse. The effect that breaching the terms would have was clear from the outset and I see no way that he could have felt that either the redirect (terms 1 & 4, and the topic ban at the end) or the user page message (term 8) was within them. Pfainuk talk 15:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - I've advised the editor in question of this discussion. Also, I should note, I have myself no previous history with the subject or real substantive existing knowledge of the matters under discussion. Regarding the edit to his user page, the subject of discussion has recently made a comment here indicating that it had not occurred to him that comments on his user page were necessarily within the scope of the arbcom ruling. In all honesty, considering comments and userboxes on other user pages, I have to say that I can see an argument here, particularly considering it was in response to a message which at least to me seems to tacitly say that the matter would be resolved and no further action taken if the concern were addressed. I can't address the matter of the redirect above, not being sufficiently familiar with the rules regarding such things myself, but I cannot myself endorse a ban based on the user page comments which have apparently since been removed. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to clarify in case you don't know John, the man that Christopher McWilliams killed was Billy Wright (nicknamed the "King Rat") they were paramilitaries on either side of the troubles in Northern Ireland (Wright led the LVF and MCWilliams was a member of the INLA). In all honesty I see no possible way that VK could ever have considered a post lauding a paramilitary killing to not be about the troubles. And just to be clear the "honorable deed" that VK linked to pest control[9] is a reference to Wright's nickname--Cailil ^talk 16:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I actually brought up the exact same concern on Vintagekits' talk page several minutes prior to John's post - Vintagekits' response to that was to revert the edit and accuse me of being a sockpuppet (of who I don't know). The exact history of edits is detailed in Dendodge's post above. Vintagekits certainly didn't seem to care about his infraction when I brought it up, it was only when an administrator made the same remark that Vintagekits became compliant (by which time I'd already posted this on the AN/I board). -- ExNihilo (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Vintagekits is undoing any edit made by ExNihilo or concerning ExNihilo on his talkpage saying it's a "witch hunt". I told him to stop, but as you can see, he has deleted my edit too. D.M.N. (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse as well. That edit was outrageously out of line, and I am disappointed (but not surprised) to see support for such an offensive edit summary. Horologium (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I should clarify that my endorsement is based on VK's prior history as well, particularly the large number of socks he has used to edit in the past. Horologium (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse, with regret. The community's patience is not infinite, and frankly that appalling edit is actionable even without the probation and associated issues. Black Kite 17:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree. I am no friend of VKs and his political views are juvenile but I would not want him banned for an entry on his own page. On a narrow reading of his probation terms, it does not appear to be a breach. --MJB (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse - at the moment Vintagekits is completely unapologetic about what was either an end run around, or a direct breach of, the arbcom restriction. Either way, an indefinite block is appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse permanent ban. He has been given more chances to bring his editing behaviour up to community standards than any other editor I've ever seen, and yet he still manages to show contempt for the conditions offered by the most recent probation. Enough is enough. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not endorsed - the guy has been excellent since his unblock, and I've been involved in watching him closely and monitoring for transgressions. He's been hard at work bringing articles like Michael Gomez and Wayne McCullough up to GA/FA status. In this case, I honestly think he goofed - he wasn't thinking, and went ahead and did his memorial thing, as he is wont to do. He's done that before. What he wrote, however, the "pest control" bit was sickening, highly provocative, and totally out of order. He doesn't get off the hook on this one, though, and I'm recommending a month-long block, not for punitive purposes but as a Arb-related sanction. Please also note that Vintagekits feels backed into a corner right now and is responding in the usual manner. Pretty soon, he's going to start telling people to 'fuck off', saying that it's 'bullshit', etc. He tends to lash out when he frustrated and feels picked on. Just so new folks know, and maybe cut the guy a little slack - Alison ^❤ 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally I feel ambivalent here. Again there is no way - none - the he couldn't have known what he did violated the agreement but we could block him for a month, and reset the trial period. 3 months of the same restrictions starting from July 28th 2008--Cailil ^talk 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS in such a situation we may also need to consider extending clause no. 8 of the restrictions to include User space--Cailil ^talk 18:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From his talk page, "I didnt know that the comment I made on my userpage was allowed - honestly I didnt. When User:John asked me to remove it I did straight away - I cant believe I am going to get banned for this especially as I havent edited one political article since my return" - looks like he just slipped up and forgot himself for a minute. Then he was pounced upon and things began to spiral - Alison ^❤ 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If he can say "it wont happen again" and understand why we have a problem with it then I'd support alteration of the block length. That is on condition his editing restriction's clock is reset and starts off again after being unblocked--Cailil ^talk 19:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See here - Alison ^❤ 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I thought he was going to stick to boxing articles. I said if he removed the offending matter from his user page I would leave it at that, so I will keep my word and refrain from endorsing the ban. If he is banned he has nobody to blame but himself. --John (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment After having spoken with VK; I'm not overly convinced with preventing an editor from commenting on his own page (no matter what the topic). GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Could someone arrange to do that transclusion thing that allows VK to respond on his talk page and have his answers come up in this thread? It's a little beyond my technical know-how. Risker (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: This obviously was a serious error in judgment and most of us may disagree strongly with his opinions, but considering "As soon as John raised the concern that he thought it would breach the probation I removed the comment" I'm not sure that we need to indef ban for this incident. He does appear to be trying to abide by the probation. Shell ^babelfish 19:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned about condition #8 of VK's probation (which he's accused of breaching). I find that 'condition #8' is vague; it doesn't say both public & Vk's page is off limits -doesn't make the distinction-. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not endorsed - recommend Alison's solution. It should be noted, however, that VK is a POV warrior, and I don't believe he didn't know better (he seems to continue to push the envelope until he gets blocked, then say "oops"). However, on the stipulation that the probation be extended for a period of an additional 3 months. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not endorsed Yep, it was a stupid thing to do, and in the circumstances, if it had been me, I would have asked one of my mentors before posting. That said, he's stuck to the terms of his probation very well till now. Personally, per Cailil and Alison, I'd adjust his probation term #8 to explicitly include user pages, and restart the clock on his probation. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Modify term #8 and reset the probation - Alison ^❤ 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse ban per Allison. Her own commentary, while not supporting the ban, makes it clear he's not the kind of editor we need to be tolerating here. But, a seriously long block might is better than nothing, so that's my second choice. Friday (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment- this is what happends when admins allow users who support terrorism and murder to freely edit, and then punish and bully those who oppose them. I am surprised he lasted this long without some outrage or another. Astrotrain (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not endorsed - for ban, but do endorse resetting the probation clock for three months from today, under the same terms, as per Alison and Cailil above. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not endorsed I guess it is a case of VKs frustration at being unable to actually edit the article that leads to this. I also note that all those running to block and endorse the block of VK in the beginning have not edited the article (and it needed it for grammar etc), were making no effort to add him to Deaths in 2008 et al. Some people prefer drama to actual editing, it seems. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO a week long block would be appropriate but a longer one let alone an indef block is completely OTT. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (from AN)Reply[reply]

Agree. Especially worrying here is that the nature of the comment (a perfectly valid view IMHO) appears to be a factor in the eyes of some; rather than whether or not this breaches the "conditions" and if so was that clear to Vk. Folk need to park their political POV when assessing this. Sarah777 (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree with what most of Friday and Allemandtando say, we put up with far too much here. Last I checked, userpages were part of "anywhere on Wikipedia" and the edit may also violate term number 6 (that's a little more questionable as it would need to be determined if it was "seriously" offensive) but arguing that userpages don't count as "anywhere on Wikipedia" because they weren't explicitly mentioned is just silly. Mr.Z-man 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment If we're going to nit-pick and wikilawyer about the phrasing of clause #8 and whether or not user talk space is included, how about this edit in the main article space, where he created a redirect to the McWilliams article? Without dispute, that would be a violation of clause #8 #1 if we're looking for technicalities. The point is that Vintagekits cannot stay away from Irish political articles, and he cannot refrain from making inappropriate comments. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's done this sort of thing before, said he won't do it again, so how do we know he won't. He's had multiple chances and blown every one. He also seems to fail to understand the callousness of what he said. He knew the terms of his probation and keep pushing the limits to see what he can get away with. He violated the terms and terms clearly say a ban is what the result is. A three-month probation obviously isn't getting his attention. So what will? More probation? I don't. He's not very convincing in his sincerity. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well Billy Wright was hardly a nice chap himself, I am afraid. I think VK thought this was outside the probation conditions, hence something like a week is a correct block but an indef is completely OTT and generally disruptive to the encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there were no probation in question, maybe, but the probation terms are very clear-violation=ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I endorse the ban. DustiSPEAK!! 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I endorse a ban as well, his comments above certainly didn't help his case. Mr.Z-man 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly... putting that on your userpage violates the probation terms (yes, the terms don't specify userspace, but that's a technicality). You agreed that if you breach them, you get banned. Endorse Alex Muller 17:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, he knows that his views on this subject are controversial; he knows he's not supposed to inflame things about them; and he did something that was clearly designed to provoke a reaction. Endorse. Dr. eXtreme 17:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not endorse: What can one say? Yet again Vintagekits proves himself to be his own worst enemy. I fought hard for him to be allowed to return under strict provisions. I thought they has been fully explained to him, clearly not. The only thing I can say in his defence is that this does seem a minor transgression, and I know that he though it was OK to make the edit in what appears to be grey area Bearing in mind his many good edits and attempts to land his first FA, he has proven his potential. So perhaps the clock could be reset. Giano (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not endorsed I can't believe I'm agreeing with SqueakBox, but he and Alison have a point. VK has been really well behaved recently and I think we shouldn't be so hasty to kick him off again. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His probation did not say "If you behave well...we'll ignore the terms of the probation or if it's considered minor". It says a violation=ban. The terms also said "any area of wikipedia", and user pages are part of wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments like this (see his talk page) are not helping him: "Sickening to you - not to others - the man is a hero to many for killing "King Rat" the sectarian bigot and murderer. Crip is known as "the rat-catcher" by many hence the reference to pest control but if you have known what you were talking about before you jumped in then none of your drama causing would have been needed. John asked me to remove the comment and I did and that should have been the end of it but you have been gagging to block me for weeks and didnt need much of an excuse. --Vintagekits (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)"...Not to mention the email he sent me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Totally object, let alone endorse. The comments about the sentiments expressed being "outside the pale" on Wiki are pure POV and make the motives of the editors making those statements suspect. The only issues are:
• Was Vk in breach? - Questionable
• If so, did he realise he was? - Doubtful
• Is this (on his own talkpage) serious enough for a permanent ban? - Absolutely not.

Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seriousness of the violation is not part of his probation terms, it says any violation=ban. His terms said anywhere on wiki and user pages are part of wiki. And yes, he did violate his terms. I wonder how the family deceased would feel this is minor. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The family of which deceased? Crips or Billy Wright? Or maybe Wright's victims? See - this type of comment is why this call for a ban must be dismissed forthwith. It is based on political POV. In my opinion. Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you read the article on Billy Wright. he wasn't exactly a saint and it is not for wikipedia to take sides in any The Troubles dispute. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's in that article is not germane to the issue. What is germane is VK's postings, that they violate his terms--that's almost unanimous--, and that the terms in such a case call for a ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You really need to lighten up and be flexibkle here. remeber iAR is about what is good for the prioject and judging VKs intemntions and what is best for the porject and indef block is completely inappropriate. And wikipedia is not subject to law and strictly legal interpretaions in the way government law is, it is there to help make the encyclopedia work. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the purpose of probation and sanctions if we're not going to enforce them? We may as well turn wiki over to the disruptors and POV pushers. This is last in a long line of problems with this user. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right Sarah777, POV doesn't come into it, it's simply down to the facts. And they seem to be quite clear:

• Was Vk in breach?/If so, did he realise he was? Yes, he referenced violence during The Troubles knowing full well that a condition of his ban was to not post about the Troubles anywhere on Wikipedia.
• Is this (on his own talkpage) serious enough for a permanent ban? You don't seem to understand the concept of 'probation' - the point is that this is apparently just the last in a long line of indiscretions. The entire point of the probation with it's explicit rules and explicitly having a single repercussion for any deviation from those rules was to signify that any such breach however small would be the straw that broke the camel's back. Yes, if you take any single thing on its own then of course it won't correspond to an indefinite ban, the probation seems to have existed to try and break a pattern of behaviour. Clearly it hasn't worked. Failing to follow through on the rules of the probation now would only serve to undermine all of that and encourage any would-be miscreants since they'll know that no matter what terms are placed against someone to prevent bad behaviour, WP will back down when push comes to shove and every 'last-final-ultimate chance' will be rolled over again and again and again. I was vaguely aware of some of Vintagekits' issues on WP but I must admit I've looked back and it's truly shocking how many "last chances" he's already had.

