For enforcement requests, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

Statement by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

Disputes involving Vintagekits have been brewing for several months. Vintagekits, an Irish editor, appears to have a strong aversion to articles about British nobility and titled commoners, such as baronets. This has brought Vintagekits into conflict with editors on WikiProject:Baronetcies such as Kittybrewster, who I believe self-identifies as a baronet in real life and who has written articles about numerous members of his extended family, some of which have been proposed for deletion on notability and/or sourcing grounds. Some editors had the initial reaction that these articles were being sought out and proposed for deletion on ideological grounds; however, further investigation led by previously uninvolved editors such as Giano and Mackensen, revealed that serious reason did exist for concern about these articles, justifying at least to some degree Vintagekits' position. Harsh language and other user conduct during that dispute was regrettable but that dispute, in and of itself, is probably too stale to be arbitrated.

The particular dispute quieted for awhile but I gather from Vintagekits' talkpage that he has been involved in some other controversies, also generally related to disputes between Irish and British editors. There were some prior blocks and, after discussion, unblocks and several admins including but not limited to Alison and SirFozzie have made strong good-faith attempts to salvage the situation, which regrettably seem to have been unsuccessful.

Most recently, Vintagekits clearly crossed the line of acceptable discourse very seriously in his edits cited above by Rockpocket. It is clear that some administrator action was warranted based on those edits, particularly in view of the conditions of his prior unblocking. There remains the issue of whether an indefinite block, as imposed by Alison, was the appropriate response. Alison has asserted on Vintagekits' talkpage that, in addition to improper comments such as those quoted above, Vintagekits has made very serious threats (in two edits now oversighted) involving another editor's real-life identity and address, mandating a definitive and permanent block. There have also been references to a series of abusive e-mails; it is not clear to me whether Vintagekits has admitted or denied having written these. Other editors on the talkpage have acknowledged that Vintagekits made at least some highly inappropriate edits but have urged that he was, to an extent, provoked into doing so.

On Vintagekits' talkpage, Alison has also stated that she believes that based on his conduct, it would be inappropriate for Vintagekits to be unblocked even for the limited purpose of participating in an arbitration case. My understanding is that Alison has communicated privately with one or more arbitrators concerning the content of the threats. Beyond that, neither I nor probably any other user can intelligently comment here because I have not seen the evidence and it does not seem appropriate to post it here.

The questions with which the arbitrators are presented, then, are (1) should the evidence against Vintagekits be considered privately or on-wiki and how should all interested parties be heard; (2) does the evidence against Vintagekits support an indefinite block or a formal ban; and (3) does this case present an appropriate vehicle to discuss any other issues beyond the narrow one of whether Vintagekits should remain blocked. Newyorkbrad 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Sam Blacketer

Earlier this year I was involved in trying to (unofficially) mediate between Vintagekits and some other users over Norman Stronge, Hugh Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of Allander and divers Baronets. I can't comment on the more recent issues brought up but I did form the view that Vintagekits' tendency to view edits through the prism of the Anglo-Irish conflict was very damaging and made it very difficult for him to function effectively in a neutral encyclopaedia. I also felt he unduly personalised his dispute with Kittybrewster. However, he was able with some guidance to see others' points of view and move on. This case has many of the aspects of an 'appeal against community ban' which the committee takes up if there's a reason for believing the ban may be excessive. Pace Squeakbox, it may be that a wider finding would be of assistance. Sam Blacketer 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thepiper

A British editor once said to me that "Ireland needed a second dose of Cromwell". Was he blocked, no. Was he warned, no. But Vintagekits is editing in the Anglo-American-Centric Wikipedia. So Vk, you couldn't win this one. He was brought down by the pack. I don't agree with Vk on everything he writes, but it only boiled up a few times. Neither would I nobble anyone else under similar circumstances. -- Thepiper 10:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No matter what User:Rockpocket will try and tell you, (I was looking at the charges he is preparing), these troubles started in 1603, in the Plantation of Ulster, and not here on Wikipedia. Irish People, in their own native country, had a very hard time, to put it mildly. Denied jobs, education and opportunity, in the 1960s, when the rest of the world was enjoying freedom, the Roman Catholics of Northern Ireland, started to march, in order to gain civil rights. They were met with rubber bullets, baton-charging police, many were shot dead, and guns planted on their dead bodies. On Bloody Sunday (1972), the British Army shot dead 13 unarmed civil rights marchers at point blank range. Then the IRA grew from strength to strength, until the British Government were forced to negotiate a settlement with the Belfast Agreement. That's a brief synopsis of the long sordid history of the Northern Ireland part of Ulster, under British Rule. My point here is that the troubles are old and Vintagekits is not responsible. The great American jurist Senator George J. Mitchell worked wonders with the Belfast Agreement, that's what Wikipedia needs now, to solve it, and not more of the same. Thanks for reading, I may update this I may deem necessary. -Thepiper 11:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise which senior administrator or member of the ArbCom panel changed the title of the ArbCom case assessing the behaviour of a particular user and his indefinite ban, to a far broader title which basically encompasses a vast segment of Northern Irish politics. I have no wish to be involved in the latter. My comments were made in good faith regarding the heading of the original case, and I think it extremely bad form that the heading has been changed without first contacting all those who had already contributed a comment. If the arbitrarily changed heading is to remain I shall withdraw my comment. David Lauder 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just received this note from User:Penwhale: "Per the original ArbCom vote, the arbitrators decided that the scope of the case should not be limited to just Vintagekits. Via an e-mail instruction, I was asked to include all parties and name the case as The Troubles. A little too secretive for me, I'm afraid, and such a renaming changes the goalposts and the reason Vintagekit's ban came up for ArbCom. I am withdrawing. David Lauder 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators, during their vote, mentioned that they would like to look at the whole picture. If you notice my clerk note, I asked what the scope was going to be on and whether to involve all parties. The Arbitration Committee does maintain a mailing list for conversing off-wiki. (Think of the discussion as behind doors.) It's not secretive (secretive here would actually mean that the arbitrators didn't mention they want to view the whole picture before asking the clerk to re-title). By the way, you may not voluntarily withdraw from an arbitration case (to be removed from involved party, a motion must pass). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not "involved" in the "The Troubles" of Ulster at all or in any way. That was not the original arbitration which I voluntarily made a statement for. Something voluntarily submitted to a particular case, which has then had a dramatic shift of parameters, should be able to be withdrawn otherwise it is essentially being misused. I failed to notice that you were the clerk, so please put this matter before the arbitrators for an authorisiation of my statement withdrawal. regards, David Lauder 12:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be up to the judgment of arbitrators to decide; I could only ask them to consider. Generally speaking, though, most people that submit any kind of evidence for the situation ends up staying listed as an involved party because they also would get notified at the end of the case. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As one who has been keen for this whole affair to be sorted fairly. I disagree completely with David Lauder. I think it is brilliant that the whole of this problem is to be fully explored. It seems to me that at times, a small clique of editors which included David Lauder have exacerbated the problems, rather than try to find a reasonable solution and compromise with those of differing views. David Lauder may indeed choose to withdraw as he wishes but he should note that his withdrawal will not prevent his conduct in this affair from being closely scrutinised. If the Arbcom decide that the permanent ban of Vintagekits is justified then so be it, but it is very unlikely they the findings will be that Vintagekits orchestrated and 100% personally caused the feuding which has been a feature of "The Troubles" pages for so long. Giano 13:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know how you can say that, honestly I don't. Would you say that post falls with the realms of WP:CIVIL? I have not attacked anyone elses work on WP the way VK has. Show me someone I have bullied into submission? Lead me to one AfD I have proposed? Show me where I had some involvement in the last two indefinite blocks of Vintagekits. We may have crossed swords at points but are we not adults? In all courts/arbitration matters there is a fundamental root cause. Originally this case was brought to ArbCom to consider Vintagekits, under that heading. The parameters have been substantially altered covering Northern irish matters, where my input over the past 8 months has been utterly meaningless.David Lauder 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, surely you've nothing to be concerned about and the arb case can proceed with the incidental evidence you have provided? - Alison ☺ 13:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from case page: *Later thought. This seems now to be turned into a discussion about "The Troubles" in which I have very little interest. I edited Bobby Sands a while ago and later contributed to a few afds on various terrorists / freedom fighters (depending on one's perspective). The consequence was that User:Vintagekits and User:Giano_II started attacking articles to which I had contributed. Bad game. Not interested. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC) -- - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could a clerk comment on whether the committee is planning to consider the circumstances around and leading up to Vk's block, specifically, in this case? I ask because at least one committee member stated "I have no interest in examining the block of Vintagekits" in accepting the case. I have plenty of evidence to submit regarding Vk's behaviour, but if this is not being considered then there is little point me adding to what will be an already extremely evidence heavy case. In addition, much of the poor behaviour spanned not only articles relating to the Troubles, but migrated across to articles on baronetcies. Will the committee consider evidence from this subject area too? I ask because some of the most damaging sockpuppetry and meat-puppetry involving some of the major protagonists occurred on Afd's relating to these articles rather than those directly related to the Troubles. And while we are at it, there was some pretty poor behaviour on, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville. Will evidence from these tangentially related subjects be considered also? Rockpocket 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My best bet is to submit the evidence; what arbitrators choose to do with it is their jurisdiction. Without speculating, I would submit all evidence you can (but please be concise with them). With the tangentially related subjects, I would compile it and then see which ones show the behaviors the most and not submit all of it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. Thanks. Rockpocket 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On his talk page, Vintagekits has made a proposal:

I propose that Traditional unionist is added to the arbitration -once that is done then I will put my submission together.--Vintagekits 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Rockpocket 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I have just lifted the email block on Vintagekits' account here. It was originally applied due to email abuse after he was blocked but seeing as he still persists in emailing me, it's a bit moot anyway. - Alison ☺ 20:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He emails me too. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I email a lot of people!--Vintagekits 08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gave notice here that he was being added. SirFozzie 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Traditional Unionist

I'm not all that familiar with some of the more detailed aspects of Wikipedia's rules and regulations, so I'm just going to use this opportunity to make a statement, which may be quite verbose and may take me a couple of sessions to finish. This statement will be based on my observations, my experiences and my thoughts.

I started editing Wikipedia sometime in 2005 or 2004, well before I created this account. Quite unaware of the rules, I engaged in an edit war with User:Lapsed Pacifist on Northern Ireland Policing Board. That edit war was prompted by the Republican propaganda being employed there. Of course none of that matters any more. I also around that time started editing the wiki on politics.ie. User:Padraig is an administrator there, and as you will see of my user page there, I no longer wish to contribute to that project. I was the only unionist amongst a cabal of disparate nationalist contributors, most of whom conspired to ensure that the Irish Nationalist version of history prevails on that Irish political so called encyclopedia.

There is a dreadful campaign to eradicate the flag of Northern Ireland from wikipedia, leaving the article on Northern Ireland the only one possibly in the world without it's flag displayed. This is despite mounds of evidence that the flag is the de facto and fair use flag of Northern Ireland. And why does this campaign exist? As it suits Nationalists for the flag not to be there, as they don't believe that NI should exist at all.

Then we have the incident where nationalists tag teamed on Orange Institution (thereby ensuring that I got blocked but they didn't) to have the order described as sectarian in the opening paragraph, a statement backed up, not by a neutral author, but Michael Farrell. Now that we have a reasonable compromise, they refuse to have a quote in quotation marks. Such a use of the word sectarian is highly offensive to hundreds of thousands of Orangemen and Women across the world.

We have a situation were nationalist editors claim WP:MOS to say that things that don't exist do exists, for example the Lord Mayor of Derry in the NI Senate and the City of Derry County Grand Lodge. Clear POV pushes based on a falsehood Wikipedia has endorsed in WP:MOS, a situation that leads me to not support wholeheartedly the principle of consensus. It doesn't always work on an encyclopedia. What if I managed to get consensus that the holocaust didn't happen? It would be wikipeida policy, and presumably someone would go to jail in Austria.

We have a stupid, inane, pointless, tiresome, stupid again edit war over the flags used on FIFA 08 when there is a clear consensus which goes much much wider than wikipedia.

There is a cultural war in Northern Ireland at present. Republicans are much better than Unionists at educating their communities in the republican version of history. When I was at University I was amazed at the level of indoctrination that exists within the republican community. The sectarian orginisation the GAA is a brilliant vehicle for it. The Irish Language is brilliant weapon in the war to remove all Britishness from my region of the UK. This is relevant, as wikipedia has been made a battleground in this campaign. A user has made some comments that I do not wish to be associated with on Talk:Bobby Sands, but his reaction to the refusal by some to allow the mob who murdered a milkman when Bobby Sands committed suicided, be called nationalist was to say that people were looking for sources to say that the water is wet. The rules are being abused by nationalists, and they can be abused, as the Internet is awash with republican propaganda that can be used as sources. I hold wikipedia in high regard, it got me through many an essay during my undergraduate studies (shhh though), but Northern Ireland politics and history is fast becoming a lost cause. NPOV is trampled over for political reasons by Nationalist editors.

I wish to add something. What is very apparent amongst Nationalist editors, is a detailed and meticulous knowledge of the Wikipedia rules. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it is being used in damaging ways. For examples Talk:Orange Institution is perfect, although there are others. I am adding this as it worries me. It is perfectly possible to follow the rules to the letter, yet still be wrong. This happens time after time after time, particularly it has to be said with references. There was an instance on Orange Institution where references were provided to say that the Institution is sectarian. This was all opinion, by commentators who could all be identified with some basic research to have some sort of connection with Nationalist Ireland. Yet the nationalist POV tag team insisted that this "evidence" was damming. It wasn't, it was opinion being dressed up as fact. The rules are not always right, and this is becoming an increasing problem around Northern Ireland issues.

I don't know where else to put this. I disagree with this. It is fair enough to reference opinion, so long as it is accredited as opinion. The problem we have, is that opinion is being dressed up as fact. It is also being done with a very clear agenda and in a worryingly increasing frequency.Traditional unionist 00:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aatomic1

Domers evidence (a) relates to this; I agreed to mediation before this Arbcon surfaced [1]. I suspect his reasoning is all animals are equal at mediation but some animals are more equal than others at Arbcom.

My total edits to Orange Institution can be shown by one diff [2]. I suspected the Wolfpack would attack so I posted an ANI (and posted to Fred's page). Two admins, JzG and EliminatorJR, stepped in after me and actually got the consensus building process going. Some 7.5 Hours later Sir Fozzie comes weighing in blocking the page - protecting the pages that are under dispute my arse.

Regarding Alison's evidence (b). I was not making a blatant and transparent attempt to paint Alison with the 'nationalist POV' brush. ; Counter-Revolutionary is not a colleague of mine (c).

I can categorically state that I have never ever ever made any contact with Traditional Unionist or Counter Revolutionary but I have made false accusations of sockpuppetry against Astrotrain. As a result I was in email contact with ONiH who gave me the advice One thing you might need to take into account is Astrotrain's lengthy block-log as well - I didn't bother. That this the sum total of my conspiracies.

The remedy states that To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. The terms of probation, if imposed on any editor, are set forth in the enforcement ruling below. During the case itself, a discussion arose on the Proposed Decision page, that no arbitrator took part in, but consensus of the discussion was that the definition of "uninvolved" was for not being involved in "edit-warring or disruptive editing", since there was no finding in the ArbCom case that ANY administrator had been non-neutral.

Previously, myself and Tyrenius (who were both parties to the ArbCom) have used this remedy to try to keep folks calm, with no peep of protest. Now, three weeks after User:Aatomic1 was placed on a one-month probation by administrator User:Alison, User:Aatomic1 has attempted to remove himself from the terms of probation, because Alison was one of the parties who provided evidence and discussion for the case. This came after Aatomic1 attempted to incite an admin who WAS in an edit war with User:Domer48 to place "That troll" (ie Domer) on its terms. Could the ArbCom please clarify this remedy, as to whom may place it, and if my definition is correct? SirFozzie (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The probation should remain in place. For purposes of this case, Alison was not an involved admin and she remains uninvolved as far as I can tell. Meaning that she has not been involved in edits disputes with the user or about these articles. We need admin to become "involved" as Alison did. Meaning that they learn about conflicts, bring them to ArbCom for rulings, and apply sanctions as needed when cases close. I think that is what Alison did and so the probation should remain. FloNight (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this basis, then, I will withdraw from the voluntary recusal I placed myself under, after a probation violation warning was issued to one party and a raft of protesters argued that as a named party I was an "involved" admin. Rockpocket 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Involved" for the purposes of enforcement could mean that if you edit war with another user on articles A and B, you should not impose a sanction on article C, even if you haven't edited that article. However, learning about a dispute and trying to help settle it, and taking action when needed, is not really involvement. Thatcher131 01:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my understanding too, however our-soon-to-be-newest Arb appeared to have a different opinion. [3] Note that "heavily involved in the earlier disputes" equates to being one of the admins who attempted to deal with earlier disputes. Rockpocket 01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a judgment call, and a balancing: We don't want editors to believe they are being treated unfairly, but neither do we want to multiply the opportunities for forum shopping. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, is to be assumed that all "uninvolved admin" rulings (e.g. Digwuren) should be interpreted in this way? Will ^(talk) 01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a clerk I always find that "uninvolved" in this case means that you have a neutral opinion on the subject. (Like, I would not touch anything related to Chinese politics with a 10' pole.) You cannot pass judgment on anyone without learning why, and if we become "involved", we'd never get anything done. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, if you apply a remedy and the target thinks you are too involved, he can appeal to WP:AE, WP:ANI, or email the Arbcom. Remedies applied by one admin can be lifted by another for good cause like any other admin action, although as with reversing any other action, discussion and consultation beforehand is a good thing. If you do end up dropping the hammer on someone you shouldn't, someone will let you know one way or the other. Thatcher131 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. And I don't mean to give the impression that any admin should reserve an absolute right to be the one to take action (sometimes its better to step back to avoid even the appearance of a COI). My concern is simply that this does leave open an avenue in which editors who are under ArbCom remedies could take out of the equation the very admins that are most familiar with their MO in an effort to further a disruptive agenda. It is a balance, but as we saw from the reversing of Ty's block, the community has in place mechanisms that provides it without asking those with previous experience to recuse themselves on principle. This is especially important in complex and long running cases, where entirely "uninvolved" admins would not have a clue what was going on.

