Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive27

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

Wrong forum.

chat) 07:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have been having a problem with a fellow editor concerning the page Duo (Richard Marx and Matt Scannell album). I have created the page for this album and listed the chronolgy for both singers. This other editor feels that a chronolgy doesn't belong there. I have looked at other albums made by two singers and have noticed chronologies are listed on those pages. I'm asking for a third party ruling here. Was I right to list the respective chronologies for these singers or was I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmyright (talk • contribs) 06:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I'm interested in whether or not it's correct to have the chronology of a band that has nothing to do with the solo career of it's lead singer. Vertical Horizon singer Matt Scannell has made a solo record with Richard Marx titled Duo. I was wondering if the chronology of Vertical Horizon should be added to the article. I can see the Richard Marx chronology, but I'm unsure about the former. Can you please clear this up for me? Thank you in advance. --Candy156sweet (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're posting on the wrong page - were you looking for a

dispute resolution? PhilKnight (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Editor informed about the sanctions and how to avoid being affected by them.

At September 11 attacks, User:Frank Freeman has been persistently reinserting a section on "CIA preparation and tracking." Consensus on the talk page[15] is that the material is inappropriate for this page. Repeated insertion risks destabilizing the article. Under the arbcom's discretionary sanctions remedy, I'd appreciate it if someone could ask Mister Freeman to stop it and respect the consensus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this on AE instead of AN or ANI?--Tznkai (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Tom brought it here because this arbitration case placed 9/11 articles under discretionary sanctions. No comment on the editor in question as I have not reviewed the specifics. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct, forgot to link the arbitration case. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now dealt with some of the issues raised on the

The consensus on the talk page is that this does not belong here. I hope an uninvolved admin will explain this to the user, and let him know about the general sanctions that apply to this subject. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I've informed the editor of the sanctions and how to avoid being affected by them. Hopefully there won't be any disruption from this point. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio (talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring in Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles, which is the area covered by the arbcom cases Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. He reverts the articles to his preferred version without any consensus with other involved editors. Within the last 7 days he made 3 rvs on Mihranids: [16] [17] [18], another 3 on Caucasian Albania: [19] [20] [21] and a few more on Artsakh a week before. While the rv parole me and other users were placed on a year ago has expired, I voluntarily agreed to stick to it, and the admins recommended other users editing the arbcom ruling covered area do the same. [22] In a situation when everyone else voluntarily sticks to 1RR, such behavior by Vacio is disruptive, and in my opinion this user should be placed on the same editing restrictions as others. --Grandmaster (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) As far as I can tell Vacio has never even received a single warning so this report is quite superfluous. B) Grandmaster himself was involved in all of the editing disputes pointed out above.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's now warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio was officially warned by User:Khoikhoi just a couple of days before, but chose to ignore the warning: [23] This should be taken into consideration when making a decision about this user. After the warning by Khoikhoi Vacio made 2 more rvs on Mihranids: [24] [25], and a few more on other articles. And I personally made no rvs in excess of 1RR per week limit, even though I'm not on any restriction anymore. So the info provided by Eupator is not accurate. Grandmaster (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster's continuous attempt to have his opponent under restriction should not be left unanswered. Checking the history of the edit wars a bit more closely, we can easily discover a more disturbing reality, which is that Vacio has been ganged up by four more experienced users. Which includes User:Dacy69, who came out of nowhere to revert him, the same goes for User:Parishan (who in spite of proxying for years was never placed in any kind of restriction while Grandmaster is attempting to have a recent user restricted). I don't see how Grandmaster can flatter himself for respecting the 1RR when others basically revert for him. There are several more disturbing and fishy users to place under restriction, which includes User:Baki66 who's very significant number of edits are actually reverts. Another new user to pay attention is User:Melikbilge. But unlike Grandmaster, I won't waste my time starting a new round of reporting every time someone disagrees with me. VartanM (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another rv by Vacio on the same article about Mihranids: [26] This is just a couple of days after Vacio was warned for the second time. His previous rv was on 21 September: [27] This user is obviously not willing to voluntarily stick to 1RR, as he was recommended by admins. [28] Grandmaster (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, from the same token Parishan should be blocked as well, his second revert here on the same article a day after the other one which makes it even worst than Vacio. Wasn't Parishan also already warned? When will you stop the bogus reporting? VartanM (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio made at least 6 rvs within the last 2 weeks just on that article. Not counting previous rvs there and rvs on other articles. Grandmaster (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many did you make? Your and Parishan's total exceeds his.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio was not "officially warned" - he was being given some advice. Just drop it. This section is marked resolved. Meowy 20:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Real_life_threats -- Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave_real-world_harassment. I am reporting that User:Assuredly called me from a private number. His IP states Alaska but he assured me he can spoof IPs. Anyway, the most of his threats was that he was going to get me banned forever from the internet, which I assumed he meant Wikipedia. I got him to calm down, even nerving through his insults of various websites he found on me. I don't make an effort to really "hide" myself or become anonymous and its very easy to find my phone and businesses through related searches. I talked with him on IM eventually and feel he won't come to my door with a hatchet. Still, it warrants report to ArbCom that he did this and apparently to others. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Assuredly .:davumaya:. 05:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the threats. Although some arbitrators may watch this noticeboard, it's very unlikely they'll respond. Your best bet would be to contact them at their internal mailing list (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org). east718 // talk // email // 05:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation was well in hand by the time I saw the threads this morning, but I went ahead I emailed the rest of the Committee with the links to the thread on AN/I so we would have the background information. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

see "Final remedies for this AE case" subsection

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor reverted my good faith edit to the template with no explanation given other than the edit comment "per talk", referring to a talk page that he had not yet edited. I reverted his revert, giving clear explanation again as to the rationale behind my edit, both in the edit summary and on the template's talk page. His own explanation, which he gave just before his second revert on the template's discussion page, was not satisfactory and my alternative was clearly a more appropriate symbol to use for the template. Domer48

I am left in a position, due to an ArbCom ruling against me as a result of a case on suspected sock puppetry by a collaborator with Domer48 (which was not presented with the full facts), in which I am effectively unable to introduce balance to many articles, categories and templates because of a certain group's apparent avid patrolling of said articles. --Setanta747 (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48 is currently blocked, and AE probably isn't the right place for this, this looks like a case of edit warring, content disputes, and disruptive behavior on a sensitive subject.--Tznkai (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a set of articles that have been subject to arbitration.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I take that back, Domer48's behavior suggests to me he should probably placed on probation as well. Second opinions please?--Tznkai (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be put on hold at least until Domer can edit again as he is currently blocked and at least he should be allowed to explain his edits. BigDunc^Talk 21:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like any decision will be taken soon, there is no reason why his edits cant be discussed in his absence, but of course natural justice dictates that he be given an opportunity to defend himself.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another note Northern Ireland does not have a flag except the Union Jack, Setanta747 is trying to portray the Ulster Banner as the official flag of NI and this matter has been discussed endlessly. BigDunc^Talk 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this complaint has much more to do with Domer trying to portray the Northern Ireland flag as that of loyalist terrorism. This isn;t about Setanta's views on that flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talk • contribs)

I couldn't care less about the content dispute. If I consistently and earnestly edit with the belief that polar bears are blue and not white, that's not an issue as long as my behavior in pursuing that belief is not troublesome. It doesn't matter who is "right" it matters what conduct is pursued. As for the concerns about Domer being able to defend himself, I am willing to wait for him to say his piece, but an uninvolved administrator (thats me) has discretion to put editors on probation due to the relevant Arbitration case. I am fully willing to use that with as wide a net as the community desires.--Tznkai (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who dealt with this for over a year, Tznkai.. grab the biggest net you can.. and make it three times as big, and hope it's big enough. SirFozzie (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[de-indent slightly & edit conflict] To BigDunc: Northern Ireland does have a flag - the flag of Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland's flag. It is an "official" flag. I'm not trying to "portray" anything. If you'd like to discuss it more, I'm happy enough to tell you the same facts, yet again. I hardly think this is the place to be doing so though. TU is right when he says that the notice is here to discuss Domer48's abuse of the flag and contemplate his possible

abuse of the system

and attitude etc.