-- ExNihilo (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having read the thread above I suggest that anyone who finds the comments unacceptable, (as distinct from disagreeable), should take no further part in this debate as they are clearly unable to abide by the Wiki principle of WP:NPOV. I saw this demonstrated by a variety of editors during my own block . The conflation of my views on The Troubles, with my views on Anglosphere POV, with incivility, reverting a totally unrelated area and alleged breach of Arbcom Rulings would have been a hoot has I not been the subject of so much bile, confusion and misinformation. We need to start dealing with these issues with much greater clarity and logic and common sense. And from a position of clinical respect for WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ExNihilo, I think your comments point to inadequacies in wikipedia's way of dealing with political disputes and editors and not to do directly with VK. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's amazing how so many people who have never been on AE before are showing up here. And Sarah, I think anyone who finds his comments acceptable should cease discussion here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is AE? And your basis for your statement (in Wiki policy) is...what? (As for his comments I don't just find them acceptable I fully agree with them). Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AE is the page you're on, Arbitration Enforcement, WP:AE. And glad you admit you find glorifying murder acceptable, ergo admitting your bias here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I the only person who finds the glorifying of murderkilling disruptive? This would warrant a block even if it was not a user with such a troubled past and a direct prohibition from that subject. Come on folks, enough is enough. _{1 != 2} 23:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be the only person who reckons that welcoming the execution of a sectarian mass-murderer is "glorifying of murder". I don't really know. But I'd personally find attacking someone for expressing a positive view of such an action disruptive, enough being enough etc. (Really - best to leave the political POV and moral outrage at home - it has no place here). Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oddly enough, most people would find a comment expressing a opinion on a murder as "pest control" sickening regardless of who it was about - I would've endorsed some sort of ban here whether it was VK or one of Lauder and his chums. Since you actually agree with the comment, it is clear that it is you that whose failure of WP:NPOV means you should cease commenting here. Black Kite 14:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since when is the userspace the appropriate place to express political views? When banned from that very subject by the community? Since when is linking to "pest control" in reference to a killing a positive view? Such opinions belong on a blog. _{1 != 2} 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you are not expressing a political view - right here?!!!! Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only view I made was "Such opinions belong on a blog", not really a political view. _{1 != 2} 12:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ya's may aswell end this little argument, it's only gonna be a stalemate. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, I don't reckon it's a stalemate - we are both expressing political views but only one of us seems to be aware of it! (Back to the ole embedded Anglo-pov thingy again I guess). Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An anglo POV I, SB, pretty broadly support, but that does not mean I do not want those who think differently, like VK and 777, to be unable to edit. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse The terms were clear and a last ditch effort, he broke them and so the consequence is pretty clear. A promise that he will not break his promises again is fairly worthless. It was tried, it failed. Lets move on to better things. EDIT: If there is a view that the cost of keeping VK around is worth the gain, then at the least we should look at lengthening his probation rather than a short period ban? A short period ban would be punitive and gain nothing. Lengthening the restrictions on the troubles seem like a sensible choice, though I would say at this point you just ban him from mentioning the troubles full stop, indef. Just block him from editing those articles and getting involved in trouble discussions and be done with it. Heck, providing admin were willing to police it, I'd even prefer such a lenghtening of the topicban instead of an indef ban. Narson (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Edited: Narson (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not endorsed Agree with Sarah I very much doubt VK realised that this would breach his ban and at any such rate a short term block would be more suitable not an outright ban.Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I'm not going to say endorse or not endorse as I'm not totally clear what I would be endorsing or not, but the facts of the issue seem fairly plain to me: 1) Vintagekits has been on good behaviour since his return and has done some excellent work in article space. 2) Vintagekits cannot have been unaware that the comment in his Userspace was provocative, disruptive and totally in violation of the spirit of his parole, whatever the technicalities of the case may be. 3) McWilliams and Wright's actions during their lives are totally irrelevant to this discussion - no matter how much Vintagekits liked McWilliams and disliked Wright, he knows full well that a comment such as the one he made is inappropriate from any user and especially inflammatory from someone with his block and edit history. 4) Long term editing bans imposed on Vintagekits have twice failed before and are unlikely to succeed in this instance. On the basis of this, I endorse Alison's suggestion of a short week/month ban and a reset of the probation clock to the day of his return. --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. I would like clarification of the comment above: Not to mention the email he sent me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC) before offering an opinion. Rockpocket 00:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse – He made a reference to The Troubles, thereby breaking Stipulation 10 of his probation, which nowhere mentions giving leeway if there is a precedent of good behavior. We're debating whether or not he violated the terms of his probation, not if the community approves of banning him. —Animum (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Per Alison above and Ryan Postlethwaite below; this is the last second chance he's going to get. I strongly encourage him not to engage in anything relating to The Troubles whatsoever. —Animum (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Err, no, we are discussing whether to endorse the indef block or not, that is the issue at hand. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then I suggest that change; this page is for Arbitration enforcement, not attempts at redrafting the conditions that the Arbitration Committee set forth. —Animum (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was not the arbcom who set the conditions. That was reached by consensus by all interested parties. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that does indeed change things. Above comment amended appropriately. —Animum (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• VK was already been banned once under the terms of the RfAR. While that ban was being discussed, he was apparently offered an unblock if he'd agree to very specific terms governing his return.User:Vintagekits/terms[10] The first provision is: He may edit only sporting articles and their associated talk pages... He agreed to those terms,[11] and was unblocked. The terms say, in bold lettering, that he will be banned indefinitely if there is any violation, "in any way whatsoever". While still under that agreement VK broke it by creating a redirect concerning a figure in the Troubles and by postings on his user page. If the user did not have the contribution hsitory of KV, if he had not already been blocked so many times, if he had not agree to be blocked indefinitely for any violation whatsoever, or if he had shown contrition, then the situation would be different. However, given the entire chain of events and agreements, and weighing the net benefits to the project, I believe that the right course of action is to enforce the indefinite ban that VK agreed to when he was unbanned recently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse ban ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorese ban - after seeing the rest of the discussion and given the additional issue with the creation of the redirect, it doesn't seem that he's going to be able to stay out of the issues voluntarily. Shell ^babelfish 01:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse. I have never had any interaction whatsoever with the user in question, nor participated in any way in articles related to the topic(s) for which he was sanctioned, therefore I consider myself to be entirely neutral in this AE. As I see it, the user has clearly violated the explicit and agreed terms of his probation, by creating the redirect page and userpage comment aforementioned. To avoid enforcing the ban because it was his userpage and not mainspace is a thin reed given the all-encompassing nature of the original probation terms. An action in direct violation of probation is altogether different that a problematic edit as an isolated occurrence. To fail to enforce would erode confidence in the entire ArbComm process. JGHowes ^talk - 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I was going to say Endorse, but having read Alison's response, I'm saying Not Endorse, but block until August 1st, 2008. D.M.N. (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not endorsed: Alison summed it up pretty well. Vin loves to edit, and the articles on boxing would be at a loss without him. --Domer48 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse (assuming us normal editor can vote); not solely for the offensive talk page comment; but for the creation of Crip McWilliams, which surely counts as a troubles article. (disclosure: I'm one of those on the other side of the troubles; or rather that's my historical viewpoint.) --Blowdart | ^talk 13:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To be fair to VK, he made that in Dec 2006, long before the probation. Narson (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • He's talking about the fact that Vintagekits made the redirect for Crip McWilliams yesterday. -- ExNihilo (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I didn't even notice it was a redirect. Yes. My mistake. Definatly a blatant breach, not in user space...I can't see it being defended. Have we been given any explanation? Narson (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse per JGHowes. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment My support for a ban is for a topic ban, not for a total ban from WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • VK is already under a topic ban which he violated despite his explicit agreement to be banned indefinitely if he should violate it in any way whatsoever. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse - This editor would be no loss, countless hours have been wasted discussing this editors behaviour, time which could have been spent constructively editing wikipedia. Snappy56 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment; I notice that yet more editors are expressing support for a ban based on their POV rather than any breach of any Wiki-policy. This is so reminiscent of my own recent experience - I really do think that such opinions should be disallowed in procedures such as this. It tends to trivialise the whole AE process and undermine its credibility. And they seem incapable of even seeing their pov for what it is - eg Black Kite for example. Also folk who point out that I (who make no bones about it) also have a POV are not understanding the central issue here. WP:NPOV clearly demands that such loaded language and POV be kept out of articles and, indeed, due process such as this. It does not refer to talkpages. Remember the phrase "terrorist" is outlawed in Wiki-articles because it is recognised to be POV-laden and in conflict situations "murder" isn't necessarily a word compatible with WP:NPOV. Just try stating that the US soldiers in Iraq or British soldiers in Afghanistan "murdered" somebody and you'll get a crash course in how "loaded" some folk regard that term. "This editor would be no loss" (by Snappy) is a comment I find in breach of WP:CIVIL and is a judgment on Vk's work in boxing articles - a totally separate issue to what is being discussed here. Again, in my "trial" I had many editors with very skimpy contribution histories and of highly questionable value feeling that the "trial" gave them licence to denigrate me in all sorts of ways unconnected to my alleged crimes. These type of comments should also alert the community to the motives and POV of the hardliners calling for Vk's head. Sarah777 (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making bad faith accusations doesn't help Sarah, and is exactly my concern for these things. We don't need more editors in trouble over this. Narson (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not making "bad faith" accusations. (1) I have identified issues raised by editors here that should play no part in these proceedings (2) I said certain editors were not able to recognise their own POV; that isn't an accusation of bad faith (3) I have identified what I beleive is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL (4) I think 'motive' is very important to consider in these type of politically charged situations and the discussion here certainly indicates to me that much of the endorsement of the banning of Vk is based on political POV which should play no part here - I thought I have demonstrated that clearly in my arguments? Sarah777 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That others have POV is a given. Assuming others have made their decisions based purely on that POV and thus dismissing them does seem rather bad faith. Leave it up to whoever has the unpleasant task of deciding on this. I'm sure we can all find something to edit rather than this. Heck, we could always do with more Pokemon articles! Narson (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At least I admitted mine; can you honestly claim that you have no POV in this matter; given your background and upbringing? I don't mind being accused of POV, however I find your attempt to paint yourself whiter that white disingenuous. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO, all comments should be removed from this AE case. Leaving just the endorse & no endorse votes in place. That way, there's no room for arguing. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd agree that only comments specifically referring to the matter at hand and not irrelevant issues should feature. No comment at all would make the debate rather difficult to evaluate! (We already know that vastly more editors are closer to "mainstream" pov than to Vk's; a simple vote would only appear to confirm that - rather than the merits of the case) Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that every time I make a comment on Wikipedia a certain editor accuses me of breaching WP:CIVIL, well what I should have added to my original comment was that calling a killing - pest control - and congratulating the killer and expressing condolences on the death of the killer is clear breach of the terms of Vintagekits parole. Snappy56 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree Reading most of these comments, it's obvious that the objectionable part was the reference to "pest control". At first glance it appears wholly inappropriate, but I now understand that it is a term used even by Loyalists. It is dubious if this sentence is taken to be in breach of (the spirit of) the ArbCom ruling - it is VK tipping his cap at the death of a Republican, which is something I believe he frequently does. However objectionable the comment, it should be referred back to ArbCom for clarification if this is in breach or not. Knee jerk reactions from uninvolved/uninformed editors are not helpful. --Bardcom (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Sarah, rather than get bogged down in the POV issue, lets remain focused on what this discussion is about: whether Vk was in violation of his terms of probation. According to the terms that he willingly signed up to, Term 10: If he breaks the terms of these conditions, in any way whatsoever, he will be banned from editing indefinitely. The community could decide to to implement an alternative consequence at its discretion (and indeed some have made that proposal), but there can be little argument over what the default consequence is. So then, the question is has Vk broke the terms of these conditions, and perhaps also, since it is important to some editors, was this done in a manner that is POV dependent?

• Term 6: He will not use any obscene, blasphemous, racist, seriously offensive or threatening language. Well, clearly some editors have deemed his comments to be offensive. That is understandable. But it ultimately comes down to a POV.
• Term 8: He will not make any reference or comment anywhere on Wikipedia (in article, talk, image or project space, edit summaries or via links off-site) concerning The Troubles. He clearly made a comment in reference to the Troubles on his user-page. The problem here is that there is a list of qualifiers and that list does not include user-space. That was my oversight, because I drafted that sentence. I certainly intended user-space to be included (which was why it was preceded by "anywhere on Wikipedia"). But nevertheless, it comes down to a POV whether or not the absence of it mentioned expressly would mean that this term was broken or not.
• Term 8: He will not make any reference or comment anywhere on Wikipedia (in article, talk, image or project space, edit summaries or via links off-site) concerning The Troubles. Unfortunately, he put the words RIP CRIP in the edit summary of the aforementioned edit. Therefore in doing so he technically did break term 8. No POV issue here.
• Term 1: He may edit only sporting articles and their associated talk pages, excluding any article with connections to The Irish Troubles. Vk created the redirect Crip McWilliams [12] That is not a sporting article and it clearly has connections to The Irish Troubles: a pretty clear, albeit perhaps minor, violation of term 1 and no POV issue.