On a personal note, I felt particularly aggrieved by this suggestion, because I was the one who volunteered to provide the evidence about a particular editor in this case, and as a result I was the one targeted (by an entire lobby) as the person with the vendetta. I could easily have stood back and let someone else provide the evidence, but didn't consider it an issue at the time. As it stood, I was not planning to provide any more evidence to future cases, lest the same accusations be leveled against me. I'd feel much more confidence in contributing to the arbitration process if I felt that my evidence as an admin who tried to enforce our policies was not codified as being an involved in the problem. Rockpocket 03:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would a neutral observer think, by your actions or the way you presented evidence, that you had taken sides? Or are you presenting yourself as a neutral party trying to resolve ongoing conflicts? If so, you probably should not take enforcement action. If not, then there should not be a problem. Complaints from the people you have sanctioned is routine. Try the Armenia-Azerbaijani dispute. I respond to a large majority of the reports and I'm pretty sure neither side has much liked my responses. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware no neutral observer has ever suggested any of the admins involved have taken sides, though plenty have said that its best of avoid it looking that way. Well, when the lobbies (on both sides) are doing their damnedest to make it look that way, then we have a problem. So what happens is one editor complains loudly when an admin takes action, within (literally) minutes the other members of the lobby pile on with the same complaint. The neutral observer sees a number of editors in agreement and suggests you should probably not make the enforcement action if only to avoid the perception of bias. QED, the lobby has got exactly what they want. So the "involved" admins probably do inflame the situation, but thats because its in the interests of those people who are under remedy to cause the inflammation. I see this as a real and ongoing problem. The obvious answer is to have other admins take over, but quite frankly, requests for outside eyes in this sort of lengthy, simmering and bitter dispute come to nothing, no-one wants to touch it - and you can hardly blame them. Rockpocket 05:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't intended to be obtuse or confusing. If you are part of the problem, you should not be the one to impose the remedy. I think this is clear from the current Matthew Hoffman case where Adam is under review for blocking editors whose edits he opposed for content reasons, even though he did not edit the exact article in dispute but did edit other articles in the broad topic. However, if you step into a situation to try and resolve it peacefully, and maintain your objectivity, and find that one party or both needs to be sanctioned, you probably can do it. Editors should not feel that they are being taken advantage of by their opponents who happen to have a sysop bit, but at the same time, disruptive editors should not be able to game the system and forum shop by claiming that every admin who tries to resolve a situation in a neutral way is now too tainted by involvement to make a fair judgement call on sanctions. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need administrator to become knowledgeable about the situation in order to make clueful decisions. There should be no problem with monitoring a situation over time to make sure is properly resolved. Keeping articles on a watchlist and stepping in to calm down edit wars is a good use of admin time. FloNight (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you go about requesting that an editor be included on the ArbCom list. I ask because of this edit and in light of this warning. That they have had final warnings and a history on Republican related articles, not to mention the view they have of themselves. --Domer48 (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to explain a little the basis behind this (since, I fear, it spiral and I may as well try and dampen it before that happens).

I have a large number Irish republican related articles on my watch list due to the fact I implemented a compromise about a categorization strategy for jailed paramilitaries a while back. As i'm sure most editors do, when changes appear on their watch list they will often check them out, especially when there has been a history of problems with such editors and such articles. I saw this edit [4] and had a look because Vk has been engaging in a slow revert war over Irish names of republicans. Damac (talk · contribs) has been removing them as unsourced and requesting a discussion on the subject, Vk (and others) will add them back over periods of weeks while pretty much ignoring the discussion. I have been keeping and eye on it and, although it is still revert-warring and against the spirit of his probation, I have declined to comment or draw attention to it yet simply because the fuss it would cause is more trouble that it is worth. Anyway, I then checked Vk's history to see if he had added the names back en masse or just to this one individual.

That led me to see these edits [5] [6] both of which appeared to be the recreation of an article that had been deleted and merged by AfD consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Donnelly and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry O'Callaghan). I had a look around on those pages and could find no good reason why the AfD decision should not stand (Vk provided no rationale for the reversion in his edit summary), so I reverted and explained why in my summary [7] [8]. Now, normally I would have asked the editor if he could explain his reasoning before reverting, but Vk has made it perfectly clear he does not welcome communication from me, and more often than not any message I leave for him gets deleted without reply.

This led to Vk immediately reverting both [9] [10] (with the charming edit summaries "reverting editing who hasnt a clue what he is doing") the following exchange on my talk page:

At this point I reverted back to the redirect, since I had asked for justification and none was forthcoming, moreover Vk was clearly being making a WP:POINT. The communications on my talkpage then continued:

At this point, with thanks to ONiH I was going to revert myself back to Vk's original edit, since it was clear that the AfDs were stacked by sockpuppets, and without those consensus would have been to keep. However, Vk has already reverted both again. [11] [12]

Technically Vk has made 2 x 3 reverts this evening along, and thus is clearly in violation of his probation. I was aware of this immediately, obviously, but didn't pursue it because technically there were good edits. I didn't wish to field the inevitable accusations that my plan was to get him blocked by forcing him to revert. The problem, of course, is that irrespective of the merits of his original edit his actions on my talk page were purposely and willfully disruptive. It led to multiple reversions only because a simple response to my request for information, that he clearly had, was gleefully rebuffed.

Combine this with the ongoing personal attacks, [13] incivility, [14] [15] aggressive swearing [16] and childish games such as this and I'm left wondering who this is any different from the behaviour that brought this case in the first place. I fully acknowledge Vk has done nice work on boxing articles since he got back, and I applaud and appreciate that. If he sticks to those articles he is a net asset to the project, but it very much appears to me that despite the very last warning this probation was meant to enforce, we still have the underlying problems in the sphere of the Troubles.

I am now at a loss at how to proceed here without Vk getting further provoked. Either I have to curb my constructive editing and my watch list and go to lengths to avoid any contact with an editor simply because he cannot edit in a civil manner. In doing that I am essentially being restricted in my editing, despite the fact I have never been sanctioned, always been polite and policy compliant, and no-one has ever suggested than any of my edits have been problematic. At the same time leaving a clearly problematic editor to make (often good faith) but nevertheless problematic edits at will and uncorrected. I simply fail to comprehend how that is a good way forward, when the problem is clearly with Vk and his inability to remain civil to people he has a personal issue with. In fact, I don't see myself continuing here if we are in a place where good editors are being asked to make accommodations so problem editors can flourish. That is not a Wikipedia I wish to be a part of.

I have tried to explain all this to Vk, and plead with him that for his own good to either curb his temper or back away from these articles, but its obviously falling on deaf ears. My understanding is that other editors, particularly SirFozzie, has made the same pleas time and time again, yet to no avail. [17] [18] Despite what Vk will tell anyone that will listen, my aim is not to get Vk blocked (its clear that his boxing articles are a plus and I would not support a full block now since he has demonstrated that he can edit without without major problems), but this cannot continue. What now, is there any scope or support for a topic ban of sorts? Rockpocket 03:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two Vintagekits. One is the good contributor. Even those who he's been scuffling with fully agree with that. He's made good strides on many articles. Even this latest kerfluffle, he was technically in the right in (the AfD with the sockpuppets, and he was restoring). HOWEVER, with certain folks, VK just can't keep his temper in check. That's a bad thing for an encyclopedia where people have to work together (strange concept as it may seem after all this time on Troubles articles....:/).

Before I would ask Rock and John and VK the following... if there's ANY concern whatsoever between VK and someone, to bring it to me first, and I will bring it up with the other person. No accusations of "stalking", no chances to get a snide remark in sneakily (While I found VK's edited several articles in a row to accuse Rockpocket of stalking him, funny (in that I appreciate that it took effort to do, and it was at least a bit subtle), I think we can all agree that it doesn't really lend itself to building an encyclopedia.) That means if VK gets reverted, rather then going to the talk page or editwarring, or going to the user talk page, he goes straight to me, AND LEAVES IT ALONE till I get a chance to look it over and bring it up with the other party. I don't know if it's feasible, I'm pretty sure my block of VK might have strained things between me and him, and also the time difference, etcetera).

One other thing I would think of as a possible remedy, is the following., Vintagekits is placed under civility parole. Any admin other than those named as parties from The Troubles ArbCom case may block Vintagekits for up to 24 hours for any violation of this civility parole. After five such blocks, the maximum length block of any civility violation is one week. If anyone else has any ideas, I'm fresh out after these two.. (and a bit worn out to boot). SirFozzie (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very generous offer, Fozzie. Its essentially making you the conduit for Vk and the community. As you know, I will happily come to you with any admin concerns. There is no way in hell that I would use my tools against Vk now (that in itself I find concerning in principle because it essentially means that if you accuse an admin of abuse/bias persistently enough, you can generate that perception. A good admin is duty bound not to give the perception that there can be a COI, so you neutralise any admin you have a problem with by making them part of the problem. Nevertheless, I trust in the admin community to be fair, so I am willing to voluntarily recuse myself from that.)

However, what I am not willing to do is go to you before making any content edit that Vk might find problematic enough to lose his temper. I have earned the trust of the community, have written two FAs, I understand policy and believe myself to be extremely calm and polite, and have nary a warning never mind a block in over 14,000 edits. All of the edits that Vk has protested over the last week have been good edits (yes, even the AfD reverts were the absolutely correct thing to do under the circumstances). There is nothing that warrants me (or for that matter, John) running edits past you just because Vk happened to edit that page earlier. I'm not sure if that was what you were suggesting or whether you were simply suggesting Vk comes to you before responding to one of our edits. Could you clarify? Rockpocket 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Rock, I meant the latter. VK comes to me before he interfaces with any of the admins he has such trouble with. I apologize for being unclear, and seemingly casting aspersions... SirFozzie (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats alright, mate. I just was looking for an opportunity to blow my own trumpet ;) Struck Rockpocket 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock you have said in your opening post that you have a number of Republican Related articles on your watch list, due to the fact you implemented a compromise on the Categories. Those categories have now bedded in and are working fine. All of the editors involved in that process are now in a position to direct editors to that compromise solution. Would it not now be appropriate to remove those Republican Articles from your watch list? The issue of cat’s has been addressed and resolved. This would reduce the amount of contact you would have with Vin, and the potential for a flare up. It would also address the perceived view that you are stalking Vin’s edits. Since you initial role in Republican related articles i.e. the Cat’s has been resolved, is there any other matters on the articles which has prompted you to retain them on your watch list? --Domer48 (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the same paragraph, Rockpocket does say that the "slow edit war" of surreptitiously adding of flawed, incorrect, and made up Irish names to articles related to Irish republicanism, and refusing to engage in a discussion about the matter, is something that does bother him. It annoys me too.--Damac (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could do that, Domer. But why should I? Seeing as I'm not the one with the problematic edits. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask Vk to remove those articles from his watch list, thereby solving the problem? Afterall, he is the one who can't edit in a civil manner. Can you see why it is inappropriate to ask good editors to sanction themselves because problematic editors can't behave? Moreover, this was essentially what John did after he found himself the target of Vk's ire last year. Look what happened.... Vk found himself a new public enemy. If walk away and leave Vk to his devices, how long before we are in the same situation yet again? Rockpocket 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since your work on the Cat's, would you say you have developed an intrest in Republican related Articles? There are enough Admin's to review what you consider to be "problematic edits." If Vin is such a good editor on articles unrelated to the Troubles, how is it his edits suddenly become "problematic." Do you think that if Vin makes an edit which you considered problematic, you would be the only one to notice it? The problem is that this has all become personal, in my opinion. Review your own contrabutions to the ArbCom, and seriously say that this is not personal. Now it is also true that you have ended up on articles that Vin had just edited, and on which you had no edit history? No matter what way you look at it, a certain preception under the circumstances become obvious? Weather it's true or not, that is just the way it is. So what do you see as your role on Republican Articles, are you an editor with an intrest in the subject? Is it to make sure policies are followed? Now might I make another suggestion? On the Great Hunger article, any edits which may become "problematic" are first put forward on the talk page. For example, Vin makes an edit you consider "problematic" you mention it on the talk page first, allow some time for a responce, before any revert. This would obviously work both ways. This could reduce the tension in a number of ways. It would allow editors with an intrest in the subject the oppertunity to become involved and help prevent the one to one on the reverts? It's just my comment / opinion / suggestion? --Domer48 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious to everyone who edits article related to the Troubles that both these editors dont get on, so must Rocketpocket go around asking other to get involved Kite and Alison and also Brown Haired Girl Vin has been blocked and this seems to me to be an attempt to whip up a storm frankly over a content dispute. Which is more important to wikipedia content or incivility? BigDunc (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, what content is under dispute? Rockpocket 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually something I'm working on compiling right now but I've got various things on the go. Plenty of content related transgressions from editors involved in the case are most definitely either not being spotted, or not being acted upon in a consistent manner. I don't want to go into too much detail right now, but should be able to within 48 hours. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donnelly article maybe content is not the right word. BigDunc (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute over the contents of that article, at least on my part, once the information was provided by ONiH. The ongoing problem is the incivility and disruption caused by Vk's comments on my talk page (reproduced above) which resulted in him breaking his parole. I'm not sure there is any content issues at all. Rockpocket 20:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:SirFozzie

I don't think we should tolerate a situation where a user can use emotional blackmail to scare other users away from participating in articles, or invoke WP:STALK just because they cross paths. If an editor makes a good edit, then their action is acceptable. I think that applies to all parties, and for that reason also if an editor such as Vintagekits makes edits per, for example, WP:MOS to articles such as baronets or nominates a weak article on them for AfD, he also deserves support. Vk has done some good work in this area and he too should not be scared off. The bottom line is - is it in the interests of creating an encyclopedia? I think as admins we should adopt pretty much a zero-tolerance approach to this situation. Vintagekits' recent edits have displayed a completely unacceptable level of incivility that should have received an instant block, as indeed I applied soon after the ArbCom case. This was truly preventative and I said that its overturning would only send the wrong signal and lead to trouble ahead to Vk's disadvantage. That is exactly what we are now witnessing. I don't intend to apply such a block myself again, but would certainly support anyone who did. The terms of the ArbCom probation are quite clear:
Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.
This is not a difficult problem to solve. No one wants to see Vk indef blocked. Instant short blocks for an infraction will serve the purpose. I suggest starting with an hour.
On that basis I propose unblocking Vk now, if no one objects, with the proviso that the block gets reapplied immediately maybe for a couple of hours next time, should he continue to be uncivil.
Tyrenius (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thinking about it, I think any incivility = instant 30 minute block. Then there's no need to wait till it builds up to the bigger 24 hour or longer deal. It's then up to Vk (or any other editor in similar position). They can be insulting if they want: it's just that they will have to twiddle their thumbs for 30 minutes afterwards. An innovative approach to the situation. What do you think? A sub page could be created which could be watch-listed to get any admin's attention for the purpose. Tyrenius (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Ty. Zero tolerance on the civility issue and encouragement and tolerance on the content. I think Vk's comment here speaks volumes. He clearly saw the ArbCom as some sort of victory for himself, rather than the pretty damning conclusion of his actions that it was. I do think he took great heart from the way Ty's block was for civility was overturned just days after being put on civility parole. He feels that these sorts of comments are acceptable. Why? Because we have sent a message that you can make them without consequence. We have given an inch, so he takes a few more. Its pretty inevitable, really.

I think your proposal is admirable, Foz. I have asked for clarification, though reading my comment back it sounds a bit self important and pompous, so apologies there. I was trying to reinforce the point there remedy burden should be on the source of the problem. I would worry about the load you could be taking on over it. It also can't solve the problem, it is more of a finger-in-the-dyke kind of solution. Vk isn't going to change, he is not going to forgive and forget on this so it may end up being indefinite. Still, if you are willing to do it, then it could be worth a try. I also like the idea about civility mini-blocks. His situation could be perfectly suited for that. A 30 min cool off, knowing that you come back pissed and carry on in the same vein and you will get exactly the same thing again. Rockpocket 04:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The useful thing about mini-blocks is that they can be applied to mini-infractions, before the matter escalates. And they can keep on being applied. There is no excuse for incivility. If someone has a sound point they can couch it in reasonable language. It will then be treated in a reasonable way and the substance addressed (not necessarily agreed with) rather than the packaging. Tyrenius (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