At the time I posted this notice, I had been unaware that Domer48 had been blocked from editing. I made no recommendations or suggestions. I leave it to the community and/or admins to decide whether his behaviour warrants any kind of action. I also hope that this will pave the way for a sensible discussion about the template that has been mentioned, instead of just a cursory comment or two and a report (of me) to ArbCom. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m surprised this user hasn`t been spotted sooner, when you look at the history. It seems to me he is constantly fighting with every user he comes across who has a different opinion. When horns are locked a user is subjected to a vile and constant attack, which is obviously not the wikipedia way. Maybe this user should have a topic ban on all Irish related subjects --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a considerably more nuclear option.--Tznkai (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to take anything that Rockybiggs has to say regarding Domer with a pinch of salt, as this editors comments and troll actions against Domer can be seen here and it looks like an attempt to get one back. BigDunc^Talk 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigdunc, this is not true, just the same as user Setanta747 mentioned in the first paragraph (see [43]), i was subjected to a the same banning campagain by domer and his friends, which happens to be the same as the user who brought the allegations against Setanta747 which was One Night In Hackney. Thank you for bringing this matter up Big Dunc and i feel this further backs the claim Domer rallies peoples to his cause to cause problems on wikipeda. Also i would like to add this editor has got away with these actions for far too long, it seems to me he pushed serious editors to the extreme where they feel they have no other choice sometimes, and who are then sucked into allegations not of there making--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) Just so you all know, my usual reaction to seeing accusations of groups of users taking sides is to squeeze them through dispute resolution, and to make sure any enforcement measures, say probation, be applied equally and all around until people prove themselves otherwise capable of operating outside it. In other words: be very careful about accusing other editors of teaming up against you!--Tznkai (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am only observing and after seeing a administrator`s comments. see admins comments [44]

--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a pattern on Irish articles. To a reader familiar with Irish matters the abuse is obvious. It's very clever and it appears to apply with policy and guideline until you examine it closely. I'm not saying it's a team effort but there are obviously some who monitor various articles to ensure they don't get changed from a particular POV. Woe betide the editor who challenges the status quo. The Thunderer (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not pretend it's not happening from all sides, if not quite all users. SirFozzie (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue as far as I'm concerned because I haven't seen it happening from all sides. Admittedly my experience is confined to a small number of articles but I have found that various editors use the same methodology to poison those articles with the synthesis being to persuade the reader that the police force and military forces in Northern Ireland were anti-Catholic. Being a realist, when I edit in information it is, in my mind anyway, factual and supported by refs. I then find that information is introduced in the way of "spin" and handy quotes from anti-British authors which try to refute the information I have included. That then means I have to introduce other material which shows how the spin works. The finished article is then full of allegation and counter allegation which does little to enhance the encyclopedic value of the item.The Thunderer (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here Thunder is that you see the obviously anti-Nationalist "Security Forces" as not anti-Nationalist. And you try to put that "spin" on things. Sarah777 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhh! These British PoV -vs- Irish PoV arguments are all the same. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Sarah the question of Nationalism doesn't come into it. The issue of "anti-Catholic" practices is the point. I don't shy away from anything which may appear to make the security forces seem anti-Catholic, however instances where they were patently NOT cannot be refuted by spin. That's my argument. So if the regimental history of the Ulster Defence Regiment states that Protestant politicians complained because 3 UDR was heavily Catholic and that promotion was difficult for Protestants because of the high number of Catholics then that needs to be in the article. Not because I like it, because it is a verifiable fact. Similarly, if the powers that be took action to prevent infiltration by Protestant paramilitaries then it also should be in the article, as should infiltration by Republicans. What the article can't be is an outright condemnation of the regiment nor should it be a statement by Sinn Fein or An Phoblacht to that effect. Articles are not a platform for political gerrymandering. They are for the input of verifiable encyclopedic knowledge. I respectfully request you bear all that in mind. The Thunderer (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) AE is not the place for content disputes. Get back on topic.--Tznkai (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered the comment by Sarah to indicate that my views and edits are non-partisan. Too many people make the mistake of thinking that everyone who edits on Northern Ireland articles is either Loyalist or Nationalist. There are some of us who were just born as either Protestants or Catholics and we have no political allegiances. This is the entire crux of this matter and whilst I agree that content disputes have no place here the reasoning behind them is the fundamental cause of edit-warring on Irish articles.The Thunderer (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point Thunder - my bad, I conflated "Catholic" with "Nationalist". You did say "Catholic". Apologies. Sarah777 (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya'll should be atheist (like me), less hassle. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Born as either Protestants or Catholics"! Saddest think is that the person who just wrote that won't think there is anything wrong with it. Meowy 01:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you think there is something wrong with my statement? Perhaps you should think about what I'm saying rather than trying to read something subversive into it. The Thunderer (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have just proved my point. People are not "born" Catholics or Protestants. Meowy 16:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take this opportunity to address this point about being "born x or y". In Northern Ireland, unfortunately, this is in fact the case. When born there one becomes ostensibly Protestant or Roman Catholic depending on one's parents' religion (in the case of non-mixed marriages). The statistics and Census operations and the job application monitoring forms all take this into account, and assign you - effectively forcing the likes of myself, to declare a "community background". If this is not done, it is usually based on the primary school attended, or possibly on the parents.

It isn't a desirable thing and I have certain objections to it. Given the political climate though, it is unfortunately seen as necessary. I appreciate your attitude to it Meowy, but I also understand The Thunderer's meaning. While religion isn't genetically inherited (though it is often the case whereby the parents' religion is adopted by the children), when it comes to Northern Ireland, as the old joke suggests, you're either a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew! --Setanta747 (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the cultural background, but not that that sort of thing was still so prevalent. Unfortunaltly it is the case (and always has been) that UK media studiously ignore Northern Ireland (you are more likely to see a program about Tuvalu on the BBC than one about Northern Ireland) so as not to upset anyone. But I doubt even religious leaders would find it possible to produce scriptural evidence to support a view that someone is "born Catholic". It is all just power and politics. I recall seeing a film about similar practices in Eire in the 1950s, based mostly on fact, where the Catholic Church considered that it "owned" a child whose mother was Protestant and whose father was Catholic but wanted the child brought up in his wife's faith. Eventually she was forced to flee and hide out in the Scotish Highlands, while, back in Ireland, local Catholics were whipped up into a frenziy against the area's few Protestants, blacklisting many of their businesses and eventually murdering one of them. Meowy 22:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Love Divided was the name of the film. Not a bad show, based on a true story and handled quite sensitively, I thought. BBC Northern Ireland tends to tackle Norhern Irish issues head-on and there are often current affairs programmes about the Troubles which are broadvast nationwide. Other than that, I agree with you - the media is certainly at least partially responsible for simplfying the divided notions along religious lines. Unfortunately, it's not without a grain of truth. Often people are labelled, even by people here in Northern Ireland, as Protestant (for example) even if they are in fact athiest. Yes - that still goes on today, despite the 'peace' we've enjoyed in recent years. --Setanta747 (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. That was the film I was remembering (sorry if I got some of the plot details wrong). I've seen very few nationwide broadcasts about NI, certainly nothing as detailed as to show current cultural issues like what you have been describing. IMHO, the BBC uses its "regional" stations just to marginalise material and subjects, while allowing the national broadcasting to continue as usual as the "EBC" (or "SofEBC"). But remember when the real voices of nationalist or IRA spokesmen couldn't be broadcast on British TV, and actors' voices had to be dubbed on to them! Until recently you couldn't even find maps of Northern Ireland in British libraries - they were all withdrawn from the public shelves in the 1970s and you could only view them in a few central libraries if you had security clearance and official credentials! Meowy 23:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor has also described some editors as "rabid Irish bigot", and having been asked not to responds by saying it's very much a question of "if the cap fits - wear it!". Tznkai, since you are taking the lead on this one, could you outline what the issue is and we can address it point by point. Diff's always help, because comment and opinion makes it just go round in circules. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who did I call a rabid Irish bigot then? Or did I just say it generally in a fit of frustration? Of course it must be pointed out that I am Irish too. What you're missing Domer is the fact that we don't need contstant reminders in articles of the "Republican struggle". Your most recent edits on Ulster Defence Regiment and Ulster Special Constabulary are exactly what I'm talking about. In articles which contain specific information about the fears of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland as well as an overview of how they were regarded politically, you feel it necessary to add in newspaper quotes stating their fears, without putting in any balance whatsover from the opposite POV. In other words, you are making the articles a condemnation of the existence of the organisations without letting the reader just deal in pure facts and making up their own mind. This is an encyclopedia, not a political platform.The Thunderer (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree Thunderer, that somes up the entire problem; some editors use wikipedia as a political platform for their own agendas and obviously try to spin the articles to that end.--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a political platform. rem POV on B Specials, corrected POV, Nationalist opinion is of no consequence..., Not correct at that time. A Republican POV. So its not just newspapers but respected authors also you have a problem with, most of which could not be described as Republican, quote the opposite. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough

Since this dead mouse has been laid at my feet, I'm going to have to clean this mess up my way.