So, these are the issues as I see them. Is there any serious doubt that Vk technically broke at least 1 term of his conditions? I can't see how there can be. The question then, I guess, is does the community wish for term 10, which was written to follow automatically, to do just that? Or would they prefer an alternative consequence commensurate with the seriousness of the breach (such as a reset of the parole +/- a lengthy block)? Alternatively, some may prefer no consequence at all to supersede term 10, because they feel it was merely a technicality. This comes down to a personal opinion and appears to be the basis by which people are endorsing or opposing. I am not going to !vote either way, because I tried to stay neutral during the drafting and presentation of these conditions, and thus I would rather try and state the issue under debate without bias one way or the other. Rockpocket 23:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reset parole terms - agree that it was 'clear' (Term 1), but minor and perhaps accidental breach. Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accidental? Creating a comment he knows would tweak multiple editors, an edit specifically related to the troubles? If that's accidental then he has serious bad luck. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If VK had apologized for his actions and said he'd made a mistake then it would be easier to regard this is as an accident. Instead, he has deleted posting on his talk page asking for clarification. He isn't calling it an accident and seems to feel that he was within his rights to do what he did. I see no indication that he would act differently in the future if unbanned (again). If I've overlooked his expressions of remorse please correct me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think this is a key point. Clearly VK was guilty of an error of judgment, for which he's being - I think rightly - criticised. The question is whether he is willing to take responsibility for his error. Has he done so? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The terms did not specify minor/major, but any vio. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move to close[edit]

I move to close this report. Clearly there is no consensus for a permanent ban; yes, VK made a stupid mistake but I am sure that by now he will understand that next time he makes such a mistake a permanent ban from WP will be a done deal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure that is going to work, because Vk is currently indef blocked (which, technically speaking, was the appropriate admin action proscribed by the probation terms.) The question is: is there any consensus that we should consider an alternative course of action. Rockpocket 01:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only consensus here is that if look at who is not actually involved in the dispute, there is a consensus for the ban. The probation clearly specified a vio=ban, with no leeway. The terms clearly said "anywhere on wiki" and user pages are part of wiki. How he could not understand that is baffling to me. He was obviously on his last chance. This thread is chock full of The Troubles editors from both sides, all but a few of whom have not participated at AE before. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rlevse, it seems that this was a mistake by this user, and he has been making good edits on unrelated articles. I would argue for a second chance here on that basis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explain to me how he misunderstood "anywhere on wiki". His attitude during this hasn't been exemplary either -on and off wiki. I got a less than polite email from him. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm staying out of the discussion, and could if this was ready close it. However, I don't think it is ready. It will be ready to close when one of the following statements is true: 1) there is a consensus of uninvolved editors and admins about the future course of action, or 2) discussion has died away after an adequate discussion period (which will not be before July for this item), or 3) VK has been blocked long enough that a significant fraction of administrative commentators believe he should be immediately unblocked. If you think there is a consensus about the future course of action, you should be able to positively describe that conensus, not merely say there is no consensus for option "X" - that option X is not consensus is certainly not evidence that consensus exists. GRBerry 02:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support closing per Jossi, with unblock of Vintagekits. Let's look at the chronology. In real life, someone Vintagekits knows dies. This person has an article on Wikipedia. VK, as he has done in the past (for example, when a Wikipedia editor involved in editing The Troubles passed away), clears his pages and posts a "RIP" message, linking to the WP article. He notes that there is no redirect from one of the names the WP article's subject is commonly known by, and creates the redirect. (That's not exactly editing an article, it's such a routine task for experienced editors that it comes as second nature. Vintagekits has made dozens of such redirects, as he historically has worked in articles where the subject is known by more than one name.) When he is told that the way in which he has linked his friend's name could breach the editing restrictions, he immediately modifies the link. He doesn't argue about it. He has been remorseful on his talk page. It's doubtful that anyone considered routine encyclopedic maintenance such as redirects as being problematic when developing the editing restrictions - either VK or those who wrote up the restrictions. Clearly, that will not happen again. Risker (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Amended to specify that desired outcome is unblock, per Rockpocket's comment below. Risker (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You left out the insulting the deceased part. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it is totally irrelevant and that is why this block should be lifted asap as being basically unsound and unfair. Sarah777 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the contrary, it's at the heart of the matter, ie, re the "seriously offensive " (item 6) part of his terms. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To describe this remark as "seriously offensive" is pure POV. I didn't find the remarks offensive at all, and I'm easily offended. And as you are (I think) the blocking Admin that Rockpocket reckons has the final say in this we have a serious problem here. Sarah777 (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to agree. The problem is that the phrasing "seriously offensive" is calling for a POV conclusion from outsiders. It doesn't specificy to whom the remark is seriously offensive, and, not saying that is the case here, even the slightest sourced disparagement of somebody's hero would likely be seen as seriously offensive to that person's fan. On that basis, I would have to say that that particular term should either be discounted and if possible avoided in the future. But I do not think it would be at all useful to seek to apply that term of probation as sufficient cause here. Regarding the redirect, if it is a reasonable redirect, offensive or not, and I don't know the subject well enough to say anything one way or another, I would have to say it would be at best a minor matter. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we close, Vk will very likely remain indef blocked as he is currently. The blocking admin is content with the block and there is certainly not a consensus to reverse it. Closing does not appear conducive to the outcome you are advocating. Rockpocket 03:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point, Rockpocket, I have amended my comment above. Risker (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sarah777, it is not totally irrelevant. See item 6 of Vintagekits' probation. Specifically the term "seriously offensive". It has nothing to do with POV, surely even someone who agrees generally with Vintagekits' sentiment such as yourself (I assume from previous comments) can see that the remark could be considered seriously offensive by anyone regardless of their opinions on The Troubles or the two men involved. That means decisions based on item 6 being breached are no less valid than any others. -- ExNihilo (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To describe this remark as "seriously offensive" is pure POV. I didn't find the remarks offensive at all. Sarah777 (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And to dismiss it points to your own pure POV attitude; especially given your upbringing. I can at least admit my bias; I'd like to see you do the same. If the comment had been racist would that be POV too? Probably by your arguments. Does that excuse it? No. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "When he is told that the way in which he has linked his friend's name could breach the editing restrictions, he immediately modifies the link." Not immediately. The entire reason I had to bring this probation violation up in ANI in the first place was because I attempted to point out to Vintagekits on his talk page that the edit breached his probation and he persistently deleted my comments until I had no choice but to bring it up there. It was only later (after I had posted to ANI) that John also told Vintagekits he should remove the edit and he complied. In other words this isn't a case of Vintagekits forgetting himself or not thinking that the edit conflicted. Even if he miraculously didn't know it when he made the edit, he certainly knew it when I pointed it out - and his decision was to delete my comment and ignore it. That paints a very different picture of the situation in my book -- ExNihilo (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He should have his block shortened to a few days and then, and only then, close the thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I see no consensus to either ratify or overturn Rlevse's decision, so I do not support closure yet. As for the issue at hand, I note that the community agreed to the byzantine conditions for Vintagekits' current probation—as did Vintagekits himself—so it is utterly inconsistent for the community to change or ignore these rules after Vintagekits broke them. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good point, and let's not forget what brought those conditions upon VK--long term problems (which I had no part in). And again, if you, for the sake of making a point, you disallow all the comments from both sides from those involved The Troubles, meaning look at those who are neutral, there is a consensus for the ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I don't think you can eliminate the comments of all those involved! That would leave the decision to those with least appreciation of the circumstances around this and I certainly would continue to have issues with folk who keep introducing the "offensive" nature of the comments being involved in the decision. Sarah777 (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keeping this open, on the other hand, does no good for either VK or the community. The block was correct (That is technically, I'm not getting into the moral imperitives of right/wrong) per the terms of the probation. If I am correct, this does not preclude people from campaigning for VK to be unblocked under a fresh set of probation terms, ones which can be tighter and more obvious perhaps, so we don't end up with this situation. Not to say it wouldn't be more of an uphill struggle to get consensus for probation again, I do think VK has abused the trust the community put in him and I am disappointed, but it is by no means impossible. Or am I getting indef block and indef ban mixed up again and VK would be gone for good if this is enforced? Narson (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure but I think he'd be gone for good. Could someone clarify this? Sarah777 (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:BANNED. First, note people use the term 'banned' loosely when they really mean blocked. A ban, per WP:BANNED, means they can't edit wiki at all and can not come back, except with the slim chance arbcom permits it (doesn't happen very often). An indef block can, with wide community support, be overturned. There are also topic bans, where they can not edit a certain area of wiki or mention said area (sort of what VK's terms were). — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, the redirect. It's hardly a contentiously named redirect (unlike some that could be created to countless articles), and if anyone had gone to ANI and said that VK should be banned for daring to create that redirect then hopefully they would be laughed off the noticeboard. Now for the comments he made on his userpage, which are indenfensible. However many familiar with VK, including people who have strongly opposed him in the past such as Bastun and Maxburgoyne, are not in favour of a ban. Can VK be banned for this? Yes, but should he? We're not mindless drones, we can apply common sense and ignore all rules, even though there isn't a rule that says we have to ban him. There's no point in losing his many positive contributions to boxing articles especially with the upcoming Olympics over an ill-judged comment on his userpage.

And while I'm here, shame on the recent changes patrollers who didn't spot that the unsourced death of someone had been added to an article. Shame on the people who edited the article after that without adding a source for his death, which didn't happen until almost ten hours later. Shame on the people, especially admins, that argued about whether an indefinite block and ban should apply while McWilliams' death was unsourced. Shame on all of you. Shame on the people who preach from on high about the Troubles, while ignoring that the Pat Finucane article turned from this (which is relatively neutral, though far from comprehensive and in need of plenty of work) into this which is unbelievably still the current version of the article. Shame on the recent changes patrollers that didn't revert this addition to an article about a living person, which stayed in the article for about 36 hours. But I bet if VK had removed that you'd have the same people saying he should be banned as he'd breached his probation by editing that article too right? Shame on you all.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VK has had multiple chances before and was on his last chance, and he blew it. Shame on all those who propose we waste even more of our time on him...he doesn't exactly have a track record that enables confidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's the mindless drones who are arguing for a ban which isn't even permitted per WP:BAN (read the policy) that are wasting time. It's a pity you can't respond to criticism of your own shortcomings with an admission of error but instead attack the messenger, not much more needs to be said about your failings... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now you're calling several people, including me, in this thread "mindless drones". Sounds like personal attacks to me. And yes, it is permitted by policy and his terms. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cry me a river. I see at least one uninvolved admin saying he should be unblocked (under certain terms), therefore he isn't banned. What you're suggesting is that a locally implemented consensus (VK's original unblock conditions) can trump the banning policy, when as everyone knows a local consensus cannot ever trump policy. So no, it isn't permitted by policy. If you want to talk about time being wasted, the comment was gone after John asked VK to remove it and said no more would be said about it, so everything else has been pointless drama. And who started it? The person who has the cheek to complain about other people wasting time. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Hackney on the most part. Yes, VK made a mistake. Yes, VK has apologised. However, banning him is the worst possible solution. VK is a damn good editor, as a matter of fact a article he's been working on recently is about to become a Featured article, VK is a dedicated editor, however, like all of us, he made a mistake. He admitted it. I would prefer to see VK unblock and let all this drama go away before someone gets seriously hurt over it. Wear here to discuss - unfortunately at the moment it looks like we're beating a dead horse. VK has apologised, on reflection he knows what he's done wrong, so I say unblock and let us all get back to doing what we are all good and that is improve the encyclopedia. Too much time is being spent with this discussion when it shouldn't me IMO. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, not to argue with each other. D.M.N. (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is there a perception that Vintagekits is such a stellar editor on boxing articles? He has exhibited unacceptable behaviour in that topic space also, such as repeatedly calling another editor a "moron" for that editor trying to undo Vintagekits' own mistake (cut&paste move), while he was using a sockpuppet to make those edits. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He is not a stellar editor. Most of his contributions are badly written, and need to be put into proper English by more experienced writers. He does provide images, but most of them sectarian in nature. He has caused nothing but trouble since he arrived here, his only supporters being those who share his violent anti-British views, or those deluded enough to believe he can change! Astrotrain (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excuse me. That is uncalled for, and I ask you to retract that. Risker (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, check his blocked log [13]. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A ban is overkill. Several of VK's boxing-related edits have been showing up on my watchlist since he was unblocked, all of them within what is expected of a contributive user, they are done in good faith, outside of that if he uses professional-level language is irrelevant. I personally reviewed Michael Gomez when it was taken to FAC. A single mistake doesn't justify a ban when weighted against his other contributions during this timeframe. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This wasn't a single mistake, just one of a series. The terms he himself agreed to are clear. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment VK may have expressed remorse, but he still he links directly to Crip McWilliams on his talk page. [14] That's over three days where he has made no effort to remove the link that violates the terms of his probation. Whatever happens I don't think an unblock should be considered until VK stops this ongoing violation of the terms. Edward321 (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus[edit]