END OF COPIED TALK

The problem with the instant blocks is.. well, with a block of a half-hour or an hour, all that what could happen is the person saves up a half-hour or hour worth of anger, bile, and frustration, and lets it all out at once. Becoming a revolving door, in/out/in/out/in/out... (note: I'm not saying that WILL happen with VK, just that it could). The think that makes a longer block better is that it forces the person to get up, get away from the computer, sleep on it, and then come back to it. By then, it's not so angry-makin ;) SirFozzie (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they've saved up 24 hours' worth instead... Perhaps we should ask Vk. My limited experience of short blocks is that the editor is glad they don't have to wait a whole day or longer before they can return. Tyrenius (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing VK's response on his talk page... I withdraw my offer for a solution. I really hate to say it but he just can't get along with certain editors. SirFozzie (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed [19] [20] and I don't blame you. Does anyone have any more ideas? Tyr, would you be willing to police Vk for civility per your suggestion above (bearing in mind it will probably put you in the firing line)? Unless we can come up with some sort of solution here, and find some admins that are willing to police it, I am resigned to either taking the whole thing to AN/I or going back to the Arbs and seeing if they will consider an extension to the remedy. I'll also ask a few other admins who are familiar with Vk to comment. Rockpocket 18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'am not a admin, but I think it would help things alot if Rockpocket could back off and give VK some space, because evening if not intentional you do seem to be on his case all the time. VK is no angel but you do seem to bring out the worse in him, if you think he is causing problems let another admin deal with it, hes on probation and has done alot of good work on articles lately.--Padraig (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "back off"? Do you mean I shouldn't make these edits [21] [22] [23] to articles on my watch list because Vk happened to edit the article earlier? Sorry, I refuse to alter my perfectly acceptable editing and leave articles in poor conditions simply because Vk can't be civil. How does your suggestion address the problem: Vk's persistent incivility? Rockpocket 18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rockpocket here. As suggested above, I have consciously backed off from editing articles on my watchlist for a while now to give Vintagekits all the "space" he apparently needs. However, this cannot continue indefinitely, and why should it? I was editing these articles a long time before he was, and he cannot "own" them long term; that would be a disaster for Wikipedia. It would be helpful if we could focus here on how we move forwards as the means employed so far seem only to have given him a feeling of power; he has essentially gone back to the edit-warring, tendentious editing and personal attacks he was first blocked for. If Tyrenius was willing to police Vintagekits' parole (obviously with Vk's agreement), that would be great, but it would depend on any future blocks he makes not being overturned by other admins; that unfortunate event seems also to have given Vk the impression that his poor behaviour is condoned here. If that is not deemed as acceptable by all parties, and no other solution can be found, then I think we have to consider that as Vk has broken the terms of his unblock, he should be blocked again pending a proper resolution of this. I am sure we all have better things to do than support yet another last-last-last chance for this problematic user. --John (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made another suggestion here which I consider reasonable? As Pádraig has mentioned, and I have also, you do seem to be on his case? Now the civility is an issue, but Rock you seem to be the only one at the minute who provokes this responce? Could the two things be related? Now there has been a period of relative calm, and now all of a sudden this happens. I have also noticed Rock that you have been contacting other editors looking for input, why? Lets not try blow this out of all proportion, and let me just suggest, if your not part of the problem, be part of the solution. --Domer48 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted all editors I mentioned as a courtesy, and as I noted above, I asked three admins who have experience with Vk if they could offer any ideas. If you think there is anyone else that I should ask, feel free to let me know. Your proposal makes a number of suppositions which are incorrect, but ultimately it amounts to the same as Padraig's. Its proposing that I, like John, sanction the articles I chose to make perfectly good edits to because another editor is incapable of being civil in response to them. This appears to be based on the premise that Vk has a preferential right to edit Republican related Articles. I'll ask you the same as Padraig: why are you suggesting unproblematic editors be restricted, and do nothing to address the real the problem: Vk's persistent incivility. (By the way, if you consider my edits that have caused Vk to be incivil to be problematic, then RfC is that way.) Rockpocket 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I suggested? The incivility is directed at you. You have been asked before to allow other Admin's to look after any problems, by Admin's. You following Vin around, and be honest you are, just adds fuel to the fire. Now read my constructive suggestion again, and lets move on. Because what you are not going to get is more sanctions. --Domer48 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If VK keeps it up, there will be "more sanctions", and Rock won't even have to do it. I will. Domer, I like VK. I've run the gauntlet for him. But there's a point where he's gone beyond what I can do for him. What you're suggesting is that every other editor restrict where they edit so as to not piss VK off. WP doesn't work that way. You want John and Rockpocket to restrict where they edit, in favor of VK. Remind me again.... who has the long block log? Whose actions were the cause of a six-week long ArbCom case that locked the project down? If VK cannot or will not behave civilly, he cannot or will not edit WP. It's that plain and simple. SirFozzie (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fozz did you even read what I suggested? --Domer48 (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's never nice to be asked to swallow our pride – our pride is very important to us. But let's look at how this began: (1) Rockpocket made a good and reasonable edit; (2) Vintagekits made what turned out to be a reasonable revert; (3) in reverting a second time (which he should not have done) Vintagekits left an abusive edit summary and (4) it escalated very quickly from there. Now let me say up front that there is no excuse for Vk's incivility, but having said that, what if Rockpocket had not reverted, but had asked SirFozzie or Tyrenius to do it instead? Now, maybe the answer is, nothing would have been any different and we would still be back here at ArbCom; but maybe, as Padraig and Domer are suggesting, it's simply the name "Rockpocket" that makes Vk lose it. In that case, what would Rockpocket actually be giving up? Rockpocket, you've said that there is no content dispute, as far as you know, so is the possibility of Vk's bad behaviour actually stopping you from editing articles that you would normally be editing? You are right to say that the real problem is Vk's persistent incivility, but if it could be prevented by "backing off", even if that involves losing face, but if WP itself doesn't suffer, is that not worth considering? Scolaire (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, if Rockpocket chose to give said editor "some space" things might not have escalated, and if Rockpocket chooses to do so in the future, fine. But I don't like the implication here that a good content editor is being asked to "back off" from improving content just because it might set off another editor's allergic reaction. I've seen this happen before, and I don't like it. Editors are expected to be able to collaborate with each other. This Article Ain't Big Enough for Both of Us is not a workable option at Wikipedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just Rockpocket though, I'm fairly sure it's me as well. Why should Vintagekits be allowed to dictate that (to take the example I linked) I may not revert vandalism on an article on my watchlist, or to remove a category that there is no proper evidence for? This has been going on since August 2007. Should Vk be able to add to the list of people who he finds it impossible to assume good faith of? Eventually, if enough of us "back off", there will be nobody left to protect the integrity of the articles from POV-pushing. Here's my suggestion; Vintagekits should be restricted to boxing articles. It is the only time I have seen him stay out of trouble for any length of time. --John (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, entirely irrespective of who had made the edit I would have reverted back to the AfD consensus. When someone appears to have ignored an AfD without explaining why, its a good idea to revert. Its a better idea, of course, to leave a message asking why. But look what has happened in previous attempts make perfectly legitimate edits to Vk's page: [24] [25] [26] [27] As far as I am concerned, and editor who deletes requests without response (or replies incivily) loses that courtesy. So again, why should I be asked to restrict my good editing in the best interests of the project when the problem lies elsewhere? Its not about losing face or pride, its a matter of principle that we are asking editors who do good work to make restrict their editing for editors who have problems, when the problematic editor could and should be the one who is restricted. That hurts the encyclopaedia, it doesn't help it.

Secondly, its a bit of a red herring to base this upon this one incident. Have a look at this entirely unprovocative edit [28] Look at the mess the article was in until I copy edited it. This led to accusations of stalking too (despite the fact that I saw the article not by stalking his edits, but because Vk had messed up a move of an article on my watch list to create it). So, am I supposed to not copy edit this article because Vk might lose his temper? Am i supposed to leave the messed up move of an article I spent a long time editing, just because it was Vk who did it? How does that help the project? How about this one [29] another accusation of stalking. Again, it was on my watch list since last year and the edit was entirely unprovocative. Even more amazing, note the fact that there was two intervening edits between Vk and I, so his name didn't even appear on my watch list when I made this edit. So, if these types of edits are what you are asking I don't make in "backing off" then I despair. What you are actually asking is that any article that Vk choses to edit becomes off-limits to me (and John and anyone else that he decides to get upset over). I have a lot of time for you Scolaire and respect your opinion, but that this is even being suggested I find depressing. Rockpocket 22:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely unacceptable to suggest that someone should not edit an article because another user gets annoyed about them. Vintagekits is attempting (and actually succeeding in part) in intimidation - up with which we should not put. I see nothing wrong in Rockpocket's edits. They benefit the encyclopedia. If Vk wishes to stop that benefit, he is being disruptive. I see no evidence of stalking. Please note Vintagekits' censoring of a debate, which he initiated.[30] Tyrenius (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock what about the articles which were not on your watch list? Are you saying you just happened by them? All anyone has to do is review your contributions to the ArbCom to see you and Vin are in conflict with each other. Now that is a fact, let’s be honest about it. Those changes you made, is wiki going to collapse if you don’t jump in and change them right away, of course not. As Fozz says, you don’t have to be right, right now. It’s like you know it’s going to freeze tonight, so you hose down the pavement outside your nasty neighbours house. What you’re saying is you can’t control the weather. What I saying is, in view of your history with Vin, if you see something you think needs fixing, let someone else do it. That goes for Vin to by the way. As to the civility, I’ve learned my lesson on that one, Vin should learn to keep it shut, because the only time you make a mistake is when you learn nothing from it. --Domer48 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in conflict with Vk in as much as I am in conflict with you or Sarah. You seem to be operating under the assumption that I feel about Vk the same way he feels about me. I don't. I am perfectly happy to work with him assuming he can abide by community norms. Just because Vk says I don't like him, I am out to get him, I am stalking him does not make it true. Rather listen to what he says about me, why don't you look at the evidence: Have I ever personally abused him? Have I ever been incivil to him, have I ever sent him threatening emails? I don't believe so. Have I blocked him? Yes, once [31] and that was universally supported. So what makes you say we are "in conflict with each other". We are not.

Regarding "the articles which were not on your watch list", which ones do you mean exactly? If you give me an example, I will try and explain to you how I came to be aware if it. Rockpocket 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am not saying that anybody should not edit an article, in the sense of changing content, just because another editor might react badly. But, as Domer says, "those changes you made, is wiki going to collapse if you don’t jump in and change them right away?" This [32] and this [33] are copyedits - if you hadn't done them somebody else - in the first case a bot - would have done them. It's unfair of Sluzzelin to say "the implication here that a good content editor is being asked to 'back off' from improving content just because it might set off another editor's allergic reaction" (Tyrenius said essentially the same); we have established that improving content is not an issue here. All I'm saying is continue to improve content on those articles you are improving content on, and leave the tidying up of Vk's articles edits to somebody else. How does WP lose that way? Anyway, I am not going to argue about this any more. My suggestion was only by way of trying to help and I really have nothing more to add. Scolaire (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Rockpocket's actions

• Rockpocket has explained how and why he is editing some articles that Vintagekits edits.
• Rockpocket does not need to go into any further explanation about this.
• To continue to press him is becoming a form of harassment.
• Rockpocket is not stalking Vintagekits, because stalking only occurs when there is disruptive intent.
• Rockpocket's intent is to benefit the encyclopedia. This is particularly the case with cleaning up Vintagekits' habitual grammatical and spelling errors.
• It is quite common if an editor spots another editor making mistakes to then check out further edits by that editor in order to remedy those mistakes, and, if necessary, to watchlist the articles that editor is working on.
• Rockpocket is entitled to check all of Vintagekits' edits.
• No editor is entitled to intimidate another from working on an article.
• Vintagekits is totally out of order with his excessive reactions.
• Rockpocket is no more in conflict with Vintagekits than any other of the 7 admins involved in the ArbCom Troubles case.
• I suggest that the editors so keen to steer Rockpocket away from articles that Vintagekits is working on, desist from posting here any more and watch those articles themselves in order to remedy mistakes. It is obvious Rockpocket is doing it because no one else is.
  

Tyrenius (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a bloody slanted view! Well thats carte blanche for Rocket to walk all over me, provoke me and do what the hell hell he wants! If you think that that attitude is going going to get this sortsed then you are living on another planet. We there a problem with me editing before the Rocket started following me? No! Was I disruptively editing articles? No! This whole situtation is created by the Rocket - he knows that - he wants this trouble so that he can lead me into being banned - if you arnt going to treat me fairly with respect to this then dont expect my cooperation.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with these points, particularly the last one. We all need to exercise patience on this matter; those editors who think they are supporting Vk by arguing here need to ask what they want from this. Personally, I want troubles-related articles to be NPOV and for all editors to follow our core policies like NPA and CIVIL. I want to see an end to edits like this. If editors are unable or unwilling to edit in conformance with policy, they will have to be (nicely and politely) shown the door. --John (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tyr and John. This is essentially how I see it too. That all said, I am human. For example, in retrospect, it would have been to everyone's benefit if, after requesting the info about the AfD from Vk three times and being rebuffed, I had simply referred this to someone else and moved on. I appreciate that with the benefit of hindsight. But at the same time, I was the one being polite, following policy and justifying my actions, so I think its amazing that I am being criticized in some quarters for not diffusing the situation. Nevertheless, I understand that if it is in my powers to minimize disruption (even someone else's) then it is to the benefit of the project to do so. I'll learn from that.

So I guess this thread may have caused more problems that it has solved. My aim was to demonstrate, like Tyr has done much more succisnctly, how Vk's actions were not an acceptable response to another editor's valid edits. If, when he unblock ends soon, he undergoes some sort of temper transplant and can edit civilly for ever more then I'm content. Does anyone really think that is going to happen for more than a week or two? So, the more likely scenario, that the personal attacks, incivility and name calling continue before too long, what then? Do we start all over again, of do we finally start doing something to stop this pattern?

I see a few options.

• If my editing is the problem then lets discuss it at WP:RfC. I will abide any findings that has consensus from the community in good standing and, additionally, would resign as an admin if the community considered my editing a problem. I don't believe we should have admins who can't edit harmoniously.
• We could get consensus among admins for a topic ban for Vk,
• We could start enforcing the civility parole with lengthening blocks for every breach of civility (and don't overturn them),
• Or - if there is no support for either of these - I will go to AN with a lengthy dossier of all the breaches of his parole and request a fresh pair of eyes.

In the latter case all bets are off what the outcome will be. Does anyone support or oppose these options. Rockpocket 01:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming embrassing - you stir trouble and John comes around and agrees with you - I'm minded of the time that John said that I was in the right on the Baronet issue but once he thought there was a chance of a ban then he switched positions to agree with the ban.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate 36 hours before any further action is taken, as the information I intend to post may have a direct bearing on this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your said you have "content related transgressions from editors involved in the case are most definitely either not being spotted, or not being acted upon in a consistent manner". Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm not entirely sure how this relates to Vk being persistently incivil. We have already established, I thought, that content is not the problem here, civility is. Are these alleged "content related transgressions" mine? If so, then please bring them to the RfC I have requested. If not, then how is it relevant? If Vk continues his attacks in the meantime, then I don't intend to wait any longer. Perhaps you could have influence where no-one else does and stop that from happening. Rockpocket 02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but given we are discussing VK in terms of the case, I consider the information I have wholly relevant. As you are clearly aware, there were various principles established which should be upheld without prejudice across the articles in question. My concern is that the "big picture" is currently being ignored while the focus is on one editor. While not condoning incivility by any editor, the information I shall be posting asks a simple question: Should protecting the integrity of content not be the primary focus of administrators? In terms of blocks I see many for incivility or edit warring, yet I see editors who are constantly adding unsourced content or misrepresenting sources that persistently damage the encyclopedia by adding information designed to suit their particular POV, and yet not a single word is said to them. Which is really more damaging to the encyclopedia - people who deliberately set out to push their own point of view, or someone who uses the odd bit of colourful language? Yes the latter is problematic and needs to be dealt with, but surely content must come first? Hopefully 36 hours will be an absolute limit, but I've heading out shortly and I'll be slightly worse for wear tomorrow. Even so, I'm aiming to have it ready sooner rather than later... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 3) An RfC on you (Rockpocket) would be a complete waste of time as you are not the problem. Vk's response to your AfD enquiry was deliberately obstructive and blatantly provocative: in the circumstances it merited a block. I back enforcement of civility per earlier suggestions I made. Going to AN is a good way to get a difficult user banned indefinitely, so I vote keeping "in house" unless that proves unworkable. There is no reason why it should. I have started a page to centralise action at: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. If this seems viable, we should ask as many admins as possible to watchlist it. Re. ONIH's point - good one. The new page can be used for any violation. Tyrenius (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good move, Tyr. Of course, I will not take any action requested against Vk at all (unless drastic action is needed in case of a meltdown) and will log every example of incivility from any participant that I come across.

ONiH, I welcome your contributions but still don't see how it is directly relevant to this specific problem. For my own part, virtually no major issues have been brought to my attention of appeared in my sphere of view. Kittybrewster brought a concern about VK editing his brother's page to me and, with the support of some other admins, a middle ground was proposed and both asked to stick to it (Kb was perfectly civil and Vk responded with insults and abuse, of course, but go figure). I tried to help out Sarah, and latterly and yourself, on the massacres issue (I'm still on that btw, and haven't forgotten) and I tried to mediate a rather lame edit war over the notability of Bobby Sands eating a chicken supper and, I believe, we sorted that out and the article is in better shape for it. Domer got a little testy over that but, to his credit, he was on the wrong side of some poor admin decisions and later expressed regret when that got sorted. No harm done. There has been nothing else that I have seen on my watch list and no-one has brought anything to me. So if there is POV pushing going unnoticed (or worse, seen but ignored), then this is a problem that we need to address also, but I don't see how it directly impacts the ongoing civility issue. Lets sort both out, but unless there is anything there that justifies Vk's antics over the last few days, I see no reason to wait. But ultimately that is in Vk's hands.

One last comment, when admins who do try to sort stuff out get accused of bias by both sides, get abused for doing their best and are insulted almost constantly, is it any surprise that there are never enough around to look at these things? Moreover, a number of admins have been accused of being "involved" by named participants in an attempt to get them out of the equation when they have transgressed. Then the same editors complain when the admin doesn't act when someone else transgresses and they want action. They claim you are "involved" only when it suits them.

Your question is pertinent, but the fact is that the incivility and attacks lead to a situation where the content is affected. If we can cut that out, then we'll go along way to putting ourselves in a position where content disputes are solvable. Its no co-incidence that the category naming problems was sorted out when the divisive, abusive editors were marginalized and problem was thrashed out in a civil manner by editors such as yourself, Scolaire and I. The ultimate goal is protecting the content, but to do that we need to cut out those lost causes then deal with those who can be reasonable. Finally, I don't believe any of the admins here are biased, but plenty of them are utterly fatigued by this. It would be wrong to confuse the two. Rockpocket 03:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's any admin in particular that's biased, but the entire system. I'm not just talking about just this case, it's across the board. Excluding your everyday vandals, can you really deny that most blocks tend to be for attacks/incivility or 3RR violations? It just seems like content is an afterthought, people can get away with adding all sorts of dubious content for months on end before someone picks up on it. Bad content is far more damaging to the encylopedia than incivility, yet it takes far longer for anything to be done about it, if at all. My information involves people in this very case who are still flouting the principles that resulted from it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins traditionally don't/didn't deal with content matters, which were seen as the province of editors, as opposed to conduct matters. Tyrenius (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying principle #2 is essentially redundant then? Should admins not be enforcing it? If not, what's it for exactly? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone transgresses it to the point of obvious "edit-warring or disruptive editing" then the remedy can be applied. If you have a request for enforcement, it can be made on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Enforcement_requests. Tyrenius (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does transgresses it to the point of obvious "edit-warring or disruptive editing" mean exactly? Is it to do with volume? For example if one out of every ten edits is unsourced POV it's disruptive? One out of fifty? One out of a hundred? Where do you draw the line? I'd have thought the best place to draw it (especially with people who were involved in this case) is to say every addition you make to Troubles related articles has to be sourced. Otherwise you're just giving a green light for the exact same problems that led to all this is the first place to continue. I don't mean to sound draconian, but people involved in this case shouldn't even be misrepresenting what a source says once, never mind transgressing it to the extent you seem to be suggesting. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I'm simply quoting the ArbCom ruling. It's not my idea. I have advocated zero-tolerance for civility and see no reason why it shouldn't be applied to content. There is a page to post for enforcement, so that's the thing to do. Maybe it's time to stand for adminship and you can put your ideas into action. Tyrenius (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about putting editors on probation necessarily. For example all it takes (for starters) is if an admin sees any of the parties from this case adding unsourced content (breach of principle #2) is a quick note on their talk page asking them to cite sources. I would normally say "editor" not "admin", but let's face facts the opposing "sides" in this debacle don't have much respect for messages like that from editors they are politically opposed to. But I've not seen a single occurence of this happening since the closure of the case? If principle #2 is enforced, edit wars tend to go away, there's definitely less tension between opposing editors and the integrity of the content of the encylopedia is improved - good result all round!