From this point forward, I will take any unprofessional or uncivil commentary on this AE thread as further evidence that you need to be placed on discretionary sanctions. Furthermore, any further airing of content disputes on this thread, or accusations of bad faith or similar motivations will constitute unprofessional and uncivil conduct. I want two things, and two things only from the complainants.

1. Specified diffs of bad conduct. I don't care about motivations, our supposed POV, and I certainly am not interested in accusations of cabalism or meat/sockpuppetry, or admin repression of your rights. I'm looking for edit warring, genuine personal attacks, confirmed sockpuppets and similar bad conduct.
2. I want a short consise statement why you should not be put under sanction yourself.

Some Caveats:

• Do not bother quoting policy to me, I know it as well as you do.
• Bickering will be taken as evidence of unprofessional or uncivil conduct
• Limit yourself to the month of September if at all possible
• Limit yourself to short concise statements, if it is too long I will remove and ask you to try out again.
• Be on your very best behavior. You are proving to me that you are not going to disrupt Wikipedia or Irish related articles.

If you've commented on this thread in any capacity, and you're an editor on the Irish articles, you probably want to respond. I'll be digging through page histories in the meantime, and any other admin wants to handle this, feel free to step in.--Tznkai (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Rocky some editors use wikipedia as a political platform for their own agendas and obviously try to spin the articles to that end. You'd know all about that? As for your comments to me lol Vandalism - don’t make me laugh your an IRA supporter and then RV Domer IRA POV comments as usual from this user says so much more than I could. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, welcome to my world, genuine personal attacks, confirmed as outlined above. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Domer48 for bringing those edits up, which i was totally (over the top) punished for these edits which you say above, by your friends of a 3 month ban and a ban on all Irish related articles (still in place). Your constant ownership of these files is the problem. I have no further comments to make on this board as all i say is i welcome Tznkai comments earlier that everyone will be subject to punishments and trust this will be as severe as the over the top punishments given to me --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel I should be put under any sanctions. I've contributed good material in a non POV way to the couple of articles I do edit. My interest isn't so much in Irish matters but rather military and as soon as I'm finished with the three articles where there's a crossover I'm on my way, unless I find something else in Irish military history which interests me. To be honest I'm getting fed up with the whole thing and might just quietly disappear.The Thunderer (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's it gonna be? is Domer gonna be barred from Irish articles for a period of time? or at least barred from the Template in question? GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked by Tankzi to comment here. My view is that an "Irish" article ban for Domer would be pure censorship, and wrong in a very profound and anti-

WP:NPOV way. Apart from "abusing" the template contesting his block what did he do? I'll need to read up on this as I'm obviously missing some of Domer's "crimes". Sarah777 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I too, am not familiar with Domer's conduct (weither it's good or bad) on Wikipedia. Best I excuse myself from this AE report. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[De-indent] I have been invited to comment on this report. To be honest, I haven't really anything to add. I am not interested in the bickering about flags, the UDR, the IRA, who's "anti-this" or "anti-that", Loyalists, Republicans, unionists, nationalists, or who called who what. I'm interested in the report I made about this particular user. I'm not even interested in the last report made against me by this same user - that has been done, dusted and dealt with and I have 'served my time', as it were.

I am interested in whether the user can be seen to have been

As regard to Tznkai's suggestion that others be given sanctions, this case is about a specific user - not about others, nor is it about tag-teaming etc. I have been quite straightforward and highlighted recent actions taken against myself.

As TheThunderer has hinted at, the atmosphere that has developed regarding articles relating to Northern Ireland, since January of 2007 has discouraged editors from tackling issues that need sorting, and even from editing Wikipedia. Some of these editors, from all and no political perspectives, have made decent, substantial and valuable contributions to Wikipedia.

I realise this contribution to the discussion has not been particularly concise. I hope, though, that all the points I have made will be taken into consideration: this should not necessarily be a re-hash of the Troubles ArbCom (if necessary, that can be addressed again separately). This case is about an individual editor. Note also, that I have not requested a ban on the editor of the editing of all articles relating to Northern Ireland. The proper course of action, should any action be considered appropriate of necessary, I leave up to a closing admin and/or the community. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the edit history here, and my use of the talk page here should be enough to address the allagation of me

gaming the system. It should also address the allagation "Domer48 has effectively claimed ownership of the template IrishL." Now it is my opinion, that if Setanta747 accepts that this flag represents only one of the Loyalist groups the Loyalist Volunteer Force, and this one is representative of all Loyalist groups (since they all use it) there will not be a problem. The alternative, is to have no flag. The main difficulty Setanta747 has is "The flag of Northern Ireland is not a specifically Loyalist symbol." As has been pointed out countless times [45], [46], [47], this flag is not the flag of Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland dose not have a flag. I do welcome Setanta747 statement that "I am not interested in the bickering about flags, the UDR, the IRA, who's "anti-this" or "anti-that", Loyalists, Republicans, unionists, nationalists, or who called who what." So we can put all this behind us. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The edit histories are very interesting. If I could be bothered I could post rather a lot of links but rather than waste my time doing so and leaving myself open to any allegation, I'll content myself with asking; if you;re not that bothered about ownership of articles and your edits are non-partisan, why make a comment like "Negative material must be balanced by positive material," and just what policy is that in? The Ulster Defence Regiment are discredited. --Domer48 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC) which can be found here. The entire talk page of that article reads like a terrible condemnation of the attitudes of some editors here and your comments have not been laudable Domer. We can see you and several others tearing lumps out of a new editor and making terrible personal attacks on him. I can see no reason for that other than trying to game him. The Thunderer (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hadn't wanted to get involved in the intricacies of the usage of the flag here - that should have been done on the talk page of the template, at the time. However, as you have raised issues here, I shall respond to each of them.

Your sparse discussion on the template talk page may well indeed be evidence enough for the case.

Northern Ireland does have a flag - it is the flag of Northern Ireland, as has been pointed out countless times. It is not representative of Loyalists as, while it may be used by most, or even all Loyalist groups, it is not specifically Loyalist. Nor is it used solely by Loyalists.

I have no idea why you point to the sock puppetry allegation against me in the context of "putting things behind us". It seems to me that by pointing it out, this is precisely the opposite of what you are doing here, and quite unnecessary.