As a battle is starting to break out, let's bring some order back into proceedings. We have some interesting ideas already in this discussion, and both sides certainly have weight. VK broke the restriction - we all agree with that, and that should lead to a ban per the original agreement. On the other side we have people suggesting that whilst he broke the terms, it was very minor and most probably a mistake. Also, he's been working hard on boxing articles and people can see a real change in character. So how do I see the consensus? Well - a number of admins oppose this and would be willing to unblock, so VK can't be banned. He could be blocked indef per consensus, but this just games WP:BAN because it is in effect the same conclusion. The way I see the "consensus" of this discussion, given the definition of a community ban and the fact that one can't be enacted now, is that the probation should be reset, VK counselled and told explicity that if this happens again, however minor, he won't get another chance. We can all get back to doing things we enjoy doing, and VK can get back to work on those boxing articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - although I think very definite terms regarding what is and is not acceptable on the user page and everywhere else in wikipedia should be spelled out. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the size of the support for a complete ban here, I'll make it clear to VK that where there's a restriction about commenting on a topic, or any other restriction that has undefined spaces for that matter, he should consider that it is a restriction for all namespaces within Wikipedia. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - I think this is a good summary and a good idea. Vintagekits and I have had our problems in the past, but he has clearly improved his attitude in recent weeks and I think a reset probabtion and a clear and unequivocal warning will be adequate in this instance. I would also support a short ban to allow this issue to die down, although it is not essential to my support. What must be made absolutely clear however, is that any further Troubles related shennanigans or aggressive behaviour towards other editors will bring an extensive if not permanent ban.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - No comments. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support No drama, no arguments, VK to be unblocked by the Olympics at the latest. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - Sarah777 (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per Ryan. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per Ryan. I'll unblock him myself if there's consensus here. I'd also like the see the conditions around term #8 tightened a bit; both for his sake and that of the community. No more wiggle-room for mistakes - Alison ^❤ 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support with modification to probation I'd prefer an extension of the troubles topic ban to indefinate, I think its pretty clear it brings out the worst in VK and the drama does not bring out the best in anyone else. I don't think in 3 months he will be a different VK and I don't think in 3 months the community will want to handle all this over again. Lets just nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem and the 'ban' hand is forced. Narson (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support No drama, no arguments. --Domer48 (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support sounds like the best plan. Shell ^babelfish 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support, agree with Alison that we can tighten up #8, and perhaps add a condition that he is strongly encouraged to remove any "Troubles" related comments placed on his talk page by other editors and that such removal will not constitute breaking the terms of his editing conditions. Risker (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I think that makes sense too. He could even place a template on the talk page that no such comments are welcome there. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per Ryan. The current block should be no longer than a week though. -Bardcom (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support leaving blocked till 15th, then unblocking under the conditions listed, which should be applied strictly. _{1 != 2} 13:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support – seems reasonable. —Animum (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Rudget (logs) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per Ryan. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support unblock, and short blocks for vios of probation. He has hugely improved his behaviour and this should be rewarded. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment There's already been one proposal on this page. Do the !votes for that proposal count towards/against this one? If that proposal has been rejected it should be marked that way. I don't see how the !votes for this proposal can outweigh the !votes already cast. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, this was my take on the consensus for the first proposal, taking into account that a community ban wasn't possible, because some admins were against it, this was how I thought we should move forward. It's the same as the initial parole, but reset from the date of any unblock with a strong warning that infringement any other time will result in an indef block. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Since when do we need to explicitly reject older discussion to continue into new discussion? First thing to take into account that it is not really a vote but a series of opinions. If you take the attitude that each comment needs to count towards a certain tally then consensus will be difficult to find. Reading through this section it does seem an agreement has been reached. _{1 != 2} 13:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support (though "accept" is probably more appropriate). If we get that far - let's hope so - the end of the topic ban (that lasts a year from the end of the probation) should be reviewed at that time. Pfainuk talk 22:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concrete details[edit]

While I still think this is the wrong path to take and stand by my already-stated views, I also agree it is time to end this. Therefore, I will support User:Ryan Postlethwaite in his efforts to seek a resolution here. Therefore, I propose the following:

• The probation period be extended and end on Dec 31, 2008 (amend item 8 accordingly)
• The indef block I placed will end Jul 15, 2008 and shall only be removed by an arb clerk or clerk helper.
• The phrase "anywhere on Wikipedia" includes User:Vintagekits's user page and user talk page and redirects--anywhere on Wikipedia is included. If other editors place items related to "The Troubles", he may remove them from his page and this will not be considered an infraction. Disparging remarks about others, living or deceased are also not allowed. [User:Vintagekits]]'s can post a memorial of a non-offense nature related to The Troubles (such as "In Memory of Joe Smith"--such a memorial shall not including disparaging remarks towards others.(amend item 8 accordingly)
• Any further infractions, however minor, will result in an immediate ban as soon as the indef block is placed, with no complaining, no "I'm sorry please forgive me again", "it's minor". (amend item 10 accordingly)
• If the community wants to make a list of articles User:Vintagekits is prohibited from editing, I suggest Ryan Postlethwaite and Alison work on that together and add it to the terms of probation.
• The final version of the terms be posted on User:Vintagekits's talk page, he agrees to them with an on-wiki statement, then User:Vintagekits/terms be adjusted accordingly.

Note: I agree with Will Beback that we should not make loopholes-such as reporting vandalism, as that would be a can of worms. If User:Vintagekits wants to report something like vandalism, he could email someone. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This appears to be a practical and fair compromise. I'd support unblocking VK on these terms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with that in general, (including the first sentiment - I don't think this is the right path but would like to be proved wrong!), but:

• I don't think the non-offensive Troubles memorials are a good idea - better that he avoid getting on to the subject entirely.
• He is only allowed to edit a certain set of articles, rather than banned from a certain set. He is not allowed to edit Terracotta Army or jellyfish, for example, during the probation - thus a list of those that he is banned from would be huge. In any case, the fact that Wikipedia is dynamic means that new sporting pages and new Troubles pages are frequently created, and as such, any list should only be a guide and not a definitive list. If in doubt or if challenged on an article, he should have someone to ask for a definitive yay or nay. Pfainuk talk 23:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have a few problems with some of Rlevse's statements here:

• "The indef block I placed will end Jul 15, 2008 and shall only be removed by an arb clerk or clerk helper." - this arrogates too much power to arbitration committee clerks. If you want arbitration clerks to have arbitration enforcement as part of their role, I suggest this is raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks and its talk page, and the community notified as appropriate. It is my view that clerks should concentrate on clerking and keeping pages up-to-date, and not get involved in arbitration enforcement. Rlevse's actions here, are, I believe, purely in his role as an administrator. If Rlevse (who is an arbitration clerk) would like to make clear that this is a procedural point only, and that the decision on an unblock remains with this board and the community of admins and editors, then he should do so.
• "Any further infractions, however minor, will result in an immediate ban as soon as the indef block is placed, with no complaining, no "I'm sorry please forgive me again", "it's minor"." - it is my opinion that this kind of inflexible statement (which was present in the original terms) is what causes drama, baiting and trolling. Hair-trigger clauses also encourage baiting and trolling. It is far better to trust the judgment of those dealing with any complaints during the probationary period as to what is minor or major (assign a group of people to deal with complaints during the probationary period), and then to have a review at the end of the probationary period. A "no defense" clause is inherently against natural justice (part of what is driving the OrangeMarlin/ArbCom issues elsewhere). The terms and conditions should protect Vintagekits as well as protect the encyclopedia. So I would suggest a relaxing of the language used here, and the appointment of a group of people to review future infractions.

Arbitrarily extending the probation period to December will, I think, only work if a better way is found to deal with future infractions or claimed infractions, hence my comments above. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would tend to agree with both those statements. I'm not sure why an arbitration clerk should remove the block - it's not even an arbitration decision that's being enforced. The more important point is the extension of the probation, with an indef block for any infringement. A better idea would probably to say that VK would be blocked for a week for any future infringements, moving upto a year after 4 such blocks. People would argue that he's had his chances already, but mistakes happen. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you're proposing to re-write the terms and replace the part about being banned for any infraction with being blocked for a week? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well that depends - some are arguing that the three month probation isn't long enough. If the probation was extended for a year/indef, I don't believe it's fair to block indef for one tiny infringement, so one week blocks could be an answer. If the 3 month paroles stays then so should the indef block cavaet if he crosses the line again. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So the idea is to allow short block for any infraction no matter how tiny instead of requiring a total ban which may lead to debates (like this) over whther the infraction is serious enough? I'm not sure how that relates to the extension of the probation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a fan of the indefinate ban on the troubles articles, I do think an indef never revoked block for any infraction is harsh. It would also be ineffective. VK wants to edit. VK has proven he can edit around blocks. Does anyone really believe we can quash him with an indef block if he stepped out of line? To take a hardline and overly uncaring attitude, wouldn't we much rather have VK where we can see/control him? I think if a longer probation is put in place, then an escalating series of blocks should be put in place. The other option is to have fixed blocks of a longer period and a rest of the probation clock if that route is taken. That way it is X months of good behaviour until he can edit freely, rather than just x months. I realise thats the case now but....I do think that, if we are going to give VK annother chance, we do need to have some kind of incentive for him to play by the book here. I would keep that any infraction could result in an indef block, sure, but appoint a set of admins to oversee him and decide whether to use the escalating blocks or what not. Ryan and Alison, for example (I love volunteering other people for more work.) Narson (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question - It had earlier been stated that the editor in question would not be allowed to e-mail anyone. Am I right in understanding that, according to the above statement, that restriction would no longer exist? I also tend to agree that, in many cases, any sort of absolute restriction is counterproductive. Certainly, it would be possible for a serious infraction to be just cause for a permanent ban, but if someone were to technically commit an "infraction" which was also, basically, consistent with being a good editor, like maybe fixing a category or creating a basically non-controversial redirect, it wouldn't make sense to even consider banning someone for something like that. Some sort of "monitoring" group would be reasonable in instances like this one and other similar ones, to ensure that we don't wind up penalizing someone for basically doing what any good editor would do in a given situation. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The terms state that "6: He will not use any obscene, blasphemous, racist, seriously offensive or threatening language (in any language or spelling thereof). This applies to all Wikipedia pages, emails and any form of communication with other editors." I don't think that means he cannot email, only that he cannot send inappropriate (as defined) emails. I agree with your perspective, John Carter. Risker (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been watching this merry-go-round and now have to chime in. Apparently VK and his supporters feel that 'anywhere on wiki' does mean not anywhere, that 'any violation' doesn't mean any violation. VK agreed to this. The other problem here is that there is no solid consensus for anything, except maybe a probation reset/extension. It seems that if enough friends of a repeatedly disruptive user raise enough fuss, the other editors and agreed upon terms get lost in the shuffle. I find it really hard to believe this was a 'mistake'. Are we to really believe he mistakenly wrote a highly offensive slur against a deceased person and made a redirect by 'mistake'? And that his user space is somehow not part of wikipedia? As for including the phrase 'however minor', well 'any violation' would include minor ones, but since being overly explicit seems to help VK, it should be included. The idea that arb clerks should not be involved in arb enforcement is ludicrous. Some of the admins on this thread are overly involved in the articles in question and they definitely should not take admin action in these particular issues. I see nothing wrong with univovled admins, whether arb clerks or not, handling issues that come up with the these articles. Whether an infraction was major or minor was not part of the probation terms; but now many are trying to add it after the fact--talk about wikilawyering! What is against natural justice is for long term problem users to repeatedly cause all this drama and waste our time-to perpepuate this even further is not protecting the encyclopedia.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The idea that arb clerks should not be involved in arb enforcement is ludicrous" - to clarify, I didn't mean that arb clerks can't participate in arbitration enforcement, but they should do so as admins, not as arb clerks. Being arb clerks does not give them any special license to judge or resolve arbitration enforcement issues, and the opinions of arb clerks should not be placed ahead of other admins. Arb clerks do paperwork for the arbitration committee, they are not enforcers. Carcharoth (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsafe Document[edit]