As for the last part, I'm not here for much longer. Four articles I'm writing left to go, and I'm done. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think you make a fair point, ONiH. You are right, just as we have let clear transgressions of civility parole slip by without action, we have probably been even worse about refereeing the low-grade POV-warring. You are also right, that if we are going to start cracking down on that to try and stop incivility, so should we be cracking down on that too. I think the reasons admins in general have avoided this is numerous. You mention that editors don't have much respect from the other side. True, but lets be honest, neither do they have much respect for a good number of admins either, and when we do leave polite messages with some editors, more often than not it draws abuse. Also, I am very wary of commenting on any content dispute because it is readily used as ammunition by editors as evidence of "involvement" and "bias". Furthermore, the sides circle the wagons and descend en masse to back each other up. As others have noted here, there is a level of intimidation aimed at admins who try and deal with complex issues around this. I was bold in my actions previously, but I felt that the ArbCom essentially undermined all the efforts of the admins in their rather toothless remedies, and all it did was serve to embolden the problem editors. What message are we supposed to take from that, especially when combined with the incessant accusations of bias and abuse? It wears you down. I know that it basically made me unwilling to use my tools in any significant way. Have a look at my log [34] and compare my admin actions post ArbCom (November to now) to that before ArbCom.

In contrast, dealing with incivility and 3RR is easy, everyone can agree on it. That doesn't make it right that we admins tend to focus our attentions on one at the expense of others, but surely you can see why it happens. Now, if we were to see some active support for admins taking actions from other participants, rather than tepid statements that "I don't condone his actions, but...." along party lines, then perhaps admins would be more willing to be bold. It works both ways. If you editors wish us to be bold, then start being bold yourselves. Speak out against problem edits from your friends as well as your foes, stop making excuses for each other and start policing yourselves. Rockpocket 07:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wonder why admins aren't rushing into new situations where they are going to be subject to yet more accusations and abuse by anyone they don't happen to agree with? There must be a reason. ;) Tyrenius (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you've no interest in enforcing ArbCom principles and preventing the lunatics taking over the asylum, you might want to re-consider your admin role? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've just worked out what the reason is. Tyrenius (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys? Considering the fight on AN I just went through, I'm the LAST person who should be saying this, but um.. can we AGF with each other? Please? SirFozzie (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. ONIH is welcome to post the incidents that concern him on the page I started at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests for just such matters. Tyrenius (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just some comments folks: 1)Love thy neighbour, 2)Give Peace a chance, 3)Put your Troubles behind you & 4)We're of the same world. Peace. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Why don't you englighten us then? See the above conversation:

• Me - "As you are clearly aware, there were various principles established which should be upheld without prejudice across the articles in question."
• You - "Re. ONIH's point - good one."

It's crystal clear by your own admission that you have no interest in upholding the principles without prejudice across the articles in question, therefore you should recuse yourself from any administrative involvement with them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are off at a bit of a tangent there. I suggest you get on with something useful. Tyrenius (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/W. Frank - that useful enough for you? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the master. Tyrenius (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice request, ONiH. I would certainly be interested in the result of that, though I'm not sure what policy would say about the legitimacy of revealing that information, when neither editor is under direct sanction. I guess Ali could tell us more. Is this the information that you felt might impact this discussion? Rockpocket 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Actually it isn't. What I was going to do was present evidence to prove what I was saying was true. However considering the vast majority of the edits are over a week old, none of it would be actionable anyway. So rather than waste time simply proving something that we've already established is true (to whatever extent), I'm probably going to finish the new article I've been finishing for the last few days. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But as I'm sure you are aware, that status quo rarely changes without some dramatic impetus around here (thats what makes Giano so effective). While i'm with you on this, I don't see things changing for the better unless they are forced. I think we are stuck at this impasse and I don't know how to move forward. If one admin, i.e. me, decides enough is enough and starts to rigidly enforce persistent POV problems, what do you think would happen? Let me tell you, the campaign managers would begin to co-ordinate their troops from the side that was being sanctioned would start their attacks, accusations of bias etc. That is what is happening to me now and what has always happened when an admin made a bold attempt to do something about this. Its clearly in your interest to push this forward since you play by the rules, but the fact is that most if the other participants are as bad as each other. If people want change they have to stop the partisan hypocrisy and start supporting policy decisions, irrespective of whether it is their buddies who transgressed or one of their opponents. Rockpocket 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just going back to what you said about POV pushing being more difficult to pick up than incivility, I'm not sure. Assuming the source is online (and not a book that can't be viewed using Amazon Online or Google books), it's very easy for any editor to make sure that the text being added matches the source. I'd say that's easier to judge than incivility which is a matter of degrees, whereas it's generally more obvious than it's being misrepresented. I've challenged POV pushing by both sides on this, for example this edit had to be repeatedly reverted by me. Then there's this edit to an article which seems to have slipped off your watchlist ;) I'll actually post a few examples on your talk page rather than waste what I've found already. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I revert those sorts of things when I see them [35] That article is still on my watch list, but the offending edit was made over Christmas, and it obviously slipped down my watch list page before I caught it. Clearly I'm not alone in that, since it took a month until anyone noticed it, you included. But its not admin's job to police content, that is what all editors are supposed to do and when I revert those I do so with an editors hat on, not an admin hat. If there is a problem of persistence to the extent it becomes disruptive, then report it and an admin can take action. If those reports are not being acted upon then fair enough, you have a point. Rockpocket 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's kind of my point. Yes, VK can be (and recently has been) problematic, but while he's under the microscope (and I'm talking about before the latest flare-up really) there's all sorts of other things going on unnoticed. Wouldn't it be better for admins to keep an eye on the articles rather than the editor? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whole heartedly agree with your comments here ONiH.BigDunc (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. We should be doing both. Vk is a problem. Period. His antics have probably eaten up hundreds of hours of admins time that could be spent on other issues. Yet, again, it is somehow the admin's fault that this has happened, and not Vk's? Thats some pretty good spin! The best way to ensure that admin attention remains on articles is to stop being incivil and stop making personal attacks. Its simple really, and if you wish to assist in that then stop encouraging editors who make personal attacks and tell them to stop it when they do. In other words, apply the same standards you hold opposition editors to, to your friends. Nothing makes people change than pressure from their peers.

Nevertheless, its true that we should not be ignoring other problems to focus on just one. To that end, Tyr seems to have Vk's attacks under his eye at the moment, so I'm happy to address the concerns you brought up on my page. I would also encourage these sorts of things be posted to the page Tyr created. This is the best way to cut this out, report everything and admins can, and I hope will, act on everything. I believe we have reached a point where zero tolerance is the only way forward, and if that is being applied to Vk, it should be applied to the other editors who are part of this problem. Rockpocket 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You assume I haven't said anything to VK. In fact the opposite is true, I've been trying to advise him for several days. Let me try and put this another way. If VK saw you tackling other editors with regard to their policy violations rather than just him (well, that's the way he sees it) would he feel less persecuted? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to hear that, perhaps the four editors that emailed him to support his allegations would do likewise. Regarding "tackling" other editors to the same extent I have been Vk. Well, I do. The vast majority of edits that has got Vk het up have been minor copy edit fixes, cats, MOS fixes and the like. I made this edit having noticed the article mentioned on Domer's page. I made a whole bunch of similar edits to The Troubles itself, [36] and countless others like it when I see something on my watchlist or a talk page or find a link from another article. There is nothing special about the fact that I have made similar edits to pages Vk has edited except the fact his grammar and spelling are worst than most, so its more likely articles need a copy edit after he works on them. Rockpocket 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

(unindent) Rockpocket's block log for a start shows him tackling policy violations wherever he finds them. The way Vk sees it is the problem. He does exactly the same things to others that he accuses others of doing to him. When he does them to others, he is outraged if he is criticised or questioned, as he considers the actions to be perfectly justified. When others do them to him, he is equally outraged and considers the same actions to be absolutely unjust. This is demonstrated quite clearly in a comparison with the baronet issue and a quick "review". Tyrenius (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about block logs? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said to Rockpocket, "If VK saw you tackling other editors with regard to their policy violations rather than just him...", so I checked his block logs as one area to see whether he had been tackling other editors' policy violations, and he has. It is quite apparent that the problem is not Rockpocket, but Vintagekits, so it would be appropriate to concentrate your attentions on the latter. Tyrenius (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly my point. Is the only way to tackle an editor with regards to policy violations to block them? For example I've see Rockpocket leave quite a few notes on VK's talk page with regard to transgressions, yet I've not seen him do the same with other editors. But as discussed above, it isn't Rockpocket that's at fault but the whole admin culture. Take a look at this whole case again, if became quite apparent during the case that it was much more than one editor, but quite a lot of warring editors across a wide variety of articles. So I'm asking for admins to focus their attention on the group of editors as a whole across the wide variety of articles, and for some bizarre reason I'm being shot down for it. I'm lost..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a man of your undoubted research skills, I find that a remarkable allegation, ONiH. I'm not going to dignify it with specific difs in my defense, but even the most cursory review of my User talk contributions would reveal literally hundreds of notes on other editors talk pages with regard to transgressions, both behavioural and content related. Three in the last few days alone. I guess if you don't look, then you don't see.

I'll repeat what I have said to numerous other editors, if you believe I have edited in a manner that bullies, harasses, targets or stalks Vk in any way whatsoever, then please put it in an RfC. Although I try to critically review my contributions, I am as blind to my flaws as any other editor. While it has certainly not be my intention, if the wider community thinks my editing is a problem, then I want to know about it. Since that would show extremely poor judgment on my part. That said, I'm not interested in further disseminating my edits here, especially when the unsubstantiated allegations appear to be informed directly by Vk's misinformation. Rockpocket 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, I thought it was clear this was Troubles-specific? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are accept that I leave notices for most problematic editing I see, but allege that I do not do so not for anyone associated with he Troubles except Vk? Why, exactly, would I do that? If you had surveyed my contributions, you would have appreciated that I left notes for Padraig, Domer and an anon IP regarding the Bobby Sand page a few weeks back, I left a note for Sarah yesterday and left notes for Kittybrewster last time him and Vk has a scuffle over his brother's article. The sole reason I have left a few notes for Vk recently is simply because recently Vk is the one who has made the good faith but problematic edits policy-wise that appeared on my watch list, specifically a horribly malformed move and a implausible and redundant redirect. Are you suggesting that there is another reason I left those messages? If you are, I would very much prefer you would spell it out, rather than hinting at it. Rockpocket 01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing is to warn them, but if they persist, then there doesn't seem much alternative to a block or some form of (topic or other) ban. It's a judgement call, depending on context, the editor's history, the extremity of the transgression etc. It's human nature that the people who make the most noise will get the most attention. I don't see anyone else in the vicinity who is displaying this kind of user page and user talk page. If they did, then they would get the same attention. Vintagekits is currently the most blatant case and the worst transgressor, so the spotlight is on him. At other times, it has been on other editors, e.g. at one point on Kittybrewster over WP:COI. It's not the responsibility of admins to do everything. Any editor can point out policy violations to another and ask them to desist: if they don't, despite requests, then a case is apparent against them, and it might be suitable to bring to admin attention. You want admins to go out proactively "policing" and in the area of article content, it seems. Probably the main reason that doesn't happen is lack of time and energy. It would be a 24/7 job. Hence GOFISHING. Again, it's not up to admins to do it all. Editors should take responsibility too. If they don't succeed in solving the problem, then it can be placed on WP:TER (Troubles Enforcement Requests). I've put the system in place, if people want to use it. You say, "I've see Rockpocket leave quite a few notes on VK's talk page with regard to transgressions, yet I've not seen him do the same with other editors." In that case, you must have seen those transgressions to know they exist. Did you leave a warning, and if not, why not? If there are any bad cases, why have you not drawn attention to them on WP:TER? This is team work, and experienced editors can play a powerful role, as in your recent checkuser request. Tyrenius (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and simplify this. I'll use a hypothetical example, but we'll assume for the sake of argument we're talking about editors who were involved parties in this case.

• Editor 1 makes a personal attack on another editor, we'll say on a user talk page that let's face it not that many people see compared to mainspace. Get's blocked for 24 hours.
• Editor 2 makes a POV edit that clearly misrepresents a source. It might be hours, day or weeks or longer before someone picks up on it, and for all that time the infomation is sitting in mainspace. Even assuming it's picked up right away, can you really say the likely outcome would be a 24 hour block?

So there you have it, the whole system seems horrendously flawed. In order for a content report to be acted upon I'd probably have to provide a large number of diffs which might take weeks to accumulate, so for all that time the editor is free to POV push. But make a personal attack and you're blocked right away, do you really not see the point I'm trying to make here? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point. That's the way it works (or doesn't). Frustrating, but that is wikipedia for you, unless you work on policy change. As it happens, editors don't usually get blocked straightaway for one personal attack, and if it's a POV edit on a controversial article, it's likely to result in an instant edit war. Such articles tend to attract polarised POV pushers, with anyone in the middle attempting NPOV getting attacked by both sides. I think we all know the system is flawed, but not by any means useless. Surely if it's that obvious a POV edit, then it doesn't take weeks' worth of evidence? One problem is the relative subtlety of POV, compared with the relative blatancy of a personal attack. What one person sees as POV, another sees as fact. Take the killing/murder issue - it is not straightforward by any means - interpretation and weighing of sources etc. However, if all editors were civil to each other, it would make the whole business rather easier. Ho hum. Congrats on the checkuser by the way. Tyrenius (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"editors don't usually get blocked straightaway for one personal attack" - true, they normally get warned first. However, would you agree that principle #2 is an adequate warning to every party in this case that information they add to articles must be sourced? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone who violates it should be pointed to it, as the first recourse. If the editor amends their ways, then the goal is achieved. If they continue regardless, then the remedy can be invoked, as for "any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing". Exactly how far it has to go before the remedy is applied is a matter of judgement. Tyrenius (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Vk or Rockpocket & won't prejudge them. But if any editor is causing problems on 'Troubles' related articles - give the offender(s) 'three warnings', if they don't heed it? 1-month block, then added another month if disruption continues after. There's no other way. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to know Vk better, as he's continously re-appearing via sockpuppets. I must say, his behaviour is disappointing & futile. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the resident Administrators. Is it possible to upgrade Vk's status to 'protection' if he promises to stick to Boxing articles? Or does his Wiki behaviour history (including he continued creation of sockpuppets), damage that posibility? GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous two times vk was indef blocked he was eventually unblocked on the understanding he would avoid controversy ostensibly by sticking to boxing articles. Look where that led. Moreover, the fact that he is sockpuppeting to avoid the block shows no regret and no indication that he intends to stick to our policies in future. Finally, since his block vk has found another outlet for his attacks on wikipedians where he has shown his true colours. Just today, for example, he has indicated he would "abuse" me "all day long" (but, in his opinion, that does not constitute "harassment"). I strongly protest moves to precipitate that. Rockpocket 18:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for responding. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I'm confused here, while I know this whole area here is beset with socks, we now seem to have a whole drawer full, so for the sake of the ignorant, is GoodDay actually Rockpocket and vice versa, and is Vinny Feeny Vintagekits? I have noticed, like many others, recently some new editors editing VK's boxers (the fighting variety), and they have all been good edits. Is there any huge harm, or indeed any harm at all being done? Sometimes one can see too much. Surely so long as these edits are purely to boxers, rather than to politicians, or indeed anything to do with Ireland, its Troubles, the British Empire or whatever there is nothing to worry about. It's a big encyclopedia. I made this [37] suggestion 5 months ago, I still stand by it and feel, a lot of problems would be solved if the matter were revisited and this motion passed. I would rather have the VK, we all know and love, right where we can see him! Giano (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Rockpocket. The only socks I've got with me, are those on my feet. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, well go and find an Arbitrator to sorth this matter out then, Newyorkbrad will do, one does not discuss the merits with agitated and involved admins like Rockpocket. Giano (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sabbatical from Arb-baiting seems to have dulled your normally sharp instincts, Giano. Maybe its the company you are keeping these days. GoodDay is far too reasonable to be my sock. Besides your new friends seem to think I am a sock myself, of either FeloniousMonk or, get this, Durova. Wouldn't that be something? Rockpocket 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be something indeed Rocky, some how I never pictured you wearing either a habbit or moccasins - more sort of Fred Flintstone attire. Giano (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that any socks sticking strictly to boxing should be ignored. Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Rockpocket on this. Vk had had more "absolutely last last chances" than I can count, yet still indulged in sockpuppetry, and off-wiki campaigns of harrassment are unacceptable. I don't care what subject he is working on: he has had plenty of chances, and still seems to think that his predicament is everyone else's fault.

If someone wants to take this to arbcom, they are free to do so. I'm sure that arbcom will be absolutely thrilled to have the chance to welcome back someone who was on unblocked after a protracted arbitration and rewarded the trust placed in him by using sockpuppets to disrupt a vote, and particularly keen to facilitate the return of an editor who promises to "abuse" an admin "all day long". Hey, that's just the sort of thing arbcom sets out to promote.

When the arbcom closed, Vk was notified of the outcome by Penwhale "Due to the decisions, you are now no longer community banned. Make this chance count". If anyone thinks that meant trying to make his vote count more than once, then a quick call to arbcom should have the arbitrators showering him with barnstars. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rockpocket and BrownHairedGirl. This editor had too many last chances already. No, no, a thousand times no. --John (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are not able to get rid of him, so you can either have him where you can see him, under strict control, or runing arownd where you can't. I think you will find he will agree to most conditions, in order to be able to edit as VK. If he violates those conditions then find his Achilles heel, which is in a very obvious place. Giano (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course, Giano. Though there is a third option, we could have him where we think we can see him while he is also running around and up to no good where we can't. He has done that twice before and I have no reason to believe he would not do so again in the future.