I would be happy for all the related templates to have these symbols removed - there are precedents for templates not including any kind of graphic. It might perhaps have been useful if you had mentioned this option before you decided to report me under the Troubles ArbCom - perhaps saving both of us a lot of time and effort. However, I don't see why you would have an objection to the use of a specifically Loyalist flag in the infobox, instead of the flag which you should know is used by non-Loyalists. --Setanta747 (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Tznkai's already tried to bring this back on topic once, it's my turn. Unless you have sourced diffs of bad behaviour amongst other editors (and also a reason why, if you're involved, why YOU shouldn't be put under sanction), don't say anything. This is NOT the place to refight content battles or old wars. Enough is not enough, in this case.. it's Way too *@)$&@) much. I wouldn't be surprised if the decision is to place everyone involved in content disputes in this thread on restriction, because none of you can get along with each other long enough to get squadoosh done. SirFozzie (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying basically is that we have to spend our time finding fault with others rather than defending our own neutrality? Hardly productive. You can count me out of this discussion as of now. I'll edit articles and deal with problems through the correct channels. The Thunderer (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying it's two fold. Show WHY A) You should not be put under Troubles sanctions, and B) why anyone else SHOULD be put under sanctions. Tznkai, AND myself have had quite enough of this circular mud throwing fest. SirFozzie (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I was asked to respond here I will only say this as I really could not be arsed with this nonsense anymore. Until an editor can supply some diffs which show that I broke any wiki policy I will not comment any further. If there are some diffs that can be dragged up I will respond to them. Because as far as I am concerened I have not breached anything that would warrent sanctions being placed on me and as Thunderer says I don't want to start digging around to get other editors placed on probation either. All this needs is an admin who is willing to enforce policy that we have already without making a James Cagney movie out of it. BigDunc^Talk 08:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's my turn: this report is about a specific editor. It is not about BigDunc. Nor is it about The Thunderer. Nor is it about any other editor who has ever been so bold as to edit an article relating to Northern Ireland. As the headline suggests, this case is about Domer48. --Setanta747 (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)Not anymore. Standard etiquette, procedure, and common sense all dictate that I look not only at the original target of the complaint, but all the editors on all of the affected articles. This thread has been full of accusation and cross accusation, and generally bad behavior all around. As SirFozzie suggested I have had more than enough. I am going to cast this net as wide as necessary. The conduct in this thread has given me more than sufficient suspicion of your incapability to work in a civil fashion, and I'm digging through article and contribution histories to confirm or deny that suspicion.--Tznkai (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And who is that directed at Tznkai? BigDunc^Talk 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everyone who commented in this thread except SirFozzie, who as far as I know, has not edited any of the articles in the locus of dispute. And possibly Meowy, who just seems to be here to argue about religion, I can't find any significant interaction on the Ireland pages just yet.--Tznkai (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well would it not be wise to inform everyone involved and not just those who have commented here that they are facing possible sanctions? And I do hope you have a lot of free time because I doubt I am not alone in wanting to see diffs for any wrongdoings that I am alleged to have commited. And I'm sure that goes for Thunderer, Domer, Traditional unionist and any other editor. BigDunc^Talk 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective there were only two editors I had issues with. BigDunc and Domer. BigDunc and I have come to a workable understanding whereas Domer and I haven't. That means all my issues at the minute are with Domer on two articles Ulster Defence Regiment and Ulster Special Constabulary. The page histories there tell the story but I'm not going to list it all point by point. What I suggested to another admin is that someone should be appointed as "custodian" of those two articles to ensure non POV editing. I stand by that comment because I feel my editing IS non POV and no doubt Domer feels the same. The Thunderer (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of, this needs to be cleared up. I maintain that

"In the interests of fairness", you need to

quit beating this dead horse, Domer48. I'm blue in the face pointing out that there is no abusive sock-puppetry going on here. None!. Seriously, there isn't. Let it go, let it drop, leave the man be already. Address your issues with the man and describe the "major disruption" he's perpetrating on the project if you must, rather than banging this old drum again. It's a fascinating investigation, I'm sure, but completely irrelevant to the topic at hand here - Alison ^❤ 19:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Alison this discussion is taking place here because of what has been happening on the Ulster Defence Regiment and Ulster Special Constabulary articles. It is completely relevant to the topic at hand, or are you suggesting that the edits of GDD1000 or the IP's have no bearing on how we ended up here. Now Tznkai is reviewing the edits on the articles, and has asked us to raise our concerns here. I have, and it is my opinion that the editors are the same person, and have been attempting to remove negative information despite it being sourced. Now I'm willing to drop the "abusive sock-puppetry" if they put their hand up and say they are the same person. Why don't you tell Tznkai about the amount of socks I've had on my case no matter what article I go on and the crap I've had to put up with. If I drop my user name, do I get to come back with a clean slate? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's mighty big of you, Domer, but might I suggest that dropping the 'abusive sock' label is not your call, nor should you be dangling it over that editor's head like that. It's a catch-22 for him. If he says it's not or says nothing, you'll keep beating up on him as you are, if he does, you get to crow "aha!!!" and declare he has some COI or other. Not fair. Right now, I'm seeing your name on the title of this section, not GDD1000 or The Thunderer's. I strongly suggest you focus on the article issues here and whatever's going on rather than focusing on the person or persons, as you are wont to do - Alison ^❤ 20:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I get a clean slate if I drop my user name? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You get a clean slate if you drop your old username and never edit an Irish/whatever it if got you in trouble-themed article under a new name. Otherwise, no. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely dependent on circumstances, MBisanz. There are other reasons (and feel free to email me on that) - Alison ^❤ 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes, I was going with the usual reasons, but probably if someone is under ArbCom sanction AND at AE, the usual situation does not apply. MBisanz ^talk 20:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer - not with your block log, no, unless there were extenuating circumstances :p - Alison ^❤ 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very much worth noting that GDD1000 disappeared after what has been described as bullying by......errr.......Domer.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that MBisanz, I thought as much. When an editor has a long history of disruption, gross POV editing, edit warring and copyright violations, it should not be permitted for them to try and get a clean start under a new name, and deceive other editors by editing the same article pretending to be a brand new editor. Alison dose however have an idea of what my problem is, suggesting that I will "declare he has some COI or other." Now accusing me of "beating up on him" is not going to wash with me. Check the article talk page history from here down, when I went back onto the article. Not once did I comment on the editor, only the edits. They however never let up on me with their accusations. Alison the wiki answer to everything is not "email me on that" lets keep it all open. Now this section is no longer just about me Alison. Let Tznkai do their job. TU as usual you have it all wrong. They gave their reasons here on the top of their talk page why they left. And who were the two editors they blamed for it Fozz and Kylu, not me. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, Alison's a checkuser, she says there is a private reason that would indicate against you restarting under an alternate account, that is good enough reason for me. Now back to the topic of your behavior, if I am reading your statement correctly, you are still confusing GDD1000 and other current editors, can we please stop the insinuation that current editors are this retired dude? MBisanz ^talk 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be dropping it. It is completely relevant to the topic at hand, the edits of GDD1000 and the IP's have a bearing on how we ended up here. I will also be bring up my block log in this discussion, and emails I've recived. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine, apparently I was not clear. You made accusations of sockpuppetry, a checkuser investigated them using technical tools and found there to be no abusive sockpuppetry. Continuing such accusations subsequent to the checkuser results is

harassment of the accused. If such accusations continue, the party making them will be blocked for harassing another editor. Is that clear? MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh for crying out loud, Domer48 is hereby put under discretionary probation based on his conduct in this thread alone. Furthermore, he is blocked for 72 hours, which I will consider undoing if he promises to be super civil and professional and stop talking about sock puppetry.--Tznkai (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies

Enacted

• Domer48 (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours for gross incivility and disruptive editing, may request unblock.
• Domer48 (talk · contribs) placed under indefinite probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, because of disruptive edit warring and inability to compromise and cooperate instead of edit warring.
• All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get
  outside opinions
  . Preferably someone from China. Perhaps Angola.

• The Thunderer (talk · contribs) put on 2 month probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles because of disruptive edit warring.
• BigDunc (talk · contribs) put on 2 month probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles because of disruptive edit warring.
• Sarah777 (talk · contribs) put on 1 month probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles because of disruptive edit warring.
• Traditional unionist (talk · contribs) put on 1 month probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles because of disruptive edit warring.
• Any editor found taking advantage of these discretionary sanctions is immediately blocked for 1 week, put under discretionary sanctions indefinitely, and referred to the community for an indefinite topic ban.
• Any editor found violating these discretionary sanctions will have their probation reset and extended to double previous term immediately, then referred to the community for consideration of a topic ban.
• Unless otherwise stated, probation is as described under "Terms of probation" Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement with the following caveats and clarifications
  • Any article or edit that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under the reversion restriction. When in doubt, assume it is related.
  • Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
  • Rollback should not be used on related articles
  • Reversions are roughly defined as changing a page so it is substantively the same as a previous version. Consult
    WP:3RR
    for guidelines, but apply a healthy dose of common sense.
  • When in doubt, don't revert.

Proposed

• Discretionary sanctions will be shortened by two weeks upon completion of a voluntary self-topic banning for the same.