I submit that "terms of editing" as laid down on Vintagekits user page be stricken out owing to the fact that the said terms are ambiguous and thus fatally flawed. Problem with the document is that under "rule 1", the document refers to "Irish Troubles", and the allocated reference points to "Irish/British Geo-Political Dispute". It is totally unclear as to what subject, or subjects the compilers of the document have generally in mind. Is it the "British Troubles", or is it the "Irish Troubles", or are both intended? The troubles in Northern Ireland would be deemed to be under British jurisdiction, and would therefore be classified as British. Does the document mean to include, or exclude, the over-spill of "the troubles" into "Sovereign Ireland". Terms of reference are quite hazy. The reference at the bottom of the document does not correspond to "rule 1", and therefore the document is ostensibly defective as it stands, and it is essential that the document be revisited and amended accordingly. McArt (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mabye a category could be created and added to articles that Vintagekits is not allowed to edit. That way everyone knows he cannot edit that article? Astrotrain (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe like Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland? The two problems with that, of course, would be that if for whatever reason an article weren't placed in that category, despite apparently "belonging" there, or potentially having someone else remove it from the category and then VK goes in to edit it (not likely, but possible), and (2) what about dab and redirects? I don't fault him for the recently created redirect, but neither would I want to set up a situation where he could add commentary to a dab page which would be problematic, and probably wouldn't be included in that cat or any of its subcats. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good idea. That category and it's many sub-cats is pretty broad and if the terms included "articles related to the Irish Troubles, including but not limited to Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Category:Politics of Northern Ireland" - thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 21:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And for the record, this thread was started by the twice-banned editor, User:Gold heart / User:Bluegold - Alison ^❤ 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ohhh Nooo; another sock. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Huh? The previously agreed-upon terms say that he may only edit articles on boxing. Is that insufficiently clear? Are editors here proposing changing the terms? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To an extent, yeah. Can he edit his talk page, for instance, which is neither an article nor necessarily about boxing. Like, if he wants to go on break or wishes to report being unavailable for medical reasons, or wishing someone else a speedy recovery or to express sympathy for their difficulties? Neither of those possibilities directly relate to boxing, but presumably someone could try to enact a ban for him doing so if the terms didn't expressly permit them. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Management of his user and talk pages should probably be described in more detail, as John Carter says. I don't think it really occurred to anyone that other editors would come to VK's talk page and litter it with Troubles-related comments (as it is right now). Can he remove them? I would certainly hope so...but someone might find that to be a technical breach as well. Provided he removes them from his page with an edit summary such as "remove unwanted comment", it should be okay, but we should probably clarify such things. Risker (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue of talk pages was discussed here User talk:Vintagekits/terms#11: If he breaks this agreement, he is indef banned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will Beback, those were draft terms. The final terms are on VK's user page. They only go up to #10, and are found at User:Vintagekits/terms. Risker (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some other numbered item was removed, since 11 in the draft is the same as 10 in the final terms. My point is that this discussion here is rehashing stuff that was already agreed upon in the first go around. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And we might want to allow him to express sympathy to another editor is they become sick, or something along those lines. Also, unfortunate but possible anyway, I wouldn't myself mind allowing him to post something on a noticeboard or to an admin if, for whatever reason, he saw that an article related to The Troubles were being vandalized. I wouldn't necessarily welcome finding out he were monitoring those pages while on probation, but couldn't complain if he did find something legitimately wrong happening to one of them and wanted to report that. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no need to create loopholes or sources of future confusion. If the editor wants to express sympathy to another editor he can send them a card. VK must not edit anything to do with the Troubles. Giving him a loophole to report vandalism just gives him a reason to keep monitoring those pages, which in turn will create temptations to edit them. Base on his inability to follow very clear terms, any ambiguity must be avoided. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Experessing sympathy is fine, but in this case he also made disparging remarks about another recently deceased person in the process. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many times do I have to point out to you that that isn't relevant? Sarah777 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I wouldn't mind seeing making disparaging remarks about a recently deceased person as being grounds for a ban. But, right now, technically, he can't report to anyone a case of even flagrant vandalism on something relating to the Troubles, even a boxer who somehow was involved in the Troubles, and he can't express sympathy for another editor without being potentially banned. And, personally, I have real qualms about telling anyone they can't report vandalism, which right now he can't do. Maybe allowing him to leave messages on a noticeboard for others to act upon, if they see fit, could be permitted, even if it was limited to that. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JC, he praised a recently deceased; his disparagement was for a not-so-recently deceased. Sarah777 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a lack of editors watching articles about the Troubles? If so let's address that rather then sending the bull back into the chinashop. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We all agree that, in general, Vk was doing well with the terms that already exist. So lets not re-invent the wheel, when a little tinkering will do. I think all we need to do is inform Vk that user-space and redirects apply to the "anywhere in Wikipedia" aspect of his probation. He has no need to lament the death of someone associated with the Troubles on his user page, he can do that in a blog (and if Vk has an ounce of sense, he will not go there again anyway). The goal of this section, started by a banned user, was simply to cause trouble and derail the probation process. Don't feed the trolls, people. Rockpocket 01:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who the fuck cares?!? Really, if he wants to write a bunch of crap in his userspace, let him and then speedy it a few days later when he settles down. Jeeze, why do you British greviers have to wage these petty vendettas? Looking at it from an American view point, all this fuss over some userspace schaudenfruede is completely absurd. Get over it already and join us in the 21st century. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well the view from the colonies is always welcome, you are wrong in this instance. It is offensive and inappropiate to promote terrorism and violence on Wikipedia. Astrotrain (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dragon695, while using your exact words would maybe get me in trouble I most heartily endorse the sentiments you express. Folk must actively seek out offence to find it on a Userpage. Take that as the Irish pov too. Sarah777 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

blocked all

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

This case has just closed, and per this remedy: "All accounts identified as likely sockpuppets or proxies of Giovanni33 in the findings of this decision, as well as any account subsequently identified by an administrator as a likely sockpuppet or proxy of him, are banned from Wikipedia until such time as the ban on Giovanni33 is lifted."

We also have this finding of fact: "A number of accounts have been identified as likely sockpuppets or proxies of Giovanni33, including, but not limited to, BelindaGong, CleanSocks, DrGabriela, FionaS, Freethinker99, HK30, Kecik, Mercury2001, MikaM, NeoOne, NPOV77, Professor33, Rafaelsfingers, RTS, and Supergreenred."

• I am requesting that the two accounts on that list not currently blocked - DrGabriela (talk · contribs) and Rafaelsfingers (talk · contribs) - be blocked. This should be trivial since they are explicitly named by the Arbs as proxies. For mountains of evidence of such, see the evidence page.

• I'm also requesting that the account Olawe (talk · contribs) be blocked as a proxy. It is not named, probably because it was created somewhat after the case started. The account's behavior is identical to the more recent socks Supergreenred (talk · contribs), Rafaelsfingers (talk · contribs), and DrGabriela (talk · contribs). (Note the account's user page currently has an obsolete suspected sock tag on it pointing to another user; this is clearly a G33 proxy, however). Like the others, the vast majority of the account's edits are to revert-war back to G33's version of articles. See this short evidence section for a blow-by-blow of the account's activities. (They also share Supergreenred's ISP, dialing in from a different location.)

- Merzbow (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Two named indef blocked. -- Avi (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • • Blocked Olawe. Closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Giovanni is blocked for 1 month, discussion on a ban is taking place at WP:AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC) then banned.Reply[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 03:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Requests for Arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's

20:04, 8 June 2008 - Revert by Giovanni33

03:50, 9 June 2008 - Revert by Ratatoui

A recent checkuser report has linked Giovanni to Ratatoui (the result being "likely"), which would show a violation of his 1 revert a week parole.

Givoanni33 has also repeatedly abused puppets in the past - he was unblocked in 2006 on strict orders not to use puppets again. John Smith's (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked for one month, given that this is his 6th block for violation of his case terms, plus he's been sockpuppeteering. I'm interested whether or not people think an indef would be called for, given the disruption and sock puppetry here? It seems likely he's going to be banned by arbcom soon enough, given his case is now well into voting, so this point may be moot. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well Arb-comm is only putting him up for a one year ban, even if it can be renewed. There have been times where people have been indef-blocked whilst having an arb case pending on them, and then the arb-comm confirms that if the indef-block is lifted the 1 year ban runs from then.

Maybe you should start an ANI thread on it? John Smith's (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hold on two secs - this report is very very stale (almost over a month old). I'd normally undo this block right away, but I realise there's a serious problem here with socking so I've requested input on AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ooops, my bad! I just saw the "J" in June and thought July. I wouldn't complain if the block for arbitration violation was lifted, though I think something needs to be done about the puppetry anyway - even on top of any arb-comm sanctions. John Smith's (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Likewise, I misread it as that (even though we're 5 days prior to those dates!). Ryan Postlethwaite 19:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - I strongly suggest we limit this conversation to here or the one on ANI by shutting one conversation. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

blocked two weeks

• 67.170.205.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

The IP has been warned, yet has persisted in disruption and POV pushing. Check contributions for full evidence. Here is the latest attempt at whitewashing: [15]. I recommend a topic ban. Jehochman ^Talk 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the change was obviously going to be reverted, it wasn't constructive. His talk page conduct isn't very helpful either, the statements about the absurdity of Wikipedia appear to be disruptive. I would support a 1 week topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked two weeks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Comment in question refactored by Alansohn; closed without action as resolved. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Alansohn_restricted

At this AfD, Alansohn responds to a comment provided by User:Doc Strange with a clear assumption of bad faith [16], (by turning Doc Strange's argument into a most inappropriate, unrelated and unfounded accusation of userspace misuse). Attacking other users and attempting to reduce their arguments to absurd is a typical behavior of Alansohn's, a behavior which he was firmly admonished to refrain from by the Arbcom. I recommend a short block, according to the remedies approved by the committee. Húsönd 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not state that userspace was misused and made no reference to the individual's personal userpage violating this or any other policy. I was merely attempting to rebut the claim that an article created in good faith regarding the primary document used to evaluate schools and school districts, and referenced in hundreds of articles, constitutes a violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#WEBSPACE, let alone the use of the claim as the justification for deletion of an article. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text of the comment in question has been modified to eliminate any possible misinterpretation of my remarks as claiming a policy violation. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've notified the user of this posting. It appears to me that the edit linked by Husond is covered by the ArbCom remedy and that enforcement is justified. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Given that Alansohn has refactored the remark in question, I'm inclined to close this as resolved. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree and welcome Alansohn's decision to refactor his comment. Húsönd 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

unblock declined by Mangojuice

User:Gulmammad is asking for an unblock and has pointed out some errors in the evidence compiled against him. -- Ned Scott 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking over it again, he does not appear to have violated his arbcom restrictions. The only time he reverted twice in one week was here: [17] [18], but he was actually reverting a vandal. -- Ned Scott 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ned, Gulmammad is under the impression that a revert occurs "immediately after it has been added - may be within 24hours". This is not the definition of a revert. According to the policy here "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". All four of those links he posted were reverts. Furthermore, he exceed his revert limitation in the article Aghbulag as well. See here. That was not a vandal, that was a content dispute, administrator user:Khoikhoi also see it as a content dispute, see here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see it as a brand new editor breaking the infobox and categories with redlinks, and could easily be seen as vandalism. A similar edit by the user was reverted by someone else here. In the case of the other four reverts, you're completely wrong from a technical standpoint. Two diffs were cited as undoing an action twice, when it was nothing of the sort. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And no, trying to pass of two edits which equal a single revert does not count. If I am "reverting" to remove "the end" and I make two edits, one to remove "the" and one to remove "end", I have not reverted twice, I have reverted once. -- Ned Scott 01:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case of Aghbulag, it was a simple case of POV edit warring. I NPOV'd the article by adding both versions. VartanM (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ned, regarding Aghbulag, it was POV edit warring as Vartan said and Vartan's version is the most NPOV. It was not Vandalism. Vandalism is putting "George Bush is teh ghey!" in the article, this on the other hand was edit warring over who controls a particular village.
Regarding the edits at Sheylanli, Gulmammad reverted back in an image that was thoroughly discussed at WP:RSN and deemed to be unreliable, the image was removed and he reverted it back in out of spite because I dared to add a single inline tag to the article. He then reverted my tag. That is two reverts.
Regarding the edits at Sheylanli tribe, he reverted a content related edit made by an ip address, this was not vandalism but a content dispute. A few days later, he reverted a tag that I added, that is two reverts as well. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not convinced about Aghbulag, but regarding the other reverts, you're simply wrong about how they add up. A limitation of two reverts in a week is to prevent an edit war. You are asserting that if Gulmammad used a text editor, made both changes, then saved (making one edit to the server), he would not be blocked, but would have made the exact same change. Do you understand how ludicrous that is? -- Ned Scott 02:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ned, you might be able to make that argument regarding Sheylanli but not regarding Sheylanli tribe as one revert was made on the 15th and the other on the 20th. Regarding Sheylanli all I can say is that he made the reverts out of spite so it's irrelevant whether he used an editor or not, he was edit warring. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see that Gulmammad violated his parole, even if he was outnumbered by a group of editors sharing the same POV. And User:Zinvats uzher shares a lot of blame for the situation. It looks very strange when a brand new user jumps into edit warring on such obscure articles like Aghbulag. Check his other edits too, he promotes very strong POV and was reverted by admins on other articles. I believe Gulmammad's block should be lifted, and the edit warring new user should be warned about the consequences. Grandmaster (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course you don't see anything wrong. In case of Zinvats uzher, I would like to remind you of WP:BITE, and WP:AGF. Comparasion between Zinvats uzher and Gulmammad doesn't stick. One is a new comer, the other is semi-regular editor. VartanM (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocking admin here. Please stand by as I evaluate the issue. I may not be able to do this today because I have a busy workday. Meanwhile, if any administrator finds that I have made an obvious error with this block, I do not object to it being overturned.  Sandstein  10:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reviewed the situation again. With respect to Sheylanli and Sheylanli tribe, it is indeed not clear that the edits at issue should count as reverts for the purpose of the editing restriction. But Gulmammad did make two subsequent reverts on Aghbulag: [19] and [20]. In doing this, he violated the editing restriction limiting him "to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism" and therefore, I maintain that the block is justified. (The Aghbulag edits are noted in the enforcement request below, but I forgot to mention them in the block log.) The merits of his edits, or the merits of the edits of other editors, or the conduct of other editors are all irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether Gulmammad violated the editing restriction or not.  Sandstein  10:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per this explanation, I've declined the unblock request. Mangojuice^talk 13:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Blocked indef, upheld by consensus

AE regulars will remember Astrotrain from his numerous past visits here. For those of you who have not run into him previously, first, a refresher on him.

Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Astrotrain is on a 1RR/week + civility parole on "Troubles" related articles as part of The Troubles ArbCom case

I have just blocked Astrotrain for 72 hours for disruptive editing/edit-warring on articles like Arthur Chatto (an article that was merged to the article about his mother per an AfD back in April ([21]). Instead of opening a DRV about the article, he just shows up, and reverts the redirect back to a full article against consensus.

Blocks do not work that well against Astrotrain, because he's a habitual edit-warrior on a random schedule. He'll show up, revert a bunch of articles to his preferred version, edit war on a few of them that get noticed, and then disappear for 72-96 hours at a time.