But lets be honest here, what eventually happens is that while the sock-puppeteer continues to be disruptive and/or abusive, their socks continue to get blocked. He can make a new sock every day if he wants, they are very easy to spot when you know how, and it takes two clicks of the mouse to block them. I and others have revert, blocked and ignored literally hundreds of socks of Light current (talk · contribs) in this manner. Trust me, it is more of a hassle for them to create new accounts after a block than is to block them. Eventually they get bored. Even LC, who makes Vk look like an amateur in the sock-puppet stakes, lost interest in time. And if they really want to edit constructively they learn that if they behave themselves then a uneasy truce forms. Their socks are known, but tolerated, so long as they keep their nose clean. However, the moment they step out of line, the blocks start up again. This way he has no wiggle room. He plays clean and fair and he can edit away in his little corner, he causes any trouble whatsoever and he starts getting blocked again. Rockpocket 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean by seeing too much, which of these most recent socks have been disruptive? I have not checked them all out, but I have not seem any bad edits, but then I have not really been looking. My personal view is that he should be allowed to openly edit in a very restricted forum, but with a terrible threat hanging over his head. Giano (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what terrible threat? Unless you are suggesting you will head over to his house and give him the hair-dryer treatment personally, what more can we do but threaten to block him again, but this time for good. That now offers little incentive to behave because A) every other time we have used that threat we have capitulated and B) he would just create more socks again until someone would suggest we unblock him. Without a suitably large stick, there is no merit in offering a carrot. Rockpocket 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vk's recent behaviour (sockpuppets & colorful language), is creating an impression (to me) of egotism. A pattern of I'm correct, they're all wrong impression. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had these super human powers of observation for long? Giano (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just my opinon (it's not written in stone). Just like ..superhuman observations... is your opinons. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's one thing we must all remember folks; editing Wikipedia? is not a right; it's a privillage. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your solution then. Giano (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to TER. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better to include a link if a thread is moved: WP:TER. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please look at this article Ulster Defence Regiment. I believe I and my attempts to rewrite this article sensibly have been embroiled in edit warring since day one because this article is linked to the northern ireland troubles. I'm trying everything in my power to come to a concensus but now I realise this has all happened before and I don't think I'm going to get anywhere. I haven't been getting anywhere anyway!GDD1000 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GDD1000 is no longer active. There has been no edit-warring since his (regrettable because unnecessary) departure. Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GDD1000 is active as this report clearly shows. They even admit the IP's they were using were them. There has been edit-warring since their return. They are a self confessed ex member of the UDR and therefore have a WP:COI, illustrated by the edit-warring edits. They are now using a source from another ex member on the article, and going around crying and forum shopping like their last account when challanged. The last time their copy vio's were removed by two admins, they throw the rattle out of the cot and claim to leave the project. How many other sock accounts have been active now? Have any of the banned editors been allowed back under new accounts? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is misleading. User:Alison stated "Checkuser shows no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry having taking place here.". Black Kite 20:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry. Don't play me for a fool. They are the same editor, a sock, end of. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to take it up with that checkuser, then; she was the one that closed the SSP report. Black Kite 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(de-lurk - I'm seriously busy today off-wp) - Domer, please stop these ridiculous accusations. I'll re-iterate, Checkuser shows no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry having taking place here. That's non, zip, nada. Please leave out the accusations, the wanton reverts, the baseless comments (ex-UDR??), etc. Leave him alone already! End of. - Alison ^❤ 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you back, now are you going to answer the questions left on your talk page or just ignore them? "ridiculous accusations" they admitted they were the same user! So don't tell me I'm being ridiculous! "baseless comments" "wanton reverts" and you tell me to leave out the accusations? Please! You may accept this crap, even though I've not edited the article since 24 July, but I don't. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, you saying Thunderer is a s-puppet of who? Sarah777 (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• SirFozzie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notified

Statement by SirFozzie

The Troubles, are not as contentious as they once were, thanks to the tight lid on edit-warring that was created by User:Rlevse here, that subjected the whole subset of articles covered by The Troubles to a 1 RR. This has blunted a lot of the constant edit-warring. However, six months after the fix was applied, someone wants to rip the band-aid off and let the (metaphorical) blood flow anew. User:Sandstein has stated that he will not act on AE requests regarding this remedy, because it is not an ArbCom remedy. We've already seen several folks using IP's to edit war and then when the IP is blocked, use throw-away accounts. The sanctions are needed.. there are 10+ sections in the archives where this is used since December alone.

So, despite my utter distaste of time-wasting bureaucracy such as this, would the ArbCom please vote in the following as a formal ArbCom remedy, as posted by User:Rlevse:

• All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
• All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
  • Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
• Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
• As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, I leave it to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: ((Consensus|This article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]]''', as laid out during a previous [[WP:AE]] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.))

List of times the Rlevse sanctions has been brought up on AE (there are another 5-10 where it's been mentioned in passing, but these are the ones that refer to the 1RR rule itself.)

[38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], and the two latest ones on AE. If the Committee would look at the history of AE from archive 30 or so on, usually 2 or 3 or 4 sections per archive will have to do with this series of articles,

I don't believe that a new full fledged ArbCom would do anything more then to spend a couple months of time with the same parties arguing in the same way. Instead, what should be done is apply common sense. Use the Rlevse sanctions, and keep the peace in an area where there will be no peace if not applied.

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

If one admin chooses not to act on a particular enforcement request, it doesn't stop another administrator stepping in. Whilst Sandstein might not agree and therefore decide not to take action, if another administrator believes the editor in question has broken the case remedies (In this case it is enforcement of discretionary sanctions) then that is up to them and they may block for that. From what I can see, Sandstein hasn't said he'll overrule other administrators and I suspect he wouldn't even challenge other administrators if they made blocks as part of Rlevse's restriction. It looks like Sandstein merely doesn't agree and doesn't feel comfortable enforcing the decision - that's his prerogative and feel free to simply block if someone goes against the 1RR restriction. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I'm commenting in my capacity as admin patrolling WP:AE and responding to enforcement requests there. Ryan is right in that I won't (and have no authority to) overrule any admin enforcing the "Troubles" case as he or she sees fit. However, the "Troubles" decision does not, as Ryan seems to believe, provide for discretionary sanctions. Instead, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors, it provides that disruptive editors may be put on Wikipedia:Probation and, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement, that these editors are then subject to 1RR. That is the arbitral decision that can and should be enforced at WP:AE, including by me.

The section entitled Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case, which purports to put all articles in the area of conflict under 1RR, on the other hand, is not an enforceable arbitral decision, since it was apparently never voted on by the Committee. Its author, Rlevse, has confirmed this at [50]. That is why I will not act on enforcement requests concerning it.

I recommend that the Committee:

• remove the section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case from the case page or leave a comment so as not to cause others to mistake it for an operative remedy, and
• if it feels that this is warranted (I've too little experience in this area to comment on this), properly amend the case to provide for either a general 1RR restriction on the area of conflict, or for discretionary sanctions as with other comparable cases.  Sandstein  05:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment with respect to bainer below

It's good to know that this is a community sanction, although it would have been helpful if this had been noted somewhere. It is probably not advisable to add a sanction of this type to the "log" section of the arbitration page without any indication of its provenance or authority. Still, since WP:AE is not intended for the enforcement of community sanctions and arbitration pages should probably not contain non-arbitral remedies, I maintain my recommendations above.  Sandstein  08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Sandstein has summed up what I was going to say. Perhaps both sanction-schemes would be useful? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, yes, the community sanction was inappropriately written and logged into the ArbCom case instead of the appropriate location. I do wonder whether there would still be a consensus supporting such a measure if the sanction discussion was more appropriately titled; although I was active at the time, and particularly interested in sanction discussions, I know I wasn't aware of it. If the remedy is needed, ArbCom should vote on it and put it into the case - at least that would resolve the matter re: logging.

Unless the remedy is written into the case by ArbCom (in which case AE is more appropriate), ANI is where complaints should go - as with any other requests to enforce community sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

As the unlucky administrator who started the long chain of events that lead there, I want to add two things. One, discretionary sanctions do exist in that dispute area, they are editor targeted however. Two, the broad 1RR was proposed as an alternative to using probation. It has, I believed, helped significantly in the topic area, and has set an objective standard for that all users can be held up to. I strongly urge the committee to consider endorsing the community remedy.--Tznkai (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Domer48

Having opposed the sanctions, or I should say how they came about I must concede that they have had a positive effect. They have reduced the edit warring and encouraged discussion. POV warriors have been marginalised with disruptive editing being quickly closed down most of the time. Some Admin’s with a particular bias (admin’s can and do have biased opinions) have been reluctant to address the actions of some editors but the 1RR has proved itself despite this. We all know what the sanctions entail, and have clarified through experience what 1RR is and how it operates. For example, a number of reverts without intermediate edits in between is considered to be 1 revert.

So what I’d suggest is that the sanctions be placed on a separate page with the block log transferred to it. It should include:

• All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
• All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
• Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
• Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
• As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, it is up to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: ((Consensus|This article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]]''', as laid out during a previous [[WP:AE]] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines on this talk page first.))
• These final remedies have been linked to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case.

It should also include what we mean by 1RR, so there is no ambiguity. If it is felt that criteria no.1 is not clear enough expand it. The template be changed to direct editors to the appropriate page, including a link on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case in case any templates are missed during the page change. That’s my 2 cents worth, as to simply remove the sanctions would be counter productive.--Domer48_'fenian' 09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Request Could we have links to the 10? related AE threads since Rlevse augmented the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like this community-based remedy is doing the trick. I am happy to leave it as Stephen Bain suggests, or write it into the decision as Sandstein suggests. Could someone please notify the regulars who have been affected by this remedy. e.g. Sarah777, Manticore126, Domer48, BigDunc, and Mooretwin. They may have valuable views to share on how this remedy plays out. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment I'm flattered something I wrote that I thought was basic has been so useful. I'm willing to make a motion if it looks like enough arbs will support it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein is correct that the 1RR restriction is not part of the decision, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy, established by consensus during this discussion. There is nothing wrong with this. There are a couple of issues though:

1. the notice of the 1RR restriction on the case page (and on article talk pages) should be altered to describe it as a community-based remedy, or removed to some other appropriate page, to avoid confusion;
2. there is unfortunately no convenient venue for enforcement requests on such community-based sanctions, personally I have no problem with arbitration enforcement being used just as a matter of convenience, but otherwise ANI would make do.

--bainer (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no reason for ArbCom to intervene with a community-imposed sanction. (Indeed, I would encourage administrators and the community to impose sanctions as necessary without the intervention of ArbCom.) Additionally, an administrator could simply warn someone who is edit-warring or otherwise disruptive that the topic area has seen a lot of problems and that disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (It would be advisable to be polite and clear about the problem, directing the editor to any relevant policy pages and giving a bit of guidance about how to better work with others on Wikipedia.) Upon a repeat performance of disruption, the person can be sanctioned or blocked, without bureaucratic hurdles or reliance upon the particulars of an ArbCom decision. I have no particular objection to issues being raised at AE for areas subject to arbitration enforcement, but ANI would be appropriate if the AE regulars find this undesirable. --Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting Carcharoth's comments, I have no objection to logging on the case page, for the sake of a unified log location. However, community based general sanctions can be referenced at WP:SANCTION and community imposed individual sanctions can be referenced at WP:RESTRICT. --Vassyana (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing much further to add. Will vote on a motion to write the sanctions into the case if needed, pending feedback from those John asked to be contacted. But leaving as a community-based sanction (per bainer's description) would also work. Carcharoth (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One concern with a community-based sanction is the lack of anywhere to log sanctions. It is not acceptable for such restrictive sanctions not to be logged. Future admins or arbitrators trying to review the situation need an accurate log of actions taken and sanctions issued, whether following arbitration cases or using community-based sanctions. Strongly suggest logging (or continuing to log) at the case pages for now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No admin is required to enforce any Wikipedia policy or any sanction (be it an ArbCom or Community Sanction) but that does not stop the sanction from being enforced my other admins. Unless there is a problem with the Community sanction that can not be worked out by the Community, I see no need for action by the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Concur with Stephen Bain and FloNight (and kudos to rlevse).  Roger Davies ^talk 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I think that the tenor here is that this community sanction has ArbCom's imprimatur, and that AE is a logical place to bring enforcement (even if strictly out of scope). — Coren ^(talk) 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, agree with Flonight, since it's a community sanction then there's nothing we really need to do. Wizardman 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if Elonka was as quick to admit her mistake and clarify the log then we wouldn't have an edit war on this page. My edit was not comment it was a clarification of the block. As it stands it is ambiguous as to what happened. When it was an admin making a mistake and not the editor. BigDunc 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion at ANI about whether or not this case's remedies should be modified, to additionally authorize discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. Anyone with an opinion on the matter is invited to comment at: Wikipedia:ANI#Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles. --Elonka 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been moved to be a formal request for amendment, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: The Troubles. --Elonka 05:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where am i to post for an explanation about why British National Party has suddenly been described as a troubles related article. The BNP have nothing to do with the troubles, they are a far right political party in the UK not a loyalist paramilitary group.

WHy are people allowed to go around adding any article they like claiming its troubled related when it clearly isnt? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Elonka seems also to be of the view that the Scotland article is somehow Troubles-related:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irvine22#Probation

This is the sort of thing that gets the project its reputation as an internet dog's breakfast. Nae wunner ye canna mak ony geld oot o'it.Irvine22 (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Elonka at 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

The Troubles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Amendment 1: New remedy: Discretionary Sanctions

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; temporary bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; temporary bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; temporary restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

The scope of these sanctions may include any article in conflict that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, or British nationalism. When there is doubt as to whether or not an article falls within the scope of this case, assume it is related.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to this case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor.

Statement by Elonka

Discretionary sanctions have been routinely authorized in other nationalist topic areas, such as Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia, and so forth. However, they were never specifically authorized in the Troubles topic area, possibly because the Troubles case is such an old one (from 2007, when ArbCom did not start routinely authorizing discretionary sanctions until 2008). This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Wikipedia. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems. This would serve the project well, as with a discretionary sanction in place, a targeted editor would still be allowed and encouraged to edit constructively in other areas of the project.

I have personally used discretionary sanctions to good effect in multiple other topic areas, and can vouch for their effectiveness. A complete list of every formal warning or sanction I have placed is at User:Elonka/ArbCom log, but a few examples of creative sanctions include:

• Banning one editor from one article and its talkpage for one week.[83]
• Banning one editor from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days.[84]
• Banning one editor from editing the lead section of one article for one month.[85]

I should point out though, that in actual practice, specific sanctions were rarely needed. Mainly it was the possibility of sanctions that was useful. In most cases, simply warning an editor that they were at risk of being placed under discretionary sanctions, was all that was needed to encourage them to voluntarily moderate their own behavior.

To see examples of sanctions which other administrators have used, see:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

The Armenia-Azerbaijan situation is a good case study for this. I have never personally implemented sanctions in this topic area, but I did note that the first case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, in April 2007, did not include discretionary sanctions. The conflict in the topic area continued, and resulted in a second case a few months later, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. In the second case, discretionary sanctions were authorized, and with administrators empowered to use creative sanctions (example), a third Arbitration case has not been needed.

The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008[86] and October-November 2009.[87] A recent (November 2009) attempt was made to authorize discretionary sanctions via community discussion at ANI, but though a majority of uninvolved editors were in support of the idea, there was not a clear consensus. So I'm bringing this here, for a formal determination by ArbCom. It is my hope that if discretionary sanctions can be authorized in the topic area of Irish and British nationalism, we can avoid a case with a name such as "The Troubles 2". --Elonka 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka's reply to Vassyana

The articles within the topic area of Irish and British nationalism are subject to large quantities of tag team edit-warring. The articles are technically under 1RR (one revert per editor per article per day), but when teams of editors on each side engage in the battle, 1RR means very little, since we'll just get a stream of different editors coming through, all reverting each other. For example at Sinn Féin, there has been a longterm edit war about whether the infobox should state that the founding date of the organization was 1905 or 1970.[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104] Other disputes overflow to articles that have a more tenuous connection to the topic area, but are still clearly the same editors battling over issues of nationalism. For example, Mooretwin (talk · contribs) created articles about soccer players from Northern Ireland, such as Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer) and Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer), and move wars erupted as to whether the articles should be disambiguated as "(Northern Irish footballer)" or "(Northern Ireland footballer)". The dispute has also overflowed to the Scotland article, with an edit war over Scotland's national anthem.[105][106][107][108][109][110] Another overflow article is at British National Party, about an extremist political group which has policies related to Northern Ireland. Though not directly related to "The Troubles", it is still an article in the British/Irish nationalism topic area,[111] and is a location where established editors continue to revert each other.[112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120]

Any action taken by an administrator in this topic area, no matter how minor or how clearly supported by policy, is usually immediately challenged by one side or the other of these battling editors. Challenges range from well-coordinated wiki-lawyering[121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130] and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments,[131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139] to accusations of bias and incompetence, and sometimes out and out personal attacks.[140][141][142][143][144][145][146] It takes considerable fortitude for an administrator to deal with this, and the frustration is enhanced by the fact that administrators have very few tools at their disposal in this topic area. We can remind people of 1RR (1 revert per article per day) or put them on probation (1 revert per article per week), but with the coordinated tag team efforts, the edit-warring at the articles continues. If discretionary sanctions were authorized though, uninvolved administrators could implement more specific sanctions. For possible examples:

• Implementing 0RR on an article's infobox
• Banning an editor from reverting any good faith edits, unless they are already engaged in discussion at the article's talkpage (this in particular would help in eliminating "drive-by" reverts)
• Banning a particular editor from editing one or more articles, but still allowing them to participate at the talkpages.
• Banning an editor from creating new articles that use titles not supported by previous consensus
• Banning editors from removing reliable sources from an article

These kinds of sanctions would force the battling parties to cease their coordinated edit wars. This would (hopefully) encourage them to find other methods of dealing with disputes, such as to work through the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and work on crafting an actual consensus version of each article. --Elonka 21:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statement by GoodDay

The proposed amendment is acceptable. Afterall, my proposal of barring self-proclaimed British & Irish editors from those articles, hasn't been endorsed. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MickMacNee