Other notes

I'm not done yet, these are based on preliminary findings.--Tznkai (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The permanent probation for Domer is certainly the right move - we've had many problems with him The Toubles area - He was recently banned from the Irish Famine page for two months. I see 2 months is proposed for Dunc - That's fair, I think a permanent parole would also have been fair but I guess there's no harm in giving him one final chance. Sarah777 can be a fantastic editor, but I see so much edit warring and random reverts - This for instance, I really don't get why it needed to be reverted without explanation. She accuses many of British POV pushing yet she's the one pushing Irish POV. One month seems reasonable, but a caution should go with it that further disruption on these articles will not be tolerated in the future. I must admit, I haven't come into contact with The Thunderer or Traditional Unionist before so it's not fair that I comment on them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One or two problems there Ryan (1) I didn't edit war; (2) She accuses many of British POV pushing yet she's the one pushing Irish POV - you've just accused me of pushing Irish POV; how come you are allowed do that? (Your 'summary' above is merely your opinion, btw, and is wrong). (3) disruption on these articles - what disruption?; diffs please. (4) You have now banned yet another Irish editor (Domer) for trying to remove British POV from articles - thus Wiki's famed "consensus is achieved. How it's done; you take the majority pov and then systematically block and ban all editors who try to introduce balance, thus maintaining a permanent majority for the unchallanged insertion of thr dominant Anglo-American POV. Sarah777 (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...er Ryan, This is reverting vandalism - I am not sure if it could be more obvious. Lucian Sunday (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is - I was looking at that all wrong, I thought she was reverting all that. Struck. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd of gone a bit longer on Domer's block, but all the proposed and enacted sanctions appear fair and of the minimum degree to ensure harmonious content creation. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case it needed to be said, please bring any problems with any of these users or the related articles to my attention via my talk page, e-mail, or IRC, preferably in that order. --Tznkai (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

er, where is the recent edit warring by the thunderer? I had a good enail exchange with them after declining the last unblock request and they clearly understood they had gone too far and had learned their lesson. A quick look at recent contribs doesn't suggest they restarted edit warring so why the probation? Maybe I'm just being dim but where is the recent edit warring by them?

Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

While your jumping to The Thunderer defence Spartaz could you show me where I have been edit warring too. BigDunc^Talk 08:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice assumption of bad faith there but I did look at your contribs and they are equally as clean. Tznkai, please can you address this issue. Why have you raised probations for edit warring on users who do not appear to have been edit warring in the last week?

Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

For one example, the bottom of this history here[48] (Circa Sept 20th). For another example, all the nonsense on this thread is the "disruptive" part of the warring. I'll put up a more complete report soon.--Tznkai (talk)

Bliocks have already been served for that incident and contributions have been free from edit warring since. I strongly protest. This is a clear case of double jeopardy and I'm also not seeing recent evidence of unacceptable disruption from bigdunc.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm unaware we had a double jeopardy policy. This isn't a moot court, despite my use of certain formalities and the Arbcom occasionally acting like one. These remedies are meant to 1. deal with the original complaint, 2. deal with surrounding and entangling disruptions and 3. deal with the heart of the issue. Not one of these editors I've placed on sanction, including BigDunc has shown me the ability to cooperate and productively push forward in creating a better wiki left alone. Remember, this complaint surfaced on the 23rd, and I made it clear that I was looking at the whole month of September at the very least. This complaint has been open a full week, and everyone had a chance to step up then.--Tznkai (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't see where you're coming from with those comments. My intent all along, and I've made it clear, is to produce a better wiki. As far as I can see all I've been doing is standing up for myself in the face of some very determined opposition who, using their much better knowledge of the system, have been able to run rings around me. My comments below nodded acquiesence to what you've done without complaint and now you are saying I'm not co-operative? While I appreciate you don't know the entire story and don't have the time to research it all, surely you can also understand that some of us have better things to do than spend time formulating what are quite complex complaints? All I want to do is contribute without causing problems, or having problems caused for me by people who are gaming the system to my disadvantage. I've given you your place and all I want in return is to have fair dealings with you. The Thunderer (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars take multiple people. Even if you are being ganged up on (which has been suggested to me by more than one person) that doesn't change the facts that the confluence of all of these editors has resulted in edit wars, and generalized disruption to the wiki. Thus, a wide net.

I have no intention of divvying up blame, merely an intention to stop this warring in its tracks. This seems to be the fairest and most minimal sanction option I have available to me that I think will work. Part of being an effective Wikipedian is being able to walk away from edit wars and disputes instead of fighting them. This is more important than any single policy. There are countless users on this wiki who can and will pick up the slack, given the time and opportunity. Wikipedia at large, in my estimation is sick of the lot of you, and it is in my estimation because of repeated failures to disengage.

From this point forward, as far as I am concerned, there is a clean slate. You follow the rules of your probation, you conduct yourself in civil, "professional" manners, and probation dissipates and you're left on your way with no ill blood.

This message has been in response to all sanctioned editors.--Tznkai (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with the way you have gone about this. There is no evidence provided for the sweeping probations you have dished out and the terms of the probation are completely undefined. Where are we 1RR, 0RR, article bans, civility probation? What? You clearly have not researched this issue enough to know who is currently a problem and who is not and have just come in and slapped on some very vague and sweeping sanctions on editors who are not currently edit warring, are not being disruptive and who have shown that they can respond rationally to clear instructions and limitations. I'm shocked that you think its OK to sanction an editor who has served their block and is behaving and another who has never been blocked for anything who is also not currently disrupting the project. So please properly document this decision so we can discuss it, decide on whether they stand up and if not give the victims of the decision a basis to appeal it if they wish. Right now I have no confidence that you have made the right call here and I really feel that you are being unfair and unjust.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The terms of the probation are in the Arbcom case. They are rather uniform. As for the rest, its rapidly apparent through various diffs provided, my talk page, and this thread that these editors have an excess of hostility and are short on cooperation. I would also point to the voices above who have voiced their support of this measure. But hey, I'm willing to listen to your suggestion on how this should've been dealt with.--Tznkai (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing enormous support for the probation for DigDunc and the Thunderer, in fact, Ryan specifically excludes them from his endorsement. I looked through their contribs and I'm not seeing any current issues, neither is edit warring and I wouldn't say either is being particularly disruptive. I absolutely endorse the probation onf Domer48 (in fact I'd support a ban at this point) but I personally feel that the probation on the two editors I have cited does not reflect their current editing. I'd suggest lifting the probation with an understanding that it will be immediately reinstated if their editing deteriates and I'm happy to keep an eye on their contribs and, if necessary, impose the probation myself if this will reassure you on this point.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Spartaz, I would certainly agree with that. I'm sure they both now understand the severity of the problem, and what would happen if they were to disrupt these articles in the future. It could be a final warning to all parties. I do fully support the probation of Domer however, he's passed his final warning. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) So what you're basically saying is that I, as a new editor who hadn't got a clue how to work the system and gets put upon very soundly, as you would appear to have concurred from discussions with other admins, I'm tarred with the same brush as everyone else and you're sick of me? Or have I misunderstood your intent? The Thunderer (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderer come on please. BigDunc^Talk 18:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being uncivil. I just find it rather strange that an admin would allege that the entire encyclopedia is sick of all of us when the ins and outs of this affair would defeat a leading QC. The Thunderer (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai i think you have been very fair with a very difficult situation administering everyone here. Further to user Ryan Postlethwaite comments regarding the edit warring of user Sarah777, I would also like to add that this user is less than cival on the talk pages with this shocking statement comparing British people to Nazi`s here [49] and a futher more worrying comment here [50] which was commented on by a admin as being racist here [51]--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My honest opinion on all this? I don't believe it's perfect but if it stops all the nonsense I'll run with it without complaint.The Thunderer (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to sdee where I've been adit warring. I haven't been editing as much in the past 8 or 10 weeks.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts - I think it'd be useful just to try this out for the time that Tznkai has indicated. Whilst it may be true that some of the editors involved haven't been edit-warring recently, I think we all know that those identified by Tznkai have been guilty of the same at some point. If it works, that's great and we can formulate some sort of strategy to move forward on these articles. If it doesn't, let's try something else. Black Kite 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite I have done all that you asked since we came in to contact and have not broken my undertaking with you, would you not agree looking at my edit history? BigDunc^Talk 20:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunc, I think the point is - don't think of this as a sanction on you or some of the others (apart from Domer48, but I think that's correct). After all, probation is just a stricter limit on editors not doing what they shouldn't be doing anyway, and even if we have to probate a large group of users in order to attempt to cut out the unproductive edit-warring over the wider range of Troubles articles, is it not at least worth a try? Black Kite 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No not to this extent if an editor is breaching policy then block them it is that simple what is needed is an admin to step up to the plate, sweeping sanctions against editors who have not been edit warring is wrong IMO. BigDunc^Talk 21:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) I've added some clarifications on the probation terms.--Tznkai (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered my comment above?

Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have, and my basic problem with it? I don't think it'll work. I've been reviewing the block logs and digging deeper into the background, talking to people etc, and the more I hear and the more I see, the more it suggests to me that all of the editors I've blocked have been adding fuel to the edit wars. The basic misunderstanding here by the sanctioned seems to be the proper response to edit warring and perceived POV pushing. That is, to sit down, drink the beverage of your choice, and ask for a third opinion. Or something else. Perhaps edit Camel or something. Edit warring is never the proper response. These are not punitive measures, but preventative ones, and there is reason to believe that yet another "FINAL WARNING!" will not work to prevent the problem. Block logs, edit history, and the complete inability of the participants to stay on topic when asked in this thread, all point to a serious and deep set problem.

Keeping an eye on them is going to be incredibly difficult, especially since the people who watch these editors the most, are the editors they're warring with. As BlackKite said, the probation is a formal restriction to do things a good, civil editor with any sort professionalism (or common sense for that matter) would do voluntarily anyway. I will consider your proposal more as I continue to investigate and gather opinions, but right now from where I sit, the histories show that the brief lull in disruption is not sufficient reason compared to the long history of edit warring. This lull that you see does not coincide with any apparent change in outlook or behavior. If it did, or if someone showed me it did, I will be much more willing loosen up probation lengths.--Tznkai (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I see middling opposition to the probationary right now, but some support, and also consensus by silence, which is by its nature weak. I'll continue digging, put up the requested diffs and analysis, and then if we feel necessary, we can request for comment and/or check in with the appropriate notice boards.--Tznkai (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That says an awful lot that you even consider such a thing as consensus by silence exists. There is no defence against that. BigDunc^Talk 17:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer has something he wishes to shareUser_talk:Domer48#Needs_to_be_posted_on_ANI--Tznkai (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai I'm really not seeing any overwhelming support for your probation on these two editors and Ryan now supports my proposal. Where there is no clear consensus either the probation is not supported or we need further eyes on this. I'm disturbed that you are unwilling to consider compromise. I'm therefore asking you to again consider my suggestion. If you still feel unable to change your decision I am contemplating seeking further eyes from ANI or following the set procedures and appealing your action to Arbcom. Please think about it and let me know how you wish to proceed. Obviously this would be overtaken if there were a clear consensus from other éditors how/where we should go on this.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Disagreeing with your suggestion doesn't mean I'm unwilling to compromise, it means I disagree with your suggestion. (As I indicated already) I have no problem bringing more eyes into this, and if you want to appeal my action to Arbcom go right ahead. In the meantime, I'm going to write up a report on the situation, finish answering the questions on my talk page, and respond to various e-mails I've been receiving.--Tznkai (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not prepared to consider lifting the probation in favour of it being reintroduced at the first incidence of poor behaviour I can't really see what possible compromise you are considering. Please can you write up your report and then I'll link it from ANI and get some more eyes on to this.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

(undent)Ideally, it'll be up tonight after I buy food and eat dinner. Also, AN is preferable to ANI in my opinion.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it now at User:Tznkai/desk/Reports/The Troubles 9-30-08 Sanctions--Tznkai (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real life commitments and a mortal body prevent me from spending the wee hours of the morning finishing this report, but I rushed through the BigDunc section to give you an idea of where I was coming from. The Thunderer was involved in almost all of the reported issues with BigDunc, and quite a few more with Domer48, at least as far as Prong A problems go.

As I alluded to in the unfinished conclusion of the report, I have considered what the future and alternative of these sanctions would be. If there was some sort of mentorship or mediation process that would have the preventive effect that probation would, that is excellent: but outside of my immediate discretion. The parties involved would have to agree to it on their own. Quite frankly, I was hoping one of them would offer up the idea themselves. Failing that however, if the probation has its desired effect before the terms on probation expire, and were willing to demonstrate it, I would have no problem with the probation being rescinded early.

It has been alluded to me by a few of the parties that some sort of voluntary working editing agreement would be possible. That would certainly be a way forward towards reduced or eliminated sanctions.--Tznkai (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that an overly-broad approach will ensure that little productive editing happens on Troubles-related material for the duration of the sanctions, and perhaps beyond. My colleagues are happy with the current absence of edit-warring on the Famine article. But really it's the silence of the grave, witness the total lack of response to this. I'd sooner have less peace and quiet and more progress on the encyclopedia stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion, and quite possibly on my part, but it is my understanding that probationary terms are mandates to stop reverting, not to stop editing in its entirely. The purpose is to slow down, not stop editing.--Tznkai (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1RR is an idea for restrictions on Troubles-related articles. Afterall, who's gonna make revert, only to see their opposing editor revert them? GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"1RR" is an ambiguous standard. The name inplies it is a variation on

WP:1RR seems to indicate it allows only one ever. Whenever "1RR" is mentioned it's necessary to specify which meaning is intended. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A 1RR restriction is not ambiguous at all and is applied in many ArbCom cases. The

WP:1RR page is an essay is not a guideline or a policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

We need totally clear and unambiguous rules here; the very last thing we need is random Admins making it up as they go along as per Tznkai (and many others). Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Rockpocket

I've been following this discussion for afar, but feel now is perhaps the time to comment. I have a "history" of administrative interaction with Domer, BigDunc, Sarah and to a lesser extent, Traditional Unionist, on the Troubles issues. I was approached recently to try and mediate the attempts of Domer and Dunc to edit the UDR article in concert with The Thunderer (who was new to me at that time). My efforts can be seen on that talk page. What is not apparent, though, is that I have engaged in email discussions with all three privately and independently. It was the insight of those that I think may be helpful to inform this discussion.

Firstly I can confirm that a while back BigDunc came to me with concerns that he was being accused to tag-teaming (with Domer). He assured me that was not his intention and asked for advice how to avoid it. I offered some advice and for the last few months I have seen evidence in his editing that suggests he has been making efforts to follow that advice. There was no big announcement of his intention to change, simply an editor appreciating that his actions are seen to be problematic and setting out to try and address it. This should be acknowledged and it has not gone unnoticed by even those that tend to oppose BigDunc [52] on many issues. Its seems to me that there is a danger of (for want of a better word) "punishing" an editor for past indiscretions, when he has already made a real effort to address the problem. Sanctioning Dunc would be highly counterproductive at this time, in my opinion.

With regards to Domer. My interaction with him suggest that he was really trying to keep his edits in check, stay policy compliant and work with The Thunderer on that article. He appears to appreciate that his actions on the Famine article didn't work out well, and so was trying to address that. He was keen to get independent, third party opinion (i.e. mine) when he and The Thunderer could not agree. Likewise, my emails with The Thunderer suggested he has similar good intentions, though his relative inexperience of Wikipedia combined with a propensity to revert did on occasion make progress difficult. Considering the history of animosity between the two, and the controversial subject area, I thought things were going pretty well and both were to be commended to keeping cool. Then, for some reason, an edit-war kicked off between them on 20 September. I wasn't around to mediate and we ended up here. I don't really have an issue with 1RR sanctions on these editors, simply because I think there temptation for them to revert each other is great, and this might keep them discussing rather than reverting. It might be fairer to put a temporary 1RR restriction on the Ulster Defence Regiment and Ulster Special Constabulary articles, rather than the specific editors though. That way it is a level playing field and all contributors would have to discuss rather than revert. 1RR is something I'm happy to volunteer to on this article too.

I can't really comment about TU, since I have had very little interaction with him. In the little I have had, he has always been reasonable. Finally, I am genuinely puzzled at the justification for including Sarah in these sanctions. Yes, Sarah is abrasive, opinionated and a damned nuisance sometimes and in the past has edit-warred with the best of them. But in the past month or two, I can see very little to justify a 1RR restriction. Virtually no edit-warring, virtually nothing Troubles related and she hasn't even being comparing the Brits to Nazis for a while. I do feel Sarah is being included by reputation more than anything, and I think that is unfair. If Sarah is inflammatory on a talk page (and she certainly can be), then sanction her by restricting her from that talk page for a period, but a 1RR restriction is simply not appropriate to someone who has not been excessively edit-warring.