I am asking that, short of an indefblock (look at his block log, for gosh sake!!!), that his revert parole be expanded, and that be placed on a 0RR parole on ALL articles, not just "Troubles" related articles. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that Talk:Arthur Chatto has a link to the first AfD discussion (result: keep) and does not link to the second AfD, so perhaps he didn't know that there was a more recent consensus for the redirect. I would be reluctant to change anything on this incident alone. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[22] Please note that he knew well that the article was a merge, he figured he could just source it with a live article (he was also informed multiple times that there was an AfD that was a merge, he just went on reverting merrily). Also, look at the reason for his unblock request. That should tell you what he's here for. SirFozzie (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, fair enough. I didn't dig that deep into it, so thanks for the additional details. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NP. I'm somewhat familiar with him, and he's somewhat familiar with me [23]. Sorry, Astro, but if I was the dictator of Zimbabwe, as he is now claiming on his talk page (see that edit), I'd spend a hell of a lot less time on WP :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support 0RR on all articles. Sandstein declined unblock and extended to a week. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Um, no, just no. No way are we ever putting this guy on 0RR. Hasn't he had enough chances already? The crap he put on his talkpage was vile. So I've blocked him indefinitely. I trust there will be no objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I do have an objection. We have invested a lot of time and effort keeping Troubles editors with a history of trouble on the project. We have done that by putting them under editing restrictions, despite extensive block histories and plenty of vile language. If we are willing to do that with one editor, we should be at least willing to try to give other editors a similar opportunity. We have nothing to lose by putting Astrotrain on a 0RR. If he is unwilling to adhere to that, then indef blocking is an option. I feel jumping to that now will simply stoke the feeling among editors from one "side" that the other is getting preferential treatment (and, to be fair, they would appear to have a point). Rockpocket 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there any editors from the other "side" left to complain? If he wants to try and negotiate some unblock terms you go from there, until then this discussion is moot. His block log is a disgrace, his comments every time he's been blocked recently are a disgrace, and his current editing is a disgrace. The onus is on him to show he can improve his behaviour. 15 cans of Stella₃₀₃ 00:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if there is (at least from any account that I am aware of) which kind of supports my point, if anything. True, efforts to keep these editors editing presupposes that they are willing to work within restrictions. If not, then it is a waste of our time. I'm not about to argue about the disgraceful nature of his comments or reaction to previous admin action. But that is not particularly unusual in the Trouble's sphere, and hasn't lead to indef blocks when others have said similar (and worse!). But you are right, we should wait to see what Astrotrain has to say for himself before considering alternatives. Rockpocket 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree. Partially. See also Number 50. Fundamentally I disagree with the whole way the Troubles flamewars are being handled. Too many second chances. And third chances. And twentieth chances. It looks weak. It simply gives out the message that if you're Irish or British you can get away with murder. If these chaps were from the Balkans instead they wouldn't last a week. There's also a miserable attitude to the effect that "we can't ban anyone for fear of sockpuppetry". Which is just silly. Obviously unenforceable rules shouldn't exist, but it has been comprehensively shown that we can prevent effective sockpuppetry.

Whatever else has happened, this guy has violated basic community norms to such an extent his time here has to be over. Whatever the wikipolitics of the situation. At any rate, he can hardly accuse me of national bias. I'm as English as they come. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand that perspective and for a long time advocated it myself. But the bottom line is that people who have very similar records on very similar subjects are not indef blocked, and instead were given a chance to edit with severe restrictions. Is anyone willing to take such a firm, no-nonsense line with those people too, and incur the inevitable wrath of their noisy supporters? Or are we only enforcing policy when the subject is lacking friends in high places. I would rather we appear weak than biased. Rockpocket 21:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the problem is that in doing so we often end up appearing both weak and biased. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"But the bottom line is that people who have very similar records on very similar subjects are not indef blocked, and instead were given a chance to edit with severe restrictions. Is anyone willing to take such a firm, no-nonsense line with those people too, and incur the inevitable wrath of their noisy supporters?" - answer, yes. Besides, appearance of bias is not actuality of bias. I do not see here how appearance of weakness would not also be actuality of weakness. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not object to the indef either. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umm - I'm kinda unhappy with an indefinite block of Astrotrain as I don't think we've exhausted all avenues here at all. While his recent behaviour has been atrocious[24] - I've already blocked the guy myself for this two weeks back - but I don't believe he's beyond redemption. As Rocky points out, we've had far worse on the project and they're still editing under clear constraints and conditions. Why can't we negotiate criteria like this for Astrotrain, work towards his buy-in, and let him edit again? Maybe appoint a neutral, non-Troubles mentor? This seems to me to be only fair here - Alison ^❤ 05:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm willing to explore this. How about terms similar to User:Vintagekits. These never-ending disruptive edit warriors onethnic topics all over wiki are getting old. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree with allowing Astrotrain return on restrictions along the lines of what were imposed on Vintagekits. BigDunc^Talk 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As long as a 0RR is involved..Astrotrain has too much of a habit of logging on, edit-warring, and logging off. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How much more stringent can we get? 1RR/week is the maximum revert limitation I can recall anyone ever being under. 0RR would be unprecedented, and perhaps for good reason. If you can't cope with 1RR then surely increasing that to 0RR is just plain silly. It indicates that the sanctioned editor is transparently unfit for editing.

Besides, has anyone noticed that this latest revert-warring was not related to the Troubles? So, will a ban from all Troubles pages really make that much of a difference? Astrotrain looks to me like an incorrigible revert-warrior regardless of topic, and those have no place here. VK is at least a good and constructive editor on boxing articles, or so I am led to believe. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've had limited experience with this user before, and I never had the impression that anything other than indef block would be enough for this user. He almost got it a year ago. I do believe in a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th chance, but there are limits. This user will not reform. If he requests unblock under a promise to live under a 0RR, no sockpuppeting rule, then that alone would be sufficient. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I recently had experience with Astrotrain, and had warned him that I was considering an extension of his 1RR restriction to all content. After that, I started looking more closely at his editing history, with a mind to trying to develop an individualised editing restriction, similar to that affecting Vintagekits. In the case of Vintagekits, there was pretty clear evidence that he was a useful contributor in at least one specific area, and so the restrictions were tailored to keep him where he was helpful, and keep him away from areas where he wasn't. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a similar area of useful contributions from Astrotrain; it seems he has edit-warred in just about every area he's worked. Nonetheless, like The Evil Spartan, I'd be willing to consider an editing restriction of no reverts, adding information after discussion and consensus on talk pages, no recreation of deleted material (which is why he was blocked this time), and no sockpuppeting. In addition, any allegations that other editors are terrorists or dictators or racists should result in immediate indef block. Risker (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but that's just silly. I would block anyone indefinitely for alleging that other editors were dictators or terrorists pending retraction. That would be a meaningless restriction. Ditto for a "no sockpuppeting" restriction. I've already pointed out that 0RR is overkill. So what's left? We don't have to exhaust every conceivable avenue before we ban someone, we just have to decide that the encyclopedia would be better off if we did. Particularly when many of those "conceivable avenues" are either meaningless or stupid. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I endorse the indefinite block and counsel against giving him yet another chance. From my limited experience with Astrotrain - which always involved disruption of some sort on his part - the troubles he causes outweigh any productive contributions he may have made. Labeling fellow editors as dictators, etc. is just not the way we collaborate here.  Sandstein  09:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we please not archive this yet as I've further comments to make here (busy IRL) and I am also waiting for a statement from Astrotrain - Alison ^❤ 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly. There are at least three major paths of options here and we need to reach consensus and it's only fair that Astrotrain have a chance to make his input. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was completely unacceptable - support indefinite block. PhilKnight (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As do I. I don't see this user reforming his ways even if he is provided a mentor with no background in the Troubles case. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I've stalled things for long enough now & it's clear that Astrotrain is no longer interested in the project. He's commented a number of times since being notified but has not addressed anything. I think it's time to close this AE case - Alison ^❤ 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Neptun88 blocked as a likely sock of Giovanni33. MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also submit that Aliciahjoy (talk · contribs) is an obvious Giovanni sock.

OK, I am reluctant to bring this before enforcement, because I know we will see the same crimineyload of wikilawyering that we saw in the recently closed Giovanni case. However, I believe the connection here is fairly obvious that Neptun88 (talk · contribs) is Giovanni33 (talk · contribs). The checkuser case came up false, but this is not surprising, given Giovanni has been known to edit from IPs stemming from distinct locations around the globe (see below). The evidence:

1. This is someone's sock. The first edit used a common Wikipedia edit summary, and the second edit used another Wikipedia acronym. The editor's fourth edit was to jump into an edit war: [25]. Giovanni socks are known for doing all this.
2. The user shows the same propensity for edit warring as Giovanni33.
3. The editor is engaging in an edit war on one of Giovanni's favorite subjects, and is engaging in an edit war on a page which Giovanni is sockingpuppetting on (checkuser proven)
4. The editor has a similar style username to a known Giovanni sock who was editing this page (Aquarius28).
5. The editor, like Giovanni, is supporting the edits of other SPA accounts. Cf. [26] [27] [28] [29] with [30]. Like Giovanni, the different IPs mysteriously come from different parts of the world: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#IPs_that_have_edited_Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States. As one person pointed out on the ArbCom case, [31] "All in all, there is a very disturbing pattern of new users with no prior history at Wikipedia arriving and coming to all the pages he edits, agreeing with him on the talk page, reverting to his version, claiming consensus where none exists, and following him to other articles and voting for whatever he votes for."
6. The editor, like Giovanni, exhibits the same propensity for sniping at other edits in a semi-uncivil manner: [32].
7. The editor uses the same edit summaries that Giovanni uses; cf. [33] [34] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_conservatism&diff=prev&oldid=225624420 with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#Evidence_by_The_Evil_Spartan. Cf. with the use of "rv" to start an edit summary, and the oft reference to the talk page.
8. The editor, like Giovanni, primarily uses his edit warring to support leftwing philosophy: [35].

I am pleased to see that Giovanni is finally branching out from only editing as a SPA. I think it's fairly obvious he learned from his Arbcom case that he was a touch too obvious last time. However, it's equally obvious that Giovanni is Giovanni, and he simply cannot keep himself from edit warring on his favorite pages, from using socks to back himself up, and from being mildly snipy. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliciahjoy (talk · contribs) seems to have been created specifically to participate in an editing dispute in a manner that advanced Giovanni33's position, and I'm willing to block the account (which has been inactive) on that basis. The checkuser case involving Neptun88 (talk · contribs) is being reviewed - I think this is a likely sock on a behavioral basis, but will await further checkuser results and/or opinions here from other admins before acting. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MastCell you have my support. This is highly suspicious and probably blockable on disruption alone. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ditto. WP:DUCK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some observations:

• Four hours after Spartan's post above, we have this edit from Neptun88: "neutralized left-wing POV, the book had also positive reviews". Also note that the book in question is Mao: The Unknown Story, a subject G33 is very very familiar with (being the source of his 1RR/W). Could this be a covering edit in response to Spartan's post? Certainly seems implausible for him to be suddenly "neutralizing left-wing POV" after so many edits to add left-wing POV. I remember looking through N88's contributions a few days ago and was puzzled by that out-of-place edit, but I didn't know about this AE post at the time. Now it fits.
• We know already from RFCU that Aquarius28 is G33. Does it seem to anyone else for it to be an unlikely coincidence that another aquatic-themed SPA - "Neptun88" - also ending in two letters, shows up in the same area? - Merzbow (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Closing this report; based on the above feedback, as well as the contribution pattern, Neptun88 is blocked as a likely sock of Giovanni33. I'll log this at the ArbCom case page. MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Per a clear consensus here, Alansohn hasn't infringed the arbitration remedy. If there are normal editing concerns regarding him, please use normal dispute resolution channels. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbcom decision: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Alansohn restricted.

User:Alansohn is editing and reverting in bad faith on a Wikipedia Style Guidelines page, falsely claiming that his edit is supported by a "consensus." It is not.

• Violation diff (page history) [36].
• See the discussion, particularly in the later part of this Talk page section here

RedSpruce (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree that this is an ArbCom Enforcement matter. There is definitely a discussion at Wikipedia:Footnotes, and RedSpruce has disagreed with the consensus at the talkpage and has been edit-warring about it. He has been reverted by multiple editors, not just Alansohn. It was probably not wise for Alansohn to engage in the revert war with his longterm opponent RedSpruce, but I don't think that this is a blocking matter. I do think that both Alansohn and RedSpruce should take a step back from this, and let other editors handle the actual guideline page though. Edit-warring is never wise on guideline pages. --Elonka 17:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Consensus was reached after long negotiations on wording supervised by User:Elonka. RedSpruce still appears to be uncivil, however. See his talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Correct, and edit summaries from RedSpruce such as, there is no damn consensus on this issue, goddamnit are not helpful. --Elonka 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note that RedSpruce has deleted the sections of his talk page that Richard Arthur Norton mentioned above. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I don't see any incivility or assumptions of bad faith by Alansohn in the linked edit or discussion. I didn't evaluate whether his claim of consensus is correct or not, but even if he was wrong it isn't a violation of his probation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• AlanSohn has been the model of civility, it is Redspruce being uncivil. There are now three warnings on his talk page from three different people. Redspruce was part of the negotiations leading to the consensus wording for policy on footnoted quotes, he spearheaded the action to create a policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I concur that I cannot find in the above any edit with which Alansohn has violated the arbitration restriction against edits that are "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith". And I agree that it is Redspruce, if anyone, who needs to watch his conduct.  Sandstein  07:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'd propose to close this thread without issue, and strongly invite all participants to take part in the renewed debates at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Section break.
  On a related note, I must say I'm a bit disappointed that nobody thus far seems to have thought about possible copyright implications, or at least, these weren't mentioned yet in the footnotes guideline until I did so this morning. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

blocked 24h by PhilKnight

I am not sure that this editor has learned from his block of two weeks ago; he has recently been spewing out some quite vicious personal attacks on a variety of Israel-Palestine article talk pages and edit summaries.