Discretionary sanctions are more than needed for ongoing disputes in the area of British - Irish relations, broadly construed, primarily because of the ongoing poor behaviour of the editors involved, rather than any inherent problem with the topic. However, I have extreme concerns over the potential scope of this, and the wording needs to be extremely precise. The committee should read User_talk:Elonka#Placing_British_National_Party_under_1RR for an example of where the scope of the term "...British nationalism in relation to Ireland" has already been taken way too far, to chilling effect, to impose a Troubles case restriction on an article which has barely anything to do with British - Irish relations, in order to deal with an ongoing dispute that didn't even encompass British-Irish relations in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually appereciate it if as part of these new remedies, the numerous instances of unsubstantiated soapboxing commentary were addressed by admins as and when they see it. Highking has been asked time and again to put up or shut up with regards to his pet theories over the result of the Ireland naming poll, and he has been reminded time and again who the authority is to which he needs to appeal if he thinks the result was an abuse or does not reflect the NPOV, so far he has done nothing except continue to make these unsubstantiated allegations, poisoning the atmosphere, presumably on the 'say it enought times and it becomes true' principle. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with the BNP example, the Scotland example is another dispute that had nothing to do with British - Irish relations, on an article that had nothing to do with British - Irish relations. The common thread here is apparently editors, not article topics, so why are topic based sanctions such as placing articles on 1RR being used here? If a full case is needed to deal with editors so that we don't have to start labelling everything and anything they might ever touch as under Troubles restrictions, then lets have it. MickMacNee (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I suppose that I am one of the "fly in the ointment" opinion providers in the recent discretionary sanctions/Irish (anti)nationalism discussion. It was my suggestion that defining an uninvolved administrator within the English language Wikipedia is problematic - unlike the cultural or nationalism views of other cultures (the Baltic States issues, for example) it is both difficult to find admins that have not been exposed to (anti)establishment views regarding recent Irish history, and to have those unexposed sysops engage within the debate (because the first action appears to taint how they are perceived thereafter). Most of the resistance to the consensus noted by Elonka was that of those editors generally considered as being sympathetic to Irish nationalism sentiment, plus a few others including myself, who were concerned that one side of the process of dispute resolution were likely to attract a far greater fraction of such sanctions than another. What I am referring to is a potential application of Wikipedia:Systemic bias; where the status quo might be presented as the neutral pov, where in fact it may be the result of cultural conditioning for the last few centuries, and should be permitted to incorporate other viewpoints. Having said that, it does not seem to me to be an area in which ArbCom can definitively rule. Vandalism is vandalism, and can be dealt with as such, whereas the judgement of what may be considered good faith efforts to move the definition of "neutral viewpoint" is far more difficult. Efforts by the community, as noted by Elonka, to address these issues is riven by the same bias' and prejudices that is being sought to resolve. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

The Troubles case currently points to WP:Probation, apparently referencing this version. We have moved well beyond that, and we need some sort of update. As for "the community discussing this" you can urge as much as you want, but from where I am sitting, the community at large is not interested in the issue, although they are occasionally interested in the abstract topic of admin power. I appreciate the concerns that LessHeard vanU and those less eloquent but still in agreement with him have. I can only respond "tough." The intense partisanship in the topic area, combined with the already unpleasant topic (partisan bloodshed over the course of many years), combined with editors quick to point fingers and accuse of bias have made it impossible for any sort of "reasonable" solution. New editors to the area (the lifeblood of solving these sorts of problems) are quickly run out or simply frustrated the hostility of the editing environment. The goal at the end of the day is a good quality encyclopedia - to reach that end, we need a normalized editing environment, or as close as we're going to get, and discretionary sanctions are the only tool we have that can do that.

The only alternative is the community stepping up and really making a real effort. If twenty, or even ten completely disinterested neutral editors showed up everyday to work on the topic are, that would fix pretty much everything. I would welcome the community's interaction with open arms, and gladly put my tools away and STFU, and let them on their merry way if so asked. If arbcom has any brilliant ideas on how to achieve that, awesome. I've made a couple not-so-brilliant suggestions myself on this neglected RfC. Until we get the collective balls to really take on these situations though, I insist that the poor sods who try to keep the peace or at least stop the pressure from boiling over be given tools that don't reference an extinct procedure.--Tznkai (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:

I've been working on a model discretionary sanction remedy over here that others may want to comment on, but I bring it up here because of the comments I made concerning is construction. I repeat the juicy bit that I feel is most relevant: "This may seem like it is handing too much power to admins. That is a perfectly valid concern, but topic based discretionary sanctions are the nuclear option. It is to be used when the community at large has abandoned a topic area because of partisan behavior. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here level of disruption. The goals are (1) to contain the behavior to prevent the articles from a total slide into anarchy (2) quarantine the disruptive behavior into increasingly smaller areas and protect community resources from being expended and eventually (3) hopefully expunge partisan editors from the topic area enough so non-partisan editors will eventually return. Take, clear, hold. Lets hope it works better for us than it does for the military"

It is my strongest recommendation that the committee use my model provision or something similar to give the few admins who work the problem a green light to try creative sanctions that may bring about some stability to articles. This includes for example, taking a disputed article, banning all the warring parties from that article, (or protecting it outright because of edit warring), and shunting them all to a sandbox until they figure it out.

In the alternative, for those afraid of abusive admin power think of something else. I don't mean this as an attack, it is a genuine plea.

Statement by RashersTierney

I strongly oppose the extension of admin. powers in this area specifically because its terms of reference are so broad and are being interpreted in a way that was not intended. Special Restriction tags put off ordinary editors and will adversely affect the development of articles that may have been, for a limited time, the subject of disruption (for any number of reasons). Discussion on an article's Talk Page before this tag is applied might provide less draconian alternatives, with a similar process to have it removed. 'States of exception' on Wikipedia should be kept to an absolute minimum. RashersTierney (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BritishWatcher

I also strongly oppose the extension of Admin powers on this case agreeing with many of the points raised in previous statements. The situation over at British National Party and the conversation that has taken place over at User_talk:Elonka#Placing_British_National_Party_under_1RR highlights the dangers of the current powers, the idea such power should be expanded is deeply concerning.

Here is the quote by Elonka on her talk page

"Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, and the subsequent community amendment in October 2008, the scope of the case is defined as, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." The article British National Party is clearly within that scope. Just search for the term "Ireland" in the article and read about the Party's policies."

That is basically saying that any article which mentions a policy on Ireland or mentions Ireland could fall foul of the troubles restrictions. I consider this a gross misinterpretation of the original ruling by Arbcom. This matter of the BNP article urgently needs to be addressed and could be considered here as its on this same topic. If the BNP is troubles related which is a political party in the UK but not related to Northern Ireland nationalism / loyalist groups then all UK and Ireland political parties must also have such restrictions.

Conservative Party (UK) - Mentions they support devolution for Northern Ireland. Labour Party (UK) - Mentions Northern Ireland on several occasions, including not allowing people in northern Ireland at one point to join the party. Liberal Democrats - Mentions the fact they do not contest elections in Northern Ireland.

These are just a couple of political parties. Every single political party in the UK and Ireland has a policy on Ireland. The idea we must apply restrictions to all those articles is simply a huge expansion of the current Arbcom ruling on the troubles issues. Again i strongly oppose the expansion of Admin powers on this matter as it has been proven current powers have been so clearly misused. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today in this post [147] Elonka said..

"It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case."

If that is currently the rules then god knows what will happen if the attempt to expand Admins powers is granted. How on earth can The troubles sanctions be applied to artciles that dont have anything to do with the troubles? This needs sorting out and clarifying to stop admins going around imposing martial law in such a way with threats that anyone can be banned or blocked without warning if they violate a 1RR. Authoritarian is too light a word to use.BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HighKing

I'm not a participant in this dispute although I have occasional reason to edit some of these articles. I oppose this amendment for the same reasons as outlined by LHvU, and also because I believe there is a simpler approach to encouraging article stabilization. It seems (and I've personally run foul of this) that any topic that touches on British-Irish relations can be unilaterally lumped into the broad topic of "The Troubles", even if the article has nothing to do with it. It is also apparent that British-majority editing can impose a British-POV onto many articles, even though it is incorrect, and all in the name of "consensus" (the recent discussion on the article name of the sovereign country "Ireland" is a great example). I suggest that the current 1RR restriction imposed on "The Troubles" is flawed and is different to the normal 1RR policy. If the objective is to stabilize articles and encourage discussion to reach consensus, then I believe that by imposing the normal 1RR policy of "No Revert of a Revert" will be much more effective. --HighKing (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Giano

Certainly not. Admins more than enough power as it is; besides which there is nothing to prevent an Admin being any more biased than an ordinary editor. In my considerable experience as a very interested, non-editing observer of The Troubles' troubles I have seen some Admins that have indeed been prone to partisan bias on both sides. Many Admins have tried and failed to solve the problems here, and a super-empowered Elonka, or any other similarly ennobled Admin would merely be petrol on a fire.  Giano  18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rockpocket

I don't object to this amendment. I think for it to be successful, we would have to have a rather strict interpretation of "uninvolved" (for example, I wouldn't dream of using these sanctions myself). I think many of the participants fear admins who they have a history with would use these unfairly. It may put some minds at rest for those of us admins who have been active in this area to make it clear they would have no intention of using these.

I also think judicious and creative use of such sanctions can and would have a strong positive effect. For example, removing a single disruptive presence from an article and talk page can do wonders for improving the editing atmosphere. Often just one individual can be the driving force behind divisiveness. Remove that editor specifically, even for a short time, and other editors from both sides may find a consensus on an acceptable middle ground. As a practical example, see the section at Talk:Dunmanway killings#Use of "informer" and the one below, and compare with the discussions in the sections above it. Note the difference in tone and, consequently, how sensible editors coming from many perspectives managed to have a civil and constructive discussion and apply that to the article. Its my interpretation that the absence of a single editor from both the talk page and article was the key difference. I think is amendment could permit this type of progress to occur more often. Rockpocket 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Rannpháirtí anaithnid

Definitely no. On the face of it this may seem like a good idea and I in no way doubt Elonka's sincerity in respect of it. The major issue facing British-Irish articles is the battlefield that they have become. Even among ostensibly cool-headed editors exists suspicion of the motives of others. A handful of editors occasionally flare into outright war-mode, drawing others into it. The way to resolve the issue is not to give admins a bigger stick, that only re-inforces the idea that a battle is being fought. We need to normalise the situation, not "abnormalise" it any further.

Outside admins, to their misery, have tried to resolve these issue before - go ask SirFozzie or Masem. God bless them, but anyone trying to "fix" this problem gets drawn into it and becomes an actor in it. We don't need a lone cowboy to put order on the Wild West. We certainly don't need to kit them out with bigger guns. What we need it a wet blanket, not more fire. 1RR is good because it acts as a wet blanket. Bigger sticks are bad because they encourage more warfare.

We need to normalise. Normal means assuming good faith and remaining civil. Normal rules. If someone breaches the normal rules, enforce the rules as normal. There's plenty of scope within the normal rules to enforce normal behavior. We don't need to make anyone feel special just because they behave incivilly. We definitely don't need to reinforce the idea that they are fighting a war.

The range of articles that this ruling has come to cover is so extensive that it now effectively covers the an entire chapter of the encyclopedia. We cannot square off a corner of the encyclopedia and label it as a battleground. That is how this ammendment would be interpreted and it is the kind of behavior that it would encourage.

Think: wet blankets. Don't think: fire. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Sarah777

Oppose. This isn't a "nationalist" conflict per I/P; Armenia/Azer; Balkans etc. This is NPOV v. the dominant systematic Anglo-American bias in Wiki. And the proposing Admins are partisans in the conflict, albeit they are not aware of the fact. They think they are "neutral", applying "rules" and "policies". They are not. The breadth and scope of potential conflict is so wide that we will inevitably end up with frustrated Admins targeting Irish editors in the mistaken belief that "Irish nationalism" is the problem even though it doesn't even exist in most cases. Supporting this proposal will either result in a blatant political censorship of all British-related articles or else chaos. As in RL; we need to admit that some problems have no easy solutions, there are no magic bullets. Just possibilities to make things much worse. Sarah777 (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

To my surprise, I find myself in agreement with Giano: the powers proposed here are far too sweeping, and will inflame the problems which they seek to resolve. Their unlimited scope reminds me of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922, which allowed police to pretty much whatever they thought fit, and were applied overwhelmingly to nationalists. As a result, the manifest injustices of Special Powers Act became a significant factor in stoking further conflict, and the "remedies" proposed above will undoubtedly have a similarly destructive effect.

Per rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, we need to normalise this area of wikipedia rather than adopt measures whose perceived injustices which will stoke the conflicts between editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by BrownHairedGirl

Having read the other contributions to this discussion, and thought about it further, I would like to offer a further observation.

To date, admin involvement in this area has overwhelmingly focused on policing technical infringements such as edit-warring, and conduct issues such as incivility. That sort of response can succeed only if it restores focus on a shared purpose, but the lack of that shared purpose is the source of the problem here. As such, technical and conduct-based enforcement will inevitably fail to resolve the disputes, because suppressing one set of symptoms merely produces another set of symptoms. Admins end up playing Whac-A-Mole, unsuccessfully.

The core issue here is that on both sides of this dispute there are editors with strongly-held points of view. This of itself is not a problem, because WP:NPOV is explicit that we should be representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources ... but the most notable feature of this area is the presence of a number of editors on both sides who persistently and tenaciously work to ensure that articles either disprove or suppress viewpoints to which they are opposed. I have watched countless articles turn into battlegrounds as the opposing forces manoeuvre to slant an article on way or the other, when it is painfully obvious in most cases that the article concerned could be relatively easily constructed to give clear voice to all the significant viewpoints.

Unfortunately, this core problem is never addressed, because arbcom refuses (for good reason) to take a stand on content issues, reserving its remit to user conduct. As a result, countless warnings, rulings and sanctions in this area have not resolved the problem, because they never actually address it. So we find ourselves facing a proposal for draconian powers, which still fail to address the core issue.

Rather than looking for yet more ways of taking sledgehammers to symptoms, I suggest that these proposals be shelved and a wider discussion initiated on how the community should deal with editors who persistently take NPOV to mean that the opposing viewpoint may be represented only if it is demonstrated to be false. That's a huge undertaking — and maybe an impossible one — but I can see no other way to end the conflicts in this area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I think that the amendment proposed by Elonka could work, but only if applied to a much smaller set of articles than they suggest. I would use wording along the lines of "1. an article about or directly related to the Troubles. 2. articles articles about Irish nationalism or British nationalism related to Ireland where there is no significant objection by established editors of that article not involved in Troubles-related disputes". This would avoid situations like the existing one over the BNP article. As a counterpart to the vastly reduced scope of article restrictions, I would say that restrictions on editors involved in the disputes should be used more, with blocks of several days in the first instance for engaging in Irish nationalist and/or British nationalist POV pushing in other articles.

This would need to be done carefully however to avoid accusations of bias against others by heavily biased editors resulting in blocks to innocent parties. In a dispute where everyone who did not agree with one editor's opinion was labelled as anti-Irish regardless of why they did not agree. In this situation, the user throwing around accusations of anti-Irish bias without merit should have been subject to restriction for their disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Sswonk

At the recent AN/I discussion where Elonka first drew up this request as a proposal, I opposed with the notion that the boundaries of the scope of The Troubles in the encyclopedia were ill-defined and bound to become grossly inflated, and that the other European conflicts and the Mideast one shown as precedents for similar Wikipedia treatment were not nearly as "close to home" for many enforcers as this one. I formulated that opinion being uninvolved and frankly unaware of much of the previous discussion and actual evidential diffs shown, but essentially wrote along the same line as a more well-written rationale later expanded upon by LHV. Here, I came to a conclusion that the situation is what I thought I would describe as a bad road intersection, one where hiring more police and giving them stronger powers wouldn't solve a problem that really needs to be addressed by a redesign of the intersection itself. Coming to post those thoughts now, I see the view above by RA, which really sums that sentiment up very well. So, I am two for two: seeing these problems with the proposal and then now the amendment, independent of the other two editors but in broad agreement with them, indicates to me there is some truth in that view. If we are asked by John Vandenberg to offer a better solution, I would suggest following the advice of LessHeard VanU and Rannpháirtí anaithnid to not take a view that presents editing surrounding The Troubles and other elements of Irish independence movements as a war itself which needs a "crackdown". Rather, practicing a more calm and measured response is a solution that already is available, with the previous rulings in force and other existing tools ready to handle truly insidious behavior. Metaphorically, don't poke the bear. I could have linked to the essay of that title if that is what I meant. Essentially I mean that RA and LHV have it right and solutions are found when thinking along those lines presented by them, not by broadening the conflict with more potential avenues of dispute. Sswonk (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Snowded

Something does need to be done, although overall the problem is not as bad as it has been at times. A series of wars on a range of Irish articles can be linked to provocative edits by a small number of editors - some of whom have been banned and not received progressive blocks for subsequent failures. Scotland has just got one of its 2/3 times a year debates about national anthems and country status, there is no need to extend this type of sanction to that article. The surge in interest in the BNP and EDL and other far right groups in the UK has put them in the news so they are active, but I wouldn't say that any of them are really out of hand given the contentious nature of the subject matter. The current debate on the "whites-only" membership rule and the related court case has nothing whatsoever to do with the Troubles and there is no case for a 1RR rule there at the moment. So I would suggest:

• Enforce WP:BRD and sanction anyone who reverts a revert, with the admin restoring the prior position. This was used well on British Isles but needed more enforcement. That is much better than a 1RR restriction which is too easily gamed
• Ban all IPs from editing any article put under this type of sanction. IPs can edit at will and frustrate established editors tempting them into a failure to follow IRR. Some of the IPs are socks anyway.
• Most of these articles really need admins who understand the political context. Its too easy to miss deliberate provocation, or misunderstand what is going on. I think there is a case for a small number of admins to look after some articles and agree sanctions collectively. They can also intervene to create a structure to debates.
• Keep the British National articles under watch, but don't impose on them yet, the connection to the Troubles is remote (ditto Scotland). Keep this to articles linked to the Troubles, or individual attempts to take issues related to the Troubles onto other pages.
• It is all too easy for a disruptive editor to make multiple small changes to an article, claiming that each is an attempt to improve the article. They don't fail the 1RR rule but place other editors who simply want to restore the prior version while discussion is taking place on the talk page in an invidious position. Any sanction should therefore clearly state that if an issue is disputed, then the ONLY place for discussion is the talk page, not progressive edits of the main article.