I's just like to finish by stating that this is not a criticism of Tznkai. He seems to me to be trying to sort out a real issue with a bold initiative and has done so in good faith, and I applaud his efforts. However, experience suggest that creative solutions are the only way to deal with Troubles related issues, and I'm not sure these sanctions are creative enough. Rockpocket 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah is abrasive, opinionated and a damned nuisance sometimes and in the past has edit-warred with the best of them - wow! With friends like that Rock.......:) Sarah777 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats just sometimes though, the rest of the time you are as sweet as pie ;) Rockpocket 22:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Tznkai; no indulgence is possible for the unrepentant (Catholic theology). This guy made a mistake in my case and when it became obvious he responded with arrogant bull. Not a fit Admin IMO. Sarah777 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with most of above. I know most of the editors from editing troubles related articles and while they've shown "problem behaviour" in the past they've done little of that in recent weeks. Sarah's edit history shows few troubles related edits of late though she does need to cut back on the conspiracy theories. TU and Dunc haven't edited much in general and as with Domer and Thunderer have generally discussed stuff on talk pages. There are problematic issues like the UDR article but it seems better to deal with them on a case by case basis rather than throw out blanket bans. As an aside it seems very poor form to condemn Domer here while he is on a block, thus denying him right of reply. Valenciano (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are: Despite my previous comments that I would like to see everyone under revert parole just to cut out the edit warring, there's not enough justification in at least a couple cases (Sarah's case, for example, she asked me to specifically look at it). I have been thinking about setting up article probation terms on Northern Ireland related pages, not on specific editors, but on the pages themselves (limiting all editors to 1RR (not 1 RR/week, 1RR/24 hours).. because in a way it's unfair to our current editors that they get placed on it now, but new and/or returning editors have to work up to it. (I think this is what Domer was mad about when he was accusing another editor of being a returned editor).

Also, everyone's tone of voice needs to improve and the excessive arguments with each other needs to stop. What happened to the first two sections is all too sadly normal around here. I would also say this.. any editor who does NOT get put on the probation, I would strongly suggest not treating it as a RIGHT to go to 3RR, etcetera.. it can be done fairly quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be on to something here Fozzie; I like the "article rather than the editor" approach. 1RR is fine by me so long as we have a notice or something pointing it out on top of the article? You don't have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to see the involvement (on both sides) of puppets of all types here. They need to be cut off at the pass, to coin a phrase. (Maybe this is an idea that could extend on Wiki way beyond "the Troubles" btw). Sarah777 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modified remedies proposal

What's gone on here is all too common among the areas fraught with ethnic strife on wiki. Two or more sides who have been feuding in real life for decades, centuries, or even thousands of years bring their world view to wiki and wiki becomes an extension of their real world problems. Someone makes a change. A person from the other side sees it as "misinformation" and we all know the rest of the story. Any admin trying to solve these ongoing wiki strifes should be commended for bravery as most admins won't go near these topics. Yet what happens all too often? They get attacked by both sides because these cases are prime examples of the fact that you can't make everyone happy. I've spent quite a bit of time looking at this thread and am proposing a modification of Tznkai's proposal as I don't see admin consensus for support of it, though I can see why he made the proposals he made. If remedies don't have the support of the admin community, they are largely ineffective. Ideally, peaceful cooperation would fall upon all of wiki and the energy spent on matters like arbitration would get spent on article building, but we're not there yet. So here I go...I hope most of those who have commented here can support this proposal:

• Domer48 (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours for gross incivility and disruptive editing, may request unblock. NOTE: already served
• Domer48 (talk · contribs) placed under indefinite probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, because of disruptive edit warring and inability to compromise and cooperate instead of edit warring. NOTE: same as Tznkai's
• Sarah777 (talk · contribs) put on 1 month probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles because of disruptive edit warring. NOTE: same as Tznkai's
• The Thunderer (talk · contribs), BigDunc (talk · contribs), Traditional unionist (talk · contribs) are not on user probation NOTE: Tznkai's probation is not in effect
• 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, 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.

NOTE: If this is approved, I'll post it to The Troubles arb case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about Sarah's, as I said previously, and I'm leaning towards more a blanket article based probation then a user one. For what it is, I think it's decent. SirFozzie (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Fozzie says. This is in improvement, but I can't support a general 1RR sanction on Sarah777 for "disruptive edit warring" - no-one has presented evidence of her doing this in the recent past. Rockpocket 02:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I can support this, but want to reiterate that the conduct of The Thunderer, Sarah777 BigDunc, and Traditional unionist has been far from satisfactory (to different levels I note) and no one involved should take this as approval of their conduct. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support - I'm okay with the substance of it but, like Foz, I'm not seeing any concrete evidence to support why Sarah777 should be given a 1-month probation. I spent the last hour or so looking over the evidence and hers appears to be wanting. So, no to the sanctions on Sarah777, at least for the moment. I know Sarah is abrasive and difficult at times, but she's been trying hard of late. Also, can we possibly add Baronetcies to the list of "Troubles-related" articles? - Alison ^❤ 03:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Sarah777's transgressions, if any, do not fall under the auspices of The Troubles remedies; even Tzknai concurs with that point in his summary. Sanctions under this Arbcom remedy are not appropriate in this case. I am also concerned that in one fell swoop, we will be putting thousands of articles, the majority of which have not had any editing problems, on 1-RR; there is no effective way to warn potential editors of those kinds of sanctions. Risker (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to Risker Placing items on the talk page would be fine. I would suggest letting truly new editors slide on the first time, instead informing them that the articles are on probation. Once they are aware, of course, that's a different story. SirFozzie (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I do not see a good reason for
  Helena Moloney or Edward Daly (Irish revolutionary) or Fourth Northern Division of the Irish Republican Army to be under sanctions. Of the 15 random articles I looked at that were clearly categorised to be amongst those which would be covered under the sanction, only three showed any sign of edit warring. There are quite a number that should have the 1-RR restriction applied to them, but unless someone is going to go around and properly tag every last one to which this might apply then it seems more appropriate to change the sanction to 1-RR on any article in the relevant groups (including the baronetcies) in which inappropriate editing or edit warring has transpired, with the sanction only coming into effect after the article's talk page is duly tagged by an administrator. That provides for the known problematic articles to be tagged now, with the option to impose the sanction on other articles should they become problematic in the future. Risker (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support although I don't feel strongly about Sarah777. To my mind this is a much clearer solution. The bickering on troubles related articles must stop but that also means that we treat the editors working on them fairly. I'd also agree that any further distruption, incivility and edit warring will result in sanctions both for the individuals and the articles concerned.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Yeah, I'm good with this, though I'm not entirely sure about Sarah's 1RR - IMO Sarah's problem is more incivility than edit-warring. I'd also add in here that the 1RR restriction should cover things like
  User:HighKing's single-minded mission to remove the words "British Isles" from Wikipedia, and User:TharkunColl's equal determination to stop him. Black Kite 07:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm just sorry that this is taking up so much of everyone's time. I'm also very sorry that I'm a part of it. The Thunderer (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• UpdateStruck Sarah's probation as clearly no support for it. The one issue remaining is development of a list of 1RR restricted articles as I do see some would not need it. Should Sarah be on civility parole? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not qualified to comment on Sarah because I simply haven't followed her editing but I'm wondering whether she should be looked at separately as her issues are different to the disruption and edit warring we are working on here. Good move to strike the proposal by the way.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Conditional Support. All I’m seeing is Admin’s queuing up for a liberal use of the stick, and no comment or reflection on the preventative actions they are willing to put in place. I’ll put my hands up to my short comings and impatience on articles, but what are Admin’s going to do to insure that I can edit free from policy violations? Now there is four articles were there has been problems and only two editors involved. Dunc, Sarah and TU were not involved. So any sanctions should only apply to me and the other editor equally.--Domer48_'fenian' 11:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case you haven't been paying attention as several of us admins have queried the first set of restrictions as unfair and arbitrary.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have been paying attention, but all I’m seeing is a review of the sentence without the case been heard or evidence presented. I did ask for comments to be posted and you refused? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry we must be at cross purposes. I thought you were referring to the decision to put you on probation. I don't think there is a dispute that your conduct has been problematic but I felt BigDunc and Thunder had got the wrong end of the decision and that's what I referred to.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Conditional Support. Only if Sarah777 is released from these sanctions, will I support this modified proposal. She hasn't been edit warring recently. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the version with me removed. Also I think we need to put some sort of notice on the restricted articles otherwise innocents will get caught. Need some thought as to how we protect genuine newbies from being driven away while capturing the various socks and reincarnations. I have no clear idea how to do that to be honest. Sarah777 (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The usual practise is to give them one very clear but pleasant explanation/warning on their talk page and then treat as everyone else if they continue to edit unhelpfully.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Warmer support for the detail, but still not enthusiastic. Like Risker I'm not especially happy with the blanket approach. Tagging talk pages as necessary will be better. If there's no edit-warring on most articles, let's leave well alone. As for the [[British Isles]] versus [[Great Britain|Britain]] and [[Ireland]] lameness raised by Black Kite, let's leave that for another day. And the Baronets too, unless there's some evidence I'm missing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final remedies for this AE case