• [37] Accusations of "probably phony reference" in edit summary: it's in fact available in the NYT online archive [38]
• [39] "hogwash [...] utter deceit. Hopefully intelligent readers will see through this veil of lies and realize that the editors of this article are trying to commandeer history"
• [40] "You will have me blocked? Maybe you have a friend who drives a bulldozer who can do it even better" Please note that this is clearly a reference to a recent massacre in Jerusalem; Gilabrand is accusing the editor of being in league with terrorists.
• [41] "The problem is not in the heading but in the heads of certain editors"
• [42] "why don't you devote yourself to filling out the article rather than parroting stuff you find on blogs"
• [43] "You can't rewrite history 'because you don't like it'"

Perhaps more than 12 hours are called for this time. <eleland/talkedits> 01:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bulldozer remark is clearly a personal attack, I've blocked for 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Nothing meriting action reported GRBerry 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pocopocopocopoco has recently been warned by administrator User:Khoikhoi of editing restrictions under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 that he can't make more than one revert per week per page in articles related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and he must remain civil with all his edits.

Pocopocopocopoco has exceeded revert limitations[edit]

Within 9 minutes he made 6 reverts. Note his page move war.

Reverts to the Khojaly Massacre article

1. 18:04, 23 July 2008
2. 18:04, 23 July 2008
3. 18:11, July 23, 2008
4. 18:12, July 23, 2008
5. 18:13, July 23, 2008
6. 18:13, July 23, 2008

Note his edit summery for his reverts. He identifies decline of page delations to be vandalism.Gülməmməd ^Talk 01:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks like a very frivilous complaint. I hardly think that a single move undoing an extremely questionable move made by user:ZoRCoCuK is considered a move war. Edits 3,4,5,6 are completely different pages and they are not reverts, they are requests to speedy delete pages that are misspelled. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gulmammad, Please familiarize yourself with WP:REVERT. In the last four diffs, Pocopocopocopoco tagged redirects for deletion. Although, his tag additions weren't applicable under speedy deletion criteria, but they certainly weren't reverts. Furthermore, the first two edits can be considered reverts in a technical sense, but let's be rational here. Pocopocopocopoco was planning to move the article back to the original title (considered a move revert), but he had to fix the first line of text to match the new title. Pocopocopocopoco is advised not to make any more reverts to this page for the remainder of the week, or else he will be held in violation of his parole. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that is not true, 4, 5 are revers to 3. When his attampts failed, he tagged it to be vandalism in the case 6. This should be taken into account. Gülməmməd ^Talk 00:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gulmammad, take a close look at the diffs you provided. #3 to #6 are all different pages, with different spellings and those are Pocox4's first ever edits on those articles. Seriously, if you're going to start reporting people and accusing them of breaking the rules, the least you can do is read the said rules and making sure they actually broke those rules. By doing that you will help yourself and most importantly the admin that has to read your reports. Otherwise Nishkid64 is not going to get the 3 minutes of his life back. VartanM (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually if anyone wants to look at incivility, where Gulmammad calls Pocopocopocopoco's, Ned Scott's, Sandstein and Dirk Beetstra comments garbage "this is really garbage and I don't want to maintain it here!" VartanM (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't agree with Gulmammad in this situation, but I want to say that I don't feel he called my personal comments garbage, but was rather commenting on the situation as a whole. I can't really fault him for wanting to remove that section, and I wouldn't call it uncivil. -- Ned Scott 08:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted, I will not make reverts to that page for one week. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gulmammad, diffs 4 and 5 are on different pages than diff 3. His tagging in diff 6 was ill-conceived, but just as with all other speedy taggings, it was declined. Poco agreed not to make reverts for one week, so we should be fine for now. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't defent a user who violated the rule. He tried to hide the fact which is considered to be Khojaly Genocide by moving articel to Khojaly Massacre (note the differences between words "Genocide" and "Massacre"). He failed to use dispute resolution and there is no consensus for that change as his arbcom restricions require. Insted he just gave edit summery as "613 dead does not make a genocide" and went on to delete even redirect pages! That is very subtle point and could be starting point for wide range edit war. Please consult with more familiar admin about this subtlities. And also, note that regardless his promise he cannot revert on that article for one week as he is under arbcom restrictions. To me, your attempt seems to be discrimination in favore of Pocopocopocopoco, who violated the arbcom rule. Gülməmməd ^Talk 01:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Nish, this is a frivilous complaint. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gulmammad, I'm as familiar an admin as you'll find (Alex Bakharev and Khoikhoi might be the only two more familiar with AA). You came here to request arbitration enforcement, and as an unbiased administrator, I declined the request. I won't tolerate accusations of discrimination just because you don't get what you want. If you're going to bust balls about the naming convention, I suggest you also contact ZoRCoCuK, who moved the page to "Khojaly Genocide" without consensus, or even proper discussion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, I don't want something that you point to and I even don't edit the mentioned article (I have no interest in that!), however, I want the rules to be applied to anyone not particular individuals. I reported this because for reverting vandalism by an anon on articles that I have created and been the only person improved them, I got blocked for 48 hours! (See below). The same edit has been identified to be vandalism by other more experienced editor as well. And also, I have just checked and found out that ZoRCoCuK is very new user compared to Poco so he or she could have naturally failed to discus such changes. Gülməmməd ^Talk 04:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. This could be the best answer to why mentioned new user, ZoRCoCuK, moved page to "Khojaly Genocide": For "Khojaly Genocide" Google gives 3,240 results while for "Khojali Massacre" only 683. I'd do the same move without discussion if I were unfamiliar user with all these disputes. These google search results again show that it is a "Genocide" not "Massacre" and even if it was massacre, then the redirect is vital as almost everyone would search it as a genocide. But Poco knowing this fact tried "to hide" the article from users by repeatedly attempting to delete redirect pages. To me this is worst than any kind of edit warring. Redirects from any other - even misspelled pages - shouldn't be deleted and Poco knows this very well as folks here say the same thing. Gülməmməd ^Talk 07:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your reverts were not obvious vandalism, hence Sandstein's block. In this case, it's unreasonable to expect that once Poco moved the page to "Khojaly Massacre", he would keep the article's first sentence as "The Khojaly Genocide...". Furthermore, we don't simply base naming conventions off of mere Google hits; you should be looking at books, journals and newspapers for the proper naming. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those were what I believed to be obvious vandalism as many others simply as the third party user and I did reverted! Sandstein's block was just a double punishment for the sake of Poco. This is because it appeared that Sandstein trust Poco more than an administrator. For those reverts I was already warned by Khoikhoi (who was supervising both of us, me and Poco) when Sandstein blocked me and therefore the problem had already been resolved by the time Poco abused the noticeboard. Administrators shouldn't block a user for the first mistake or should they?...
And for the name of the article, I don't have an opinion about what should it be as I am not familiar that much with the topic. But as a respond to your comment that why ZoRCoCuK moved the page without discussion I brought google hits. If he or she is not familiar with these rules, furthermore if he or she is an azerbaijani, google hits show that as anyone he or she believes it is a Genocide. Given this Poco changed the name without discussion and has been trying to delete even redirect pages by page move warring. After failed a set of his attempts he called redirect page to be vandalism. I am asking what was vandalism in this 18:13, July 23, 2008? At least attempt of deleting redirect pages by naming them to be vandalism deserves punishment and should get. Hence, rules should be applied to anyone not only to a particular user. Gülməmməd ^Talk 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

This borders closely on being a frivolous complaint about Tenebrae. The first of the two allegedly problematic diffs isn't even by Tenebrae; it is by the complaining party. The other is not in any way incivil. I don't find the complaining party's actions sufficiently problematic to merit sanction at this time. Continued edit warring in an attempt to include a link to the out of date mirror would be, but it has been excluded for several days, so I think the issue is settled. GRBerry 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

I posted a link to the page- which User:Emperor reverted - I reverted the link in order for it to be visible for community discussion, which I initiated on the talk page. The thing is, I feel that User:Tenebrae's reversions and tone of discussion is preventing proper discussion on the question - If someone could take a look at the situation and give some neutral, objective feedback - I'd appreciate it. Isn't it standard community etiquette for a disputed passage to remain on article for it to be visible for discussion pending resolution of said discussion?

Some diffs which I find to be objectionable in tone: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=226558335&oldid=226555279

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=226559544&oldid=226558335

PS - If User:Elonka would kindly refrain from responding to this, it would be much appreciated.

--Scott Free (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scott Free neglects to mention that admin User:J Greb indicated on Scott Free's talk page that the link was inappropriate. Scott Free deleted J Greb's posting.

If Scott Free is insistent on the community seeing the inappropriate link, there is no reason he cannot simply place it on the John Buscema talk page in the context of discussion. --151.205.29.44 (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe, but those were points I was trying to open a discussion on - via the article talk page- my pragmatic problem is that I feel that, if you look, my discussion efforts were being significantly hindered. The question has been resolved, because a very specific guideline page (which I was previously unaware of) has been provided.

PS - If you look at the user talk page discussion between JGreb and Emperor - and also Tenebrae's statements - notice the amount of speculation regarding various machiavellic intentions, according to their theories, I was apparently harboring - (all this before I had a chance to discuss anything -that's something I'm real tired of at this point - to me they're completely innapropriate, unproven, incorrect insinuations and accusations - I wish it would just stop.

--Scott Free (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are mistaken about the burden of proof, see WP:BLP..."The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Now if by being visible, you mean can it be put on a talk page while discussion is going on, sure. But if it's inclusion in an article is a subject of debate, it should not be in the article until consensus is reached that it should be there (or left out if it's never reached). — Rlevse • Talk • 11:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some points:

• I looked at the external link after it was first added and noted significant similarities between the article hosted at the link and one that Scott Free has been maintaining on a user-sub-page for almost a year now.
• Knowing a fair bit of the history of the Bescuma article, Scott Free's involvement in it, and the general trend of the interaction between him and other editors actively involved in the article (and I have to note here that that trend is mutual among those editors Free and one other, Tenebrae, were both subject to an ArbCom decision), I posted two simple questions to Free's talk page: "Is NationMaster a wiki?" and "Are you (Scott Free) the author of the Buscema article hosted there?" I did this to get a feel for where the NM article came from and because of concerns over conflict of interest issues.
• I also asked Emperor to take a look, pointing to the diff of the Buschema article where the external link was added, the questions I'd posed to Scott Free, and to the article he's archived. It wasn't until Emperor took a look and pulled the link that I was aware that there is a fundamental issues with NationMaster being just a "mirror" of Wikipedia. Something I had been unaware of when I broached the topic with Scott Free.
• At this point I am concerned about Scott Free's tenacity in trying to keep the link in while it was be discussed on the article's talk page. As Rlevse points out, and as per the informal guideline WP:BRD, if a bold edit gets revered out, you don't just re-add it, you discuss it. Generally, yes, I'd say it would be reasonable to re-add, with an appropriate edit summary, the item once. But if that gets reverted, it goes to the talk page before the item gets added again. As a result of Emperor's removal of the link:
  • Scott Free re-added it the link citing "Initiated discussion on talk page-please do not revert until discussion is resolved."
  • At that point Scott Free had not initiated a discussion of the NM link. Nor had he replied to a post regarding it from Tenebrae, a post that was made after the link was removed. Free's response to that post came after the link had been remove for a second time.
• One last thing, the NM article [44] mirrors from this October 2006 version of the Wikipedia article, up to and including the image filenames.

- J Greb (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

J Greb asked me to check the link and I deemed it inappropriate and removed it. As I say in the talk page discussion speculating about motive is unnecessary for deciding if the link should be removed, however, it may be important for arbitration enforcement. I can't see any unbiased and uninvolved editor adding such a link, however, this is Scott Free's preferred version of the page (see the version he stored in his user space) and the only reason for adding this in is to try to get around consensus. He then tried to edit war the link back in, until I pointed out all the different ways that the link contravened the guidelines.

I agree this should have been reported here but Tenebrae's action have been reasonable in the circumstances (pointing out how this contravenes at least the spirit of the Arbitration) and it is Scott Free's actions that are the actual cause for concern. (Emperor (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I disagree with the general assumption that the edit was done in bad faith - and I was willing to discuss it and provide arguments and proof to the contrary - but I don't see the point now as I feel that (based on their statements) all three parties had basically concluded in advance that the link is inherently subsersive. (With TB, if you look, the reversion was done 6 minutes after I had proposed a discussion, I simply didn't have time to type in my argument. With JGreb, the questions weren't offensive, it's just that I had asked him several times in the past in order to avoid unecessary conflict to not address my talk page, but rather to address the article talk page or the arb enforcement page - with Emperor, I had no problem with per se, except that I cut the discussion short and conceded the point because there were simply too many assumptions of bad faith).

I reiterate that my main problem is that I feel hampered in discussing content with this group because of too many foregone conclusions, accusations without proof and assumptions of bad faith.

--Scott Free (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, you haven't actually explained why you thought linking to an old mirror of the article was a good idea, apart from the fact that it preserved your preferred version (as we can see from the version you have saved in your sandbox) - I can't see why a neutral, independent or uninvolved party would add such a link (and if they did I would have also removed it, so it is nothing personal). Given that this article (and that version) was controversial and taken to the Arbitration Committee both you and Tenebrae should be careful about your edits there, not trying to find loopholes. I am not assuming bad faith, I have just been unable to come up with a good faith justification for including that link (other than the editor not knowing about the problems with the page and not realising it was a Wikipedia mirror - which would be that hypothetical "neutral, independent or uninvolved party" but you don't qualify as that) and you've yet to provide one. (Emperor (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

For me it's easier to drop the matter than have to deal with too many preconceived assumptions that I consider incorret - i.e. I say that:

- It's not my preferred version (Very different from the versions alluded to - I don't have a preferred version.)