--Snowded ^TALK 02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, WP:BRD would be far superior to 1RR. If there is to be an amendment it should be that. 1RR is just asking to be gamed - although BRD requires genuine discussion, not a lock down on "consensus" by veto. That too would need to be enforced, which requires admins familiar with the topic to understand the nuances involved. I don't agree about blocking IPs for many reasons that don't need to be discussed here and would see the issue as being both British and Irish nationalism involving, say, Scotland but not the BNP (different kind of nationalism, different kinds of topics). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nickhh

If the upshot of this amendment would be yet more swooping onto pages that have no serious relationship as such with the Troubles (like the BNP) to impose restrictions on editing or editors that would not otherwise be imposed, it is clearly a very bad idea, and is most certainly not a simple amendment to an "existing case". This kind of creeping extension of previous decisions, such that in this case it would now cover "British nationalism" generally, and so that individual admins would have the authority to arbitrarily decide that even where there is doubt about whether specific pages are included within that, their interpretation trumps everything else, is wholly inappropriate. And given that I have seen it suggested that Irish or British editors should be barred from editing such articles, as they have too much invested in them, I might similarly suggest that arbs and admins recuse themselves from proposing and then approving dramatic extensions of this sort to their own powers in specific areas. I also agree with Snowded about the inherent problems with 1RR as a remedy. And, going beyond that point, the proposer's self-certified assertion that they have "personally used discretionary sanctions to good effect", is, well, a little contentious - on many occasions those sanctions have simply allowed very poor content to accumulate on WP, and go unchallenged, even if they may have occasionally helped at the margins in terms of any conduct issues. --Nickhh (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the last point, this is a serious matter. The purpose of this project is to write an encyclopedia, it's not social club. "Discretionary" powers emphasises keeping order, not writing/improving content. "Removing" an editor may have a very calming effect on an article but it does nothing to address genuine problems the content may have. It's an answer to a content dispute that relies on "removing" editors that say there is a problem with the content. That's doesn't solve anything, it just makes belief that there is no content dispute. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As already noted, and per Mastcell below, there seem to be two themes to this request - first, the issue about discretionary sanctions, and second, a suggestion that the scope of the Troubles decision should be extended to anything to do with British or Irish "nationalism" (or even, it would seem from one reading of the request, any article with the word "Ireland" in it - although apparently not every one including the word "Britain". Yet). I'm sceptical about the first, though don't have that strong an opinion, and no involvement in Troubles-related issues. However, the second is of serious concern - on what basis is this extension being proposed? Is there a serious problem with either British or Irish nationalism in a broader sense on other WP articles? I'm sure there has been and will continue to be the odd flare-up related to either of those isses (and indeed English/Welsh/Scottish nationalism), but is there extensive edit-warring, abusive/disruptive behaviour and sockpuppeteering of the level that requires ArbCom attention where it doesn't already apply? I don't wish to pretend that all British and Irish people and WP editors are paragons of liberal virtues, or that WP doesn't have an Anglo and, more generally, a Western bias to it, but equally I don't see any current need for a creeping extension of the scope of a decision that was very specifically about the Troubles - a relatively recent manifestation of a specifically Irish-British dispute about a small-ish part of the north of Ireland. ArbCom is the court of last resort after all, not WP's ruling body. --Nickhh (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

I am in favor of anything that would normalize the environment in this section of articles. I do not think that removing current sanctions would do that however. I think the only reason that John Vandenberg's suggestion below would work, was that everyone who is currently gaming 1RR and AE will now be gaming 3RR and ANI/3RR. IE, AE would stop being clobbered... and it would go back to ANI.

If you're thinking of that, tell us to make a full fledged case. Otherwise, what it will do, is ensnare more administrators (in ANI) into this area and send them down the path to being attacked, charged with bias, etcetera just like every other administrator who has gotten involved in this area.

Rather then wait a couple months for that to happen, let's do it now. Let's identify the high-level bad actors in this area, and remove them from the environment (Topic Ban, or siteblock, etcetera), and see if other editors improve (either from not being pushed as much into wars, or getting the hint that WP has had ENOUGH of the constant battles). If not, deal with them until either all the edit warriors have been removed from the battlefield or until everyone stops the Battleground mentality.

My thoughts are that these new sanctions would supersede the existing sanctions (ArbCom/Community). I do think that something needs to be in place. This is a good idea, but we really have three options: The current sanctions (ArbCom/Community), the newly proposed sanctions, or a full fledged Troubles 2 cases. Annulling the existing case is not a good option, in my opinion. SirFozzie (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for proposed motion

After discussion of this case with others, I do think the proposed discretionary sanctions would be useful in this area. I would be hesitant to completely drop the community restrictions "cold turkey", however, and prefer phasing them out if we can. So I would take Elonka's wording for the proposed restriction, with the following addendum.

The community-based restrictions put in place on articles in this area (1RR rule on all editors, etcetera) will be continued for a minimum of 60 days from the conclusion of this motion. 30 days after the conclusion of this motion, the ArbCom will invite comment on whether to continue these restrictions as they stand for a period of time, to modify them, or to let them expire. Involved editors are invited to discuss these restrictions, but the greater uninvolved community's thoughts and desires will take precedence.

This would allow us two months of phase in time, to see who gets placed under discretionary sanctions, etcetera, while continuing the general sanctions and seeing if they're still needed. SirFozzie (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on this, prior to the US Thanksgiving break? SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Domer48

Vassyana below asks what are the specific behavioral problems being encountered? It is a fact that behavioral problems in this area from the time of the original Troubles Arbcom have dramatically reduced. This is no doubt down to the number of sock abusing accounts that were closed down, (I'm not fully convinced that we got them all) which has resulted in this reduction. The current problems being encountered at the moment in addition to the normal issues is the "New Admin in the area" syndrome. The latest is User:Elonka who was preceded by User:Rd232, User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Tznkai etc etc... In this syndrome it seems to follow a typical pattern. They start by taking their Que from the sitting Admin's, a big mistake since these Admin's are neither uninvolved or without their own bias, they then wave a big stick, throw around a few blocks which get overturned, and then call for additional sanctions.

Now the latest problems started with a bad block, another common feature on these articles. This block here which then had to be lifted. The Admin, rather than accept that they were wrong, created a fuss and went off to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles looking for "clarity." Now everyone knows what 1RR on the Troubles is, and we know that they were dropped because one Admin did not want to block a sock abusing editor. We also know that the 1RR restriction is not part of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles decision which was Case Closed on 08:09, 30 October 2007, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy, established by consensus during this discussion. In addition to proposing amendments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard they then posted this at Requests for arbitration/The Troubles.

This latest proposal is also based on a bad block and ban, and the same Admin's attempt to get retrospective support for them in the form of these additional “discretionary sanctions.” Here is the page ban and then the block. Now the block was very quickly overturned as been a bad block. Likewise the ban, however the Admin who issued it still has not got the good grace to admit they were wrong, with this comment supposed to signify that it has been dropped. Not to be thwarted though, they placed a “discretionary sanctions” here, with this call now for additional sanctioning powers to be given to them.

So what do they mean by “discretionary sanctions”? Is it like user:Angusmclellan's use of “discretionary sanctions” above to issue a bad block and ban on an editor who he is involved in a content dispute with? Or is it like User:Elonka's bad block above and placing probation on an editor who has challenged here misleading and disruptive comments? When sanctions are place at the discretion of Admin's they are going to be abused. Clear cases of edit warring will be ignored, violation of 1RR will also be ignored [148] despite previous blocks here and here with Admin's obviously not being sanctioned [149].

I agree with 1RR, but it can not be at the discretion of Admin's. If you violate 1RR you get sanctioned! These latest blocks and Bans illustrate why we should not give “discretionary sanctions” to Admin's.--Domer48_'fenian' 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One very good reason to reject this attempt to censor wikipedia. That the like of Moreschi could be considered "uninvolved" shows this motion up for the joke that it is. To even suggest this motion illustrated how you and others have have seriously failed to adhere or understand the purpose of Wikipedia. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MastCell

I'm generally in favor of discretionary sanctions in problem areas, as I'm not aware of any more effective alternatives (though I'd be open to hearing bright ideas). I do agree with Coren that discretionary sanctions formalize, rather than extend, an admin's "power". If the admin enjoys a reasonable degree of community confidence, then their imposed sanctions will generally stick whether or not they're backed by a formal decree from ArbCom. On the other hand, if the community lacks confidence in an admin's discretion, then they shouldn't really be in the business of enforcing discretionary sanctions in the first place, so it's a moot issue.

That said: I think anyone voting on this proposal needs to pay close attention to the wording. The existing Troubles probation covers "British nationalism in relation to Ireland" (emphasis mine). Elonka's proposal would cover "British nationalism" categorically, regardless of relation to Ireland. That is a significant broadening of the scope of the existing case, and it appears to be one crux of dispute here and at Elonka's talk page (one current dispute is over whether to characterize the British National Party as "whites-only", which seems to have little to do with Ireland).

Let's take it as given that discretionary sanctions are an appropriate extension of the existing Troubles probation. I'd like to see more (rational) discussion on the proposed extension of scope, because that to me is the real debate. Perhaps discretionary sanctions should be extended to any issue of British nationalism; if that is the case, I would ArbCom to make that extension with eyes open. MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment by uninvolved Mathsci

Groups of editors may move randomly between articles in ways that are hard to fathom. Two articles that are directly related to the Troubles, far more than British National Party, Ukip or Monster Raving Loony Party, are Ulster Unionist Party and Democratic Unionist Party. These have no Troubles tags on their talk pages. If administrators are unfamiliar with British/Irish politics, it might perhaps be advisable to avoid this area. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Angus McLellan

There is a table like that mentioned by John Vandenberg at User:Angusmclellan/Troubles. Many thanks to Elonka.

While I have no objection to the changes Elonka proposes, I do not view them as essential. Policy on edit wars says that "...editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR". Other policies are equally broad in their applicability, such as biographies of living people and no personal attacks. As Rockpocket said, "removing a single disruptive presence from an article and talk page can do wonders for improving the editing atmosphere". So let's do it more often, if necessary.

I am not in favour of extending the scope of the decision which I think is broad enough, as I interpret it. I am fairly clear in my own mind as to what constitutes a Troubles article. It is one where the editorial disputes which can be seen in articles concerning the Troubles, narrowly defined (and I can't define the Troubles so narrowly as to exclude the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War, although others may do so), are imported. From that perspective the recent fun at British National Party or over the non-existence of a purely Scottish national anthem are not part of this problem even if they do share some of the same cast. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jdorney

At the moment we have teams of people trying to re-write all kinds of articles for POV in this area. The only way this will change is if admins enforce NPOV - as well as general good article standards for readability and length. If admins need more powers then fine. If you're not edit-warring you've got nothing to fear

The problem with many Irish history articles right now is that, due to competing wars over pov, many have become unreadable, too long and contradict themselves. in those articles where one "side" has given up - as at Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment - not only is the quality of the articles terrible, they also extremely pov. In the USC article, for example, half the "disbandment" section currently argues the USC were Nazis!

With the current tag team edit wars going on, it's also impossible to revamp such articles, as your edits instantly get reverted by eds who assume you're on the "other" side.

What are we doing here? Are we playing a game, where antagonistic teams compete to see who can game the system best? Or are we supposed to be working together to produce quality, readable, npov articles? If its the latter then we need admins to be able to enforce non partisan editing. Jdorney (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Explain it to me like I'm stupid. What are the specific behavioral problems being encountered? Are there editors exihibiting such problems who otherwise work productively and uncontroversially in other areas? Are the numbers of disruptive editors too high or too deeply engrained in the editing area to deal with them on a case by case basis? As a side note, the discussion linked demonstrates how the heavy participation of involved editors can derail outside input and make it extremely difficult to decipher the opinion of the broader community (as represented by participating uninvolved editors). I strongly encourage the community to address this issue, as it has deep negative consequences across most controversial areas. Beyond that, I await further statements. (As a note, please keep statements to a reasonable length and do not rehash the ANI discussion here.) Vassyana (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be helpful to have a table like this drawn up for all related AE threads over the last six months. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the recent spat of statements, I am more inclined to believe that this amendment is required, because it has been effective when employed in more recent cases of this kind. I don't see careful consideration by the parties who should have the most valuable insight - just lots of FUD. There is no need to quickly add your statement to make sure your voice is heard; this is not an admin noticeboard. If you don't think this amendment is right, your statement should offer a better solution. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that I would also be very happy to "normalise" this area by annulling the case. That should be a shock to the system, and might mean that a few of the problem editors become saints. Those that dont will likely end up being brought back to Arbcom in due course. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering SirFozzie's suggestion on a practical level, if this amendment passes in the next week or so, the 30 day review will start when the new arbcom panel is just settling in, and are being inundated with requests from people hoping to obtain the attention of the newly appointed arbcom members who are both enthusiastic and .. umm .. relatively uninformed. ;-) As a result, I think it would be wiser to push the review out to mid- or late-February. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I think that the discretion Elonka asks us to enshrine already belongs to administrators; strictly speaking, the only thing discretionary sanctions add is provide a formal venue where such interventions are centralized (Arbitration Enforcement) and make it "more bad" for another admin to unilaterally overturn measures placed by one of their colleagues. — Coren ^(talk) 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• First off, I do not believe that any "special" statement needs to be made to provide the degree of administrator flexibility being sought here, and I believe that administrators have ample tools now, although I do see a somewhat disappointing reliance on a few and little creativity that is currently within scope. I agree with several of the commenters that there has been progressive "creep" in the scope of this set of sanctions, and it is serving to spread the battle rather than to circumscribe it. This appears to be largely related to following the contributions of editors rather than because the articles involved are related to The Troubles. This creep needs to stop, as it deters uninvolved editors from developing, maintaining and improving the content of the encyclopedia. I suggest that enforcing administrators consider that if the battle is being taken elsewhere, then the issue is the editors and not the article, and the sanctions should be in line with that. For articles, BRD is generally more effective in attracting independent, uninvolved and knowledgeable editors, whereas 1RR will nearly always deter the uninvolved from editing—quality editing will frequently involve multiple "reverts" or removal of coatrack content. I am not seeing much that would make me inclined to support the original proposal or the motions being proposed by my colleagues. Risker (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't foresee any massive advantage to replacing a probation remedy with a discretionary sanctions remedy, given the problems that have been articulated here (coordinated edit warring, expanding areas of conflict, and attacks on administrators trying to implement the existing remedy). A remedy providing for article-specific sanctions might be useful, but it would also run up against some of the same problems. Rather, I agree with SirFozzie's (original) assessment that a new case may be needed. --bainer (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Motion 1: Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; temporary bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; temporary bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; temporary restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Blocks and/or topic bans may initially be for up to one month in duration, escalating in stages to a maximum of one year if the misbehaviours continue.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to this case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor.

Support

1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. (With additional text}  Roger Davies ^talk 15:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Including Roger's changes. Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. The opposers' points have merit, but I think it's worth trying this. Inclusion of the requirement of a warning before sanctions are imposed is a particularly helpful step that may help keep users in the affected areas away from the line. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Very weakly. If this fails to help, then it just comes back here anyway so we'll see. Wizardman 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Not seeing value in this; the remedies from the existing case, as supplemented by later community actions, and the existing discretion allowed administrators are quite sufficient. I note, on reviewing logged bans and blocks, that multiple sanctions are included in that log that are routine administrator actions that just happen to relate to editing behaviours on the related articles; for example, blocks for making personal attacks are routine and not specific to the existing remedy or this proposed modification, which actually doesn't modify anything of significance. Risker (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per comment above, I see little value in this, and think a new case would be more appropriate. --bainer (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I remain unconvinced that any part of this not already covered by the remedies of the existing case already falls well within the discretion afforded uninvolved administrators to prevent disruption anywhere within the project (and not just in one problematic area). Requiring the committee to craft remedies for every case where there is a dispute before administrators can enforce our policies is not helpful, and this motion would tend to encourage a mindset of "It's not a real sanction unless it was done by ArbCom". — Coren ^(talk) 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per bainer, so we can once again look in depth at this reoccurring issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. My only reservation is the fettering of admin discretion by way of arbitrary block and ban limits. Thus, I am abstaining instead of opposing. I note that I am entirely unconvinced that it is impossible to find uninvolved or unbiased admins in the English speaking world. For better and worse, the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking internet (including Wikipedia editors) is dominated by the United States. Assertions about the impossibility of finding neutral English speakers grossly overestimates the interest in and awareness of Irish and British politics in the United States. Even in Canada, where the awareness of the Isles' history is much higher, you'd be hard pressed to find that many people with a firm opinion about the Troubles. Vassyana (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• I'm very happy to support this though the block and topic ban provisions should probably be more qualified. Perhaps add to paragraph one: "Blocks and/or topic bans may initially be for up to one month in duration, escalating in length in stages to a maximum of one year if the misbehaviour continues misbehaviours continue".  Roger Davies ^talk 08:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This could be interpreted as a second offense earning a year long block. I dont think that is reasonable in any but the most extreme cases, and those extreme cases are likely to be easily solved by the community. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but I'm not prepared to support a sanction that s currently drafted allows a year's site ban for a first offence at a single administrator's discretion. I've tweaked the proposed amendment to accommodate your comment.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Your proposed amendment works for me. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 2: Scope

The scope of the discretionary sanctions may include any article in conflict that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, or British nationalism. When there is doubt as to whether or not an article falls within the scope of this case, assume it is related.

Support

1. There is obvious sprawling from the main area into related areas of nationalism. I am not ignoring concerns about spreading the drama, but rather find them less convincing than arguments that the disruption is inclusive of these areas. Drama prevention should not be focused on inhibiting the ability of administrators to act, but rather on dispute resolution so that admins do not have to act. If behavioral issues are spreading and disruptive, it is the response to administrator intervention that is drama-laden and disruptive, not the impositions of sanctions themselves. It is not the admin's fault, nor that of other editors in the topic area, if an editor is launching personal attacks, edit-warring, tendentiously arguing, or so on. That responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the editor engaging in such conduct. Vassyana (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. While anyone reasonable would see what "[...] reasonably construed" should encompass, sometimes restating the obvious is necessary. If one is under a topic ban then the topic as a whole is verboten, regardless of the title of the article (though editing unrelated parts of a an article would normally not be problematic). — Coren ^(talk) 14:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. While I see the reason for this - to prevent wildfires spreading elsewhere - I'm uncomfortable about conflating the BNP with the Troubles. The topics are not really related though they may both offer similar opportunities for jingoism, and worse. I note though that under the "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" provision in Motion 1 is already sufficiently widely drawn to enable administrators to topic ban from editing in other topics/articles where the editor is causing trouble.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. The mention of British nationalism misses the point (that is more England-Scotland issues). The articles that cover Irish-British politics are more Ulster nationalism, Ulster loyalism, and Unionism in Ireland. Or indeed, Category:Politics of Northern Ireland. Politics in Northern Ireland is incredibly splintered and factional, and it does take a little bit of background reading to become acquainted with it. I would favour remedies focused on editor behaviour, rather than drawing too wide a net over too many articles. Find the editors who consistently push the boundaries, and deal with them. Ensure articles outside the topic area don't get affected and continue to function as normal. Impose stringent restrictions on the editing of articles within the topic area. Ensure that editing on an article remains relevant to that article. Consistently focus editors on improving articles (especially the non-contentious areas of the articles), instead of arguing over the controversial parts (or, indeed, manufacturing controversy where none exists). Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. If there is the sense that the battle is being carried beyond the confines of the original scope, then the problem is more likely the editors than the articles. Involving an ever-increasing number of good editors into this sanction mentality is destructive to the development of the encyclopedia and paints good editors as warriors in a battle in which they are uninvolved. Again, I point to the editors bringing an inappropriate mentality to peripheral articles as being the problem here, not the articles themselves. Risker (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per vote on #1. --bainer (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Roger Davies, Carcharoth, and Risker. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 16:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Discussion

Motion 3: Review of community-based restrictions

The community-based restrictions put in place on articles in this area (1RR rule on all editors, etcetera) will be continued for a minimum of 60 days from the conclusion of this motion. 45 days after the conclusion of this motion, the Arbitration Committee will invite comment on whether to continue these restrictions as they stand for a period of time, to modify them, or to let them expire. Involved editors are invited to discuss these restrictions, but the greater uninvolved community's thoughts and desires will take precedence.