- The content of previous versions weren't considered inherently 'controversial' (this is the opinion of one user.)

- So-called 'mirror' sites aren't formally forbidden by policy (or even in guidelines.)

-I don't claim authorship to any version - it's free content given to Wikipedia

- etc, etc.

I could only consider discussing content if parties lose the personal suspicions, conspiracy theories, speculation on editors motivations and address the content per se(i.e. does the content of the linked article make a positive contribution to knowledge of the subject?) with a reasonable amount of respect, etiquette, and spirit of compromise and consensus.

--Scott Free (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the very least, you should refrain from looking uninvolved. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My name change was done in complete transparency and I fail to see how it hides my previous involvement.

--Scott Free (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not looked through the details of this report yet. But for transparency's sake, I do note that it would have been helpful if Scott Free pointed out that he is a rename of Skyelarke, one of the key parties in the John Buscema case. --Elonka 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't think it necessary, because with a name change, all past editing history is changed to the current name - plus the fact that you have already pointed this out on the article talk page and the arbitration decision page and others have already pointed out the fact several times. I kindly ask you again to please refrain from taking administrative action on this enforcement request for reasons I've explained in two previous messages to you.

--Scott Free (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JGreb:

Generally, yes, I'd say it would be reasonable to re-add, with an appropriate edit summary, the item once. But if that gets reverted, it goes to the talk page before the item gets added again.

I agree with the above - and that's what I was doing, reverting with the explanation that content complies with link guidelines - as I mentioned, I ended reverting twice due to an editing conflict technicality.

Just to clarify about the link -

The story is that I randomly came across the site while surfing - obviously it's a Wikipedia derived site and obviously it's an older version of the article - I wasn't being duplicitous about it - to me it was self-evident - By sheer coincidence, it happened to be a version prior to TB's objections (which had previously existed live for 6 months with many edits and not a single content dispute) - being twice the size of the current one and of valid accurate content - I felt it was the one version that would be useful to have a link to - the site itself seemed to have reasonable credibility - ergo it was done for motivations of adding a positive source of information on the subject and was not done for any infiltration, personal gain, or to adulterate the content of the wikipedia article in away way - although I can see how it can be considered questionable and was aware of the probability of objections - and was willing to discuss to question in a civil way.

--Scott Free (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two things, the less confrontational first:

Given the ArbCom around this article and your being on of the primary editors whose actions were the primary focus, when you add a link to an article that looks like the version you were championing it raises questions. The biggest of which is whether the is a conflict of interests. That's why I went to your talk page and asked. And given my involvement, I asked an admin I consider even handed (no, not preferential) to double check it. The results were a deleted query with no answer and the link being pulled for issues with the site hosting it that I was unaware of.

Second thing, these are your edit summaries for your two re-insertions of the link:

"Initiated discussion on talk page-please do not revert until discussion is resolved." [45]

"Link is necessary for now because it is now under discussion." [46]

Neither of those seem in keeping with reasonable application of WP:BRD. The first does not have a coinciding discussion started, nor does it seem to be a reasonable explanation as to why the link was added. And both read as "Leave what I've added until consensus says remove it must be removed." The second one is the kicker, because it isn't "But if that gets reverted, it goes to the talk page before the item gets added again." (your words right here for the second removal), not by any stretch of the imagination.

- J Greb (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify - I'm not championing anything but civil discussion - I got no problem with you getting involved in content questions - I just don't think you should take administrative action on me in cases of conduct issues - which I prefer be reported to this forum - which you are also free to do. My deletion of your question was explained in the edit - I thought you had agreed not to address my talk page as per my request - in order to avoid unecessary conflict -

With the link question per se - I added a link, properly identified and formatted, Emperor disagreed, I initiated a discussion - there were certain assumptions in his reply that I disagree with, but the first part of his argument, though not conclusive, was convincing enough, so I conceded the point. To me, the link issue per se, was resolved according to proper procedure. (I am objecting to TB's two comments on the talk page, which I find disruptive - many misleading statements about me, the article, and the arbitration decisions - although I don't assume that they were done with calamitous intent).

I wasn't trying to edit war to make it stick - I simply meant to do one reversion because I had a valid explanation to do so, along with a request that it not be reverted if a discussion should ensue. The reason for this is simply for practical purposes. I find that it's easier to refer to the live version and it's better to see the addition in the context of the whole live article (in this case it was just a link, so it wasn't that important) of course if any of the parties disagree to this, I would comply. I don't feel I was going against consensus because to me, the article and links to the article are apples and oranges - this being a new link - to have consensus on it would imply prior discussion of said link.

To clarify - At one point, I proposed various 'versions' in order to try to simplify discussion and compromise (what with 30 or so referenced passages being challenged) - they are not versions I am advocating - I think that it's incorrect to state that any version for the article as a whole has or has not consensus - ultimately it's an edit by edit scenario -

--Scott Free (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Not a request for arb enforcement; should not have been posted here.

Since someone who collaborates with User:Elonka ended up responding to my request - here's some clarifications of why I requested that User:Elonka not respond -It was related to a previous request- - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&oldid=200244529#User:J_Greb

I just feel that there were too many mistaken assumptions - i.e.

1- 'The ruling does not mention anything about images'

The ruling does make a specific mention of images.

2-'When challenged about this, Skyelarke reacted by deleting the warning, with an edit summary of "please leave me alone"[7] and "calm down guys"[8]'

First of all, that wasn't my first reaction - here was the message left on JGreb's talk page -

The reason why the images were uploaded is because there is currently a RFC going on concerning those images. - + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema - as per the message I left on the images - - + - + Please do not delete. Image currently being used in a Request for comment at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema as per - + - + Criteria for speedy deletion. - + Images and Media - + 5. Unused unfree images - - + Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. - + - + therefore in order to discuss them, it's important to have them included in the version under discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662 - + - + So I would kindly ask you to lighten up, relax, and not delete until the RFC is finished. - + - + Have a good day, - + - + --Skyelarke (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was a little snippy with the subsequent talk page edits - because the reply to the above was to put a pseudo warning template about image usage that I felt disregarded my message and was uncivil -

but also because I had been very clear on my intentions with the RFC with many people, even asking editors who regularly cooperate with TB and JGreb to act as mediators - there's a long discussion about this - it seesms unlikely to me that JGreb was unaware of this discussion -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scott_Free&oldid=190564687

3- 'The RfC does not specifically use the images, but does have a link to a historical version of the article. Skyelarke seems to want the images available so that the old version looks right, as well as the Buscema subpage in his userspace'

'I agree with J Greb that the images are not needed, and that it was disruptive for Skyelarke to re-upload them even after they had been deleted.'

The RfC ended up being essentially about image usage - however the exercize ended up being compromised because midway through the images were no longer available for viewing -

For the record, the buscema subpage I have is not meant for harboring anything, I use it as a sandbox for drafts (plus I had kept it specifically for the RfC, not to advertise an alternate version - something I was clear about)- people can delete it they want once I'm finished with a specific draft.

4- 'Uploading and edit-warring on unusable "fair use" images`'

I disagree about edit warring, I was using the same modus operandi as described in my defense about edit warring in the recent request.

5- 'Posting a somewhat frivolous enforcement request on an editor who is not subject to sanctions'

Uncivil and assumption of bad faith for someone making an effort to implement a dispute resolution tool in contentious situation.

6- What disapoints me the most was the general lack of respect for the RfC process - to me the RfC is fudamental for dispute resolution and consensus - to assume I was using the images other than for the RfC discredits the whole RfC process and the RfC did end up being unsatisfactory.

Nothing against User:Elonka personally, seems to be a decent editor and administrator - it's just in this specific case, to me, there were a few too many misconceptions - and because there are so many misunderstandings in this case, that is why I prefer she not take administrative action on the case, although she is of course welcome to comment.

- --Scott Free (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Collaborates with Elonka" - that really made me stop for a second. We're all supposed to collaborate here, that's kind of the whole point of the project, no? By the way, just because you think an administrator was incorrect doesn't enjoin them from acting on further requests that you make. That aside, what is it that you would like to have happen here? This seems more a defense of a much earlier case than a request for something to be done under ArbCom sanctions. Shell ^babelfish 13:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No action requested other than allow comments for anyone who wishes to and join to previous resolved request as an addenda. The purpose for this is purely damage control - the older request contained statements which questioned my good faith and transparency - I simply wanted to add my defense - I also wanted to make sure that all of the facts about my objections with Elonka are clearly stated so as to make sure that actions on the requests are done as objectively and neutrally as possible. I know Elonka still has the right to take adminstrative action- it was simply a request that is appealing to her common sense and good judgment. I'm by no means suggesting that there is anything improper with Elonka and GBerry's interactions - (it is unfortunate for me though, that apparently GRBerry hasn't actually read the main statement that I had objected to.)

--Scott Free (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to briefly clarify what I objected to - here's an example -

..'was to a mirror site that contains the version largely written by Scott Free's former identity, Skyelarke, which was disallowed by both RfC consensus and a lengthy Arbitration.'

IMO the statement that a specific version of an article as a whole has been 'disallowed' by a RfC and the Arbitration Committee (that doesn't generally rule on content) - is such an incorrect interpetration of the RfC and the Arbitration ruling as to be considered antithetical to the notion of consensus and hence a non-respect of the arbitration ruling in regards to respect of consensus.

Here's an additional statement by the closing arbitrator:

This is certainly a legitimate and well-recognized principle. I don't know that it's applicable to this case because before the article was protected, it's not clear there was a consensus between the two versions, one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FJohn_Buscema%2FWorkshop&diff=181873872&oldid=181781354

--Scott Free (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was a response to a workshop proposal and he said "before" it was protected. If we look at the actual closing of the case, one of the remedies was:

2) After three months, Skyelarke and Tenebrae may freely edit John Buscema but should respect consensus developed in the interim concerning the basic structure of the article and the nature of the material that should be included, including but not limited to the number of images.

So, I can see how someone would feel that this statement means that the preferred versions of yourself and Tenebrae were no longer in play - instead, you needed to use whatever version developed via the regular consensus process. Elonka may not have worded it in the best way, but the fact is that consensus ruled against the version you've been trying to link to and ArbCom confirmed that the regular consensus process should be sufficient absent the two of you edit warring.

If you have concerns with Elonka's decision or wording, its probably best to take it up with her rather than post here. And just as a personal note, when you get a ruling from this board, its generally better to accept it gracefully (given that you've already been all the way through arbitration) than to try to defend yourself. If you feel there was something said that was particularly troubling, try bringing that up with the editor who wrote it and ask them to change or strike it out. When you make a laundry list like this objecting to someone's characterizations and wording, it looks like you're suggesting that since you feel these things were wrong, you're not going to abide by the decision. Its likely to bring increased scrutiny and possibly further complaints. Shell ^babelfish 14:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

seems to have calmed down, VartanM warned to tone it down, he's already on parole...Rlevse

User:VartanM resorts to incivility on Talk:Albert Asriyan. He insists on disqualifying the Azerbaijani-born violinist Albert Asriyan from Category:Azerbaijani violinists on grouds of Asriyan being an ethnic Armenian who fled Azerbaijan as a result of war between Armenia and Azerbaijan (1988—), though after having contributed to Azerbaijani music industry for decades. In his rationale for removing the category, he makes direct attacks on Azerbaijani cultural heritage by suggesting that Azerbaijan has no violinists of its own and therefore is in need of "stealing" them from other cultures.[47] This is not the first instance of VartanM making such incivil and xenophobic comments about Azerbaijan and suggesting its cultural inferiority to Armenia. On 3 August 2007, while arguing the notability of Azerbaijani film director Huseyn Seyidzadeh, he stated that it was understandable why he could only find so few sources mentioning Seyidzadeh, as "not everyone can be Parajanov's" (sic). (Sergei Parajanov was an prominent Armenian film director of the Soviet era). I find such behaviour unacceptable, uncooperative and racist. Parishan (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VartanM is not under sanctions so this is not the proper forum.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So he needs to go under sanctions as such behavior should be stopped. In his recent edits you can see anti-Azerbaijani behavior very clearly. In his another comment in the talk of Azerbaijani radio station ANS ChM he shows racist behave as well regarding a true fact that he removed. Need more facts? 16:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Side comment. He is uncivil when dealing with other users as well. Here he advice "to be nice" as a response to his opponent's completely civil request. Gülməmməd ^Talk 16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eupator, did you forget about the amended remedies for AA2? I'm not commenting about VartanM's actions here, but if he fails to adhere to Wikipedia policy on AA articles, he can be placed on discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator (provided that he was warned sufficiently). Gulmammad, your diffs show some rudeness, but nothing in violation of WP:CIVIL IMO. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know. That means that an uninvolved admin can impose sanctions on anyone editing within the scope of the conflict. That has yet to be done in his case; ergo, my initial comment.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't normally comment here, but isn't that the point of this board? If someone is violating a remedy (i.e. the ArbCom decision), then users can come here to seek enforcement for the violation. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was under the impression that this board is for reporting users who you think have violated existing arbcom sanctions against them specifically not for reporting users who you think oughta be sanctioned.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is also used to enforce a case decision. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion Parishan's complaint looks like a content dispute and I recommend that he uses WP:DR rather than reporting it here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm open to WP:DR if Parishan is interested, but then again, what guarantee do I have if he'll agree to the outcome of the DR. VartanM (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]