Support

1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think periodic review will help here. The discussion suggested by BrownHairedGirl would help, and I largely agree with her comments about normalising the topic area, remembering that the aim is to improve the articles, not just keep warring editors apart. Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I'm loathe to intervene in community decisions without a strongly compelling reason. I perceive no such need here. Vassyana (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per vote on #1. --bainer (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think that increased direct intervention from the Committee is unlikely to be useful in this case. — Coren ^(talk) 14:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Vassyana and Coren. Wizardman 16:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Vassyana and Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. While I see some value in the community looking at how this is going, I think there's been some pretty good feedback both on AN/I and in this review from the broader community already, identifying that the spread of scope of this decision is not welcome. There is, however, benefit in reviewing the effectiveness of remedies on a periodic basis. Risker (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. This review should take place, but I'm not convinced it needs to take place under our auspices. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

A motion has been proposed that would amend a sanctions remedy in this case. It would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. NW (Talk) 20:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to flag up User:CommieMark, particularly after his edits here, which are potentially troublesome. I don't want to wade in with both feet, but I suspect that it wouldn't be received well. Someone should really speak to him.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} at 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

The Troubles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 5

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

N/A

Information about amendment request

• It is requested that the discretionary sanctions in the area of British baronets be lifted.

Statement by Seraphimblade

Following a recent appeal to arbitration enforcement [150] from a user who had been sanctioned under the Troubles discretionary sanctions, and objected to the portion of this which forbade editing of British baronets, a closer look was taken at this. Arbitrator Newyorkbrad confirmed that the Committee had not seen any issues arise from this area for at least a year and a half [151], and taking a check through the AE archives and case enforcement logs, I also can't find any trouble there recently. The administrators involved in the discussion regarding the appeal, including the one who closed the original request and placed the sanctions, agreed there was little purpose in the baronet portion of the ban and it ultimately was lifted for that editor. It's nice to see an area where sanctions have done their job and calmed things down, so I think it's time to give it a go without them. Accordingly, I'd propose something to this effect:

"Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows: The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion should a pattern of editing problems reemerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I realize the sanctions can be tailored on a case by case basis, based upon the type and area of misconduct they're being applied in response to. That is overhead to remember and/or process AE appeals if someone forgets when originally applying them though, and I think in general it's a good idea to have as few areas as possible have sanctions applied to them. There are some areas where it's likely that won't happen for many years, but if there are others where the problem that led to them is no longer a problem, I think we ought to scale them back, remove the "big scary notices" on the article edit pages and talk pages, etc. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scolaire

This question arose because some of the editors involved in the Troubles case were people who largely edited articles on baronets, but who had made controversial edits to Troubles-related articles and AfDs, sometimes with inflammatory edit summaries, and there was some "revenge" editing of baronet articles. See in particular Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Statement by User:Vintagekits and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Statement by User:Kittybrewster. As far as I am aware, since the case concluded in October 2007, no editor in either area has strayed into the others' territory. There is no apparent need to continue to link them. Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I endorse Scolaire's summary, except that there a further incident after 2007.

There was a further flare-up of the Troubles-Baronets link in May 2009, involving me (BrownHairedGirl), Vintagekits and Kittybrewster. A request for abitration was opened, and dealt with by summary motion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=289861526#Baronets_naming_dispute

So far as I am aware, there has been no further Troubles-related disputes wrt Baronets since then.

All of the troubles-related disputes wrt baronets involved Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is currently indef-blocked (and I think also perma-banned) after a very long series of conflicts. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Notified various noticeboards and Wikiproject talk pages per Courcelles' request (link). Daniel (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• This is potentially thorny enough that I would appreciate the clerks notifying various noticeboards/wikiprojects that would be reasonably interested. Might be worth letting AN know as well. Courcelles 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, lets get rid of this clause. Courcelles 20:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting further statements. PhilKnight (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on everything I am aware of, the disputes that formerly existed on the "baronets" articles were not directly related to "the Troubles"; they are mentioned in the remedy because those disputes, at that time, involved a handful of the same editors who were involved in the "the Troubles" disputes as well. If, as appears, there aren't any ongoing disputes concerning baronets, then editors restricted under "the Troubles" need not be restricted as to "baronets" editing. That being said, I don't believe a formal motion to amend is necessary to narrow the sanctions. Any administrator imposing a discretionary sanction has the authority to tailor the sanction to the specific misconduct warranting it. Thus, if the ArbCom decision says "discretionary sanctions are authorized in areas A, B, and C" and a user has breached policy only re A and B and has never had a problem with C, then it's quite in order for the admin to impose the sanction as to A and B and leave C out. So, a formal amendment isn't necessary, but I'm willing to propose an amendment motion anyway if there's a consensus of the AE administrators that it would be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the comments, unless anything else comes up, I'll make a motion in the next day or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removing "and British baronets" to avoid the unnecessary paperwork as witnessed in the FergusM1970 incident. As there has been no recent evidence of problems, and problems were mainly caused by one (currently indefinitely blocked) editor, I see no value in keeping this wide sanction. If there are problems in this topic area in future, it may be more appropriate to focus sanctions on those editors causing the problems rather than referring the topic back to The Troubles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with both removing the no-longer-necessary sanctions, as well as with the option for administrators to NOT impose discretionary sanctions in irrelevant areas. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (The Troubles)

"Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows: The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion, should a pattern of editing problems re-emerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect (and unmodified) until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process."

Enacted - Guerillero | My Talk 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this motions, there are 14 active arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Support

1. Courcelles 16:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fair enough. Kirill ^[talk] 00:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Template:Troubles restriction sets out a scope for this dispute of "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". If conduct while editing British baronets becomes problematic in future, item three of the scope ("British nationalism in relation to Ireland") will enable enforcement. (Fixed punctuation in this motion; feel free to revert.) AGK [•] 12:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Risker (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Original discussion

This is an enquiry. Are the terms of this arbitration still in force about restricting the number of reversions allowed (and the wider issue of slow-motion edit-warring) on articles that include the "Flag of Northern Ireland"? I raise it because some editors are insisting on repeatedly adding the purported flag to articles when they can give no reliable source that there is one, and on many of the relevant articles, there is a long-standing consensus that Northern Ireland does not have any such flag. In some cases, these editors also refuse to discuss the issues on relevant talk pages or have used insults and outrage when action has been taken against them (by myself) when, admittedly, I did not realise that these articles were covered by this arbitration. One editor that I know of has already been blocked on more than one occasion though in the long past for similar kinds of editing concerning the flag of Northern Ireland. I am mostly referring to: Template:UKFlags with edit history here just now, but similar slow-motion edit wars with a refusal to discuss much has happened on other articles where flgs of the UK have been included. Thanks  DDStretch  (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also it would do no harm if an admin took a close look at the Flag of Northern Ireland article looks like a sock farm is at work on it. Mo ainm~Talk 12:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DDStretch asserts that there is a long-standing consensus about the status of the Northern Ireland flag. I'm relatively new to the topic myself, but from what I can tell it is more accurate to say that this has been a simmering content dispute for over a decade, that boils over periodically. However, DDStretch's making such an assertion is effectively them taking sides in that content dispute, as they seem to openly acknowledge in this [259] comment on the talk page of an editor who has been involved on one side of the dispute. DDStretch is of course entitled to take sides in any content dispute, but it is surely inappropriate for them to coordinate use of administrative tools with other editors on one side of the dispute, to advance their common POV, as they seem quite clearly to be doing in that comment. Miles Creagh (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not acting out of political motivations you seem to imply I am, even when you point to a comment on Snowded's talk page where I comment to another administrator that someone is under a 1rr restriction already and that perhaps more action is needed to prevent further disruption. This is allowed! Note that I have protected a relevant page to prevent further disruption and warned editors to discuss things and provide reliable sources for any changes they want to make on contentious matters (see relevant discussion here).

Rather than speculating on political motivations or speculating that I am trying to coordinate administrator action as part of some underlying so-called political action, it is better to focus on demonstrable facts (rather than theories) which are:

(a) There is a long-standing consensus that a small number of disgruntled editors now seem to object to. That consensus doesn't get destroyed just by disruptive action on the part of these disgruntled editors. But it is one reason why there is a 1rr restriction on these kinds of articles. These disgruntled editors can object, but their objections can only have force if my next point is satisfied:

(b) When requests are made to find reliable sources to back up including a flag for Norther Ireland, silence happens, and after a break, the repeated adding and slow-motion edit war by a small number of editors then resumes.

Consensus does exist, and it can change only by acceptable arguments, and that means by the inclusion of reliable sources in discussions which other editors can reasonably accept. I have asked for these, but none have been forthcoming. Just a resumed slow-motion edit war. Where are the reliable sources?

(c) You and the other editors concerned do this slow-motion edit-war at just enough frequency to avoid the strictly legal restrictions of 1rr editing. (see here, and here for the ones I have found so far, where others will see numerous editors removing the flags being repeatedly added

You accuse me of political motivations. However, in essense by alleging political motivations, you are trying to rule anyone out of order who tries to take action against the gaming of the system by the particular slow-motion edit wars used by editors, including yourself on one occasion. You would be better off by making use of your time on this matter by finding and posting the reliable sources. I urge you to do so, because you also refuse to engage in the normal wikipedia process of providing reliable sources for the changes you want after they have been requested, instead you have become a participant in this slow-motion edit war!

I give an undertaking here that if reliable sources are found and posted, and if they are persuasive for myself, then of course I will not object to the flags being added if the consensus then changes (I might add, although I may change my mind, the consensus may not, in which case, I accept the wikipedia policy that one must go with the consensus view so long as it is reasonable, and I think that you and the others seem not to accept this.)

I am solely concerned with the disruption caused by these disruptive actions which continue even after requests to discuss the matter and to provide reliable sources have been made. I formally ask some other administrator to look at what is happening and take what action they feel is appropriate.

I finally ask that Miles Creagh withdraws his unfounded allegation that I am acting from some political motivation, because it is unfounded by reasonable scrutiny of what I have done, above. As such, it is demeaning of him and the other disruptive editors to continue to reply to legitimate requests with silence and continued edit-warring, making unfounded allegations towards me or some others, who object to their actions, or both.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem here. You seem to to be under the impression that User:Snowded is "another administrator", which may explain why you sought his opinion and advice on the use of administrative tools in this matter. In fact, Snowded is not an admin, but is an editor involved on one side of the long-running content dispute in the matter of the Northern Ireland flag. Does this information change your view of your conduct in this matter? And here[260], by the way, is an undoubted Wikipedia:Reliable Source that says "'The flag of the Government of Northern Ireland is often called the 'Ulster flag', but we have called it by its 'official' name, the 'Northern Ireland Flag" (My emphases). Finally, your request to me is declined. Miles Creagh (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is going on here. however if you check the sources (and the article concerned) you will see that the Ulster flag is (per the sources) explicitly no longer the flag of Northern Ireland. This is well established and long standing. We have periodic (over a decade) attempts to insert it in multiple articles and I and other editors with experience of British Isles issues regularly revert those changes. The insertions tend to be Unionist editors trying to make a point. There is no "long running content dispute", there is a clear position supported by the quoted sources. Experienced editors on the pages regularly change notes as we also deal with multiple sock farms and meat puppets. Whether DDStretch thought I was an admin or not is irrelevant. Experienced editors collaborate to deal with vandalism or political motivated edits. The fact that you quote a 1994 book as source indicates your lack of familiarity with Irish history. The Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998 and became effective 1999. That and the associated work on peace and reconciliation meant that the Ulster Banner was removed as the official flag of Northern Ireland and replaced with the Union Jack. A cursory reading of the sources on the Flag of Northern Ireland page would have shown you this. I suggest that you withdraw the accusation against an admin who has done more than their fair share of work to manage a difficult and contentious area of wikipedia. I also note that your own page has a prominent picture of King Billy at the battle of the Boyne so I rather suspect you know all of this anyway, but lets give you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to retract. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the IP editor above is Snowded? Miles Creagh (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You caught me in the middle of an edit - I was checking your user page so see additional comment and signature ----Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Yes I am interested in Irish history, and the depiction on my user page of a key event in the early modern history of Ireland reflects that interest. Anything else you read into it is your POV. This probably isn't the place to rehearse the whole argument about the Ulster banner, commonly known as the Ulster flag, officially known as the Northern Ireland flag, but anyone who is interested could start with the discussion at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland which if nothing else should make clear that any claim of consensus on the topic is spurious. Miles Creagh (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in Irish History then you know the significance of a prominent display of King Billy at the Boyne on your user page and you also know full well what happened (against some loyalist wishes) to the official use of the Ulster Banner in the peace settlement. Your recent edit warring on Patrick Pearse also makes it clear that you are pretty much involved in this subject and hardly "relatively new to the topic" as you assert. To be clear it is explicitly not known officially as the Northern Ireland Flag. The discussion at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland is largely asserts that the Ulster Banner is official but todate no one has cited any source to establish this or contradict the sources already on the page which say it is not. You still haven't withdrawn your accusation against DDStretch by the way. Hopefully with the matter raised here a non-involved admin will address that issue.----Snowded ^TALK 19:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Good Friday Agreement didn't address the Ulster Banner at all. It is generally asserted by folk on your side of the argument that the undoubted official status of the Flag of the Government of Northern Ireland, otherwise known as the Ulster banner, the Ulster flag or simply the Northern Ireland flag ended when the Stormont assembly was prorogued in 1972, and abolished in 1973, not when the GFA was signed in 1998. That's why it's interesting that the Queen's University, Belfast source above, published in 1994, shows two academic researchers in the Centre for Irish Studies stating that they intend to refer to the Ulster banner by "its official name, the Northern Ireland flag." As to DDStretch, I am perfectly willing to allow that it may simply have been his honest, if mistaken, belief that you were an admin that caused him to conduct himself in a manner that looked as if he was coordinating the use, and threatened use, of administrative tools to advance one side of a content dispute. I'll wait to see what he has to say on the matter before commenting further. Miles Creagh (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the best thing for you to do, is to open an Rfc on whether or not the Ulster Banner should be implemented throughout Wikipedia, as Northern Ireland's official flag. The result will likely be no flag, but at least it will put an end to these continuing edit spats. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, GoodDay, which does seem to indicate that there is no existing consensus on the topic. However, I am not sure that it would be appropriate to use the Northern Ireland flag in every instance across Wikipedia, and I'm not arguing for that. In any case, I reckon we should finish the RfC at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland first. Miles Creagh (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here[261][262], incidentally, is an exhaustive and exhausting prior structured discussion pursuant to a Request for Mediation on this matter, which doesn't seem to have arrived at a consensus. Where are the Requests for Mediation, Comment, prior discussions etc that evidence this claimed consensus?Miles Creagh (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologize for making the mistake of assuming that Snowded was an administrator. I would not have posted a message on his talk page discussing the edit warring that has been taking place if I had not made this error. However, this does not have any effect on the substantive issues under discussion here.

In particular, this apology does not absolve Miles Creagh for his assumption about political motivation, because making such assumptions just should not be made at all!

Similarly, it does not absolve him or the other editors for their failure up to now, in this section, of attempting to provide reliable sources for the changes they insist on making in a slow-motion edit war without engaging in any discussion on the relevant talk pages.

For all these reasons, it is still appropriate the action be considered by another administrator for what has been happening.

If the reliable sources are placed on the relevant talk pages and a proper discussion takes place, with no allegations of political motivations, then a way forward might be achievable, but it is still possible that some action can happen because of violations of 1rr editing restrictions or game-playing by apparent tag-teaming edits across a number of pages at just the right frequency to evade breaching the 1rr restriction within a 24 hour period.

The requirement for an apology, therefore, still stands because making comments in an attempt to undermine another editor by alleging political motivations on their part is simply unacceptable. It is one main reason why such restrictions have been imposed on all articles that are in some way connected with "The Troubles".  DDStretch  (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DDStretch it is big of you to apologise for your mistaken assumption about Snowded's admin status, and to acknowledge you wouldn't have posted your message on his page had you been aware of the actual situation. I took your message as you essentially offering to use your administrative tools to support a particular POV in an on-going content dispute. I now accept that it was simply a misunderstanding based on mistaken assumptions, and I am happy to apologise in turn for any implication that you were acting in bad faith in this matter. I would note, however, that I haven't imputed any political motivation to you here, as I have no idea what your politics may be - although that does seem to be what Snowded has done to me and other editors engaged in this dispute when he says above that we are "Unionist editors trying to make a a point". He should probably apologise for making such an assumption. Otherwise, as to the content question, there is an on-going RfC at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland which may be the better venue to advance this? Miles Creagh (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Apology accepted. I must also say that I really feel too many allegations of political issues just obscures things here. I do see that some discussion is happening now, and I hope people can concentrate on the reliable sources and weighting of any to arrive at the best solution. But a failure to do this and just game the system by the slow-motion edit warring is really not good for anyone here.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My question is two-fold:

1. Would edits like this, this and this fall within WP:TROUBLES? In each case, the cited source does not link the incident to the Provisional IRA.
2. If they do fall within WP:TROUBLES, what action should be taken?

Other similar edits have been made by Gateshead001 (talk · contribs), but since I am not an expert, I do not wish to take unilateral action except in the most blatant cases of non-verifiability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that these changes aren't adequately sourced, you could make that argument on the respective talk pages, and notify the editor of those discussions. Anyone may leave an alert of the Troubles sanctions via WP:AC/DS#Alerts on the editor's talk page but it is best to try normal negotiation first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original discussion