What's gone on here is all too common among the areas fraught with ethnic strife on wiki. Two or more sides who have been feuding in real life for decades, centuries, or even thousands of years bring their world view to wiki and wiki becomes an extension of their real world problems. Someone makes a change. A person from the other side sees it as "misinformation" and we all know the rest of the story. Any admin trying to solve these ongoing wiki strifes should be commended for bravery as most admins won't go near these topics. Yet what happens all too often? They get attacked by both sides because these cases are prime examples of the fact that you can't make everyone happy. I've spent quite a bit of time looking at this thread and am proposing a modification of Tznkai's proposal as I don't see admin consensus for support of it, though I can see why he made the proposals he made. If remedies don't have the support of the admin community, they are largely ineffective. Ideally, peaceful cooperation would fall upon all of wiki and the energy spent on matters like arbitration would get spent on article building, but we're not there yet.

• Domer48 (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours for gross incivility and disruptive editing. NOTE: already served
• Domer48 (talk · contribs) placed under indefinite probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, because of disruptive edit warring and inability to compromise and cooperate instead of edit warring.
• User:Spartaz
  .
• Sarah777 (talk · contribs), as she herself stated, is under civility parole and reminded of that. She is most strongly advised to tone it down.
• 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.}}
• These final remedies have been linked to
  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case

-- — Rlevse • Talk • 18:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Domer48

We have had an ArbCom on the Troubles. We all took part in proposed decisions, gave evidence and participated in the workshop. When ArbCom reviewed all of this material they identified what it was that gave rise to the problems which led to editwarring. In their final decision, they voted unanimously on a set of Principles which had to be adhered to or editors would face the Remedies as outlined. If an editor failed to abide by those remedies, they would then face ArbCom Enforcement.

Why view would be that what is happening now, is an attempt to rewrite both the Remedies and the Enforcement. That’s just my opinion. It is also my opinion that at no stage has the agreed Principles ever been addressed by any Admin. For example, when was the last time an Admin intervened on a talk page to outline these Principles to editors? To date, only Rock as far as I’m aware has attempted this with positive results. If I’m wrong provide diff’s and I’ll rephrase my comment? Now I do not think the stock answer of it’s a “content dispute” is applicable to the Principles outline above, and should not be used.

Now my proposals may sound naïve or simplistic but I’ll offer them in anyway. It is my opinion that a strict adherence (by editors) and implementation/enforcement (by admin’s) to the agreed Principles would remove the causes of or locus of disputes. I don’t see it as being much different to what Fozz suggests here. The first thing you should do when reverted from now on should be to seek a

In a nut shell, what I'm suggesting is that by addressing the causes instead of the symptoms of problems we would not end up here and that was the findings of the original ArbCom. I see a lot of Admin’s commenting here, and I can not see anyone putting their hand up and saying “well what have I done to prevent this.” I’ll take responsibility for my actions, but someone should take responsibility for their inaction. The ArbCom was a package deal, but I’m not seeing it.

If Admin's would like to try this approach out, gentle intervention, here is a minor issue that could be used to illustrate my point. As it’s recent there is not much history to review on the article.

I had posted some of my views on my talk page and wished to have it posted here, since this is about me, on what gave rise to the current problem, why would no one post it for me?--Domer48_'fenian' 11:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dispute

1. Removal of sourced and reference information.

I started editing the article on the 8 September. I added additional referenced information here, and an additional reference here. It was then removed here, with the edit summary “Not correct at that time. A Republican POV.” It was also removed here despite the additional reference, with the edit summary “Incorrect - Republican POV.” I added it here with additional information, in addition to here with an additional reference. It was again removed here with the edit summary “Nationalist opinion is of no consequence when talking about Catholic recruits,” and here with the edit summary of “corrected POV.”

They also removed this here, though I did not add it. Some of it was restored here however it was reverted again here with the edit summary “Removing POV – again.” I removed some information and replaced the original information, now with three references here, and it was quickly removed again here with the edit summary “rem POV on B Specials.” It was re-added here and removed again here, with the edit summary “Incorrect POV has no place in this article.”

I attempted to add it again here, but it was removed again here with the edit summary “removing POV - see talk.” This is their talk page comment here, and the full discussion here.

While not accepting the referenced information that then added this here, and here. They then add this commentary here, describing it as an assertion and including more commentary here. They then add this analyses here, which I removed here, and adding this referenced information here.

I then used a completely new source here and added a Google books link to assist verifiability here, which they later removed here.

This information was then moved here and then add information here. I then added this addition here, which they then asked to be moved to another section here.

I then removed some of the commentary they added here only to have it replaced here. They then added this for some reason here. I had added this information for clarity here, but they removed it here with the edit summary “It's a separate artilce - leave it at that please. This isn't about the B Men.”

I again removed the addition of opinion into a referenced statement here with the edit summary “you have been asked by an uninvolved admin not to add your opinion” but they inserted it again here with the edit summary “It's not an opinion. I can cite that no cases were ever proven.” I again removed it here and asked “cite them then, and qualify the reference used.” It was again added back here, and they then added this here. I then added “Attribute, and remove qualifying statement from referenced source” edit here and I introduced Rocks solution here.

They then started to remove the referenced information again here with this edit summary “remove improper qualification” which I then replaced here with the edit summary “please don't remove referenced information.” They then modified the information here with the edit summary “removing incorrect assertion” and here which I changed here.

They then added their own opinion here with the edit summary “changing to reflect the fact that "reputation" wasn't in existence in 1970.” I again replaced this here with the edit summary “Please don't change sourced information, the information is supported throughout the article.”

They then started again here with the edit summary “Do not try to assert that something had a reputation before it actually had time to gain one. See Talk.” This is their talk page contribution here, the full discussion is here. I reverted again to reflect the sources here. It was again moved here, with additional information removed, which I had to replace here. This also was then removed here.This discussion should clarify some of the thinking behind its removal? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Removal of Attributions from authors:

There were a number of issues in relation to attribution. Before I ever started attributing statements, I raised it first on the talk page here in the last paragraph, and was agreed to here, last line in the second last paragraph, "Potter. I can't see any harm in attributing statements to Potter. There may be occasions when I need to draw your attention to items if something appears glaringly obvious." In addition to this they considered that they had not used any opinions of Potter in the article here.

Again before I even began, a third opinion was sought, and Rock responded here. My view of Rocks opinion on An Phoblacht, would be the same for any " obvious partisan associations" and would include Potter?

When I attempted to start attributing statements I ran into trouble here. I was told that my attempts at attribution were well poisoning. I was informed that the A Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1969 - 1992, John Potter must be "taken as gospel."

By attributing statements I was then told I was attempting to start a Contrived Edit War, and there was no consensus to attribute Potter. I had even informed him that there would be no 3RR reports from me and this had been agreed.

Rock then gave a third party view here, and again here on attrabution. Based on Rocks input I tried to apply it here but I was expected to take Potter as fact.

I then set about attribution, based on the advice given and I commented here, but was again told Potter has to be treated as fact and needs no attribution.

I was then accused of synthesis here, Rock again stepped in to help here and again here.

I then showed some real synthesis here. They next remove attributions wholesale and comment here.

Now if editors review the Article page history they will see this all play out. I will put up the diff's if editors think it is more helpful?--Domer48_'fenian' 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Personal attacks and assuming bad faith

When I returned to the article on the 8 September until I went of, not once during that time did I comment on the editors motivation or on them personally. However, I received a barrage of accusations, insinuations and plain and simple personal attacks. I have outlined some of this below, and kept it in sequence as it appears on the talk page.

The editor suggested I had a very partisan view of both the RUC and UDR, and negative views from sources were all a propaganda campaign by Republicans against the regiment, they stated as fact that most of the propaganda (or spin) was coming from the Nationalist/Republican side, they then went on to suggest that my argument thus far is heavily weighed with Republican opinion, which is not a fair assumption. They again assumed more bad faith from me and suggested that I wanted to change the synthesis of the article away from it being a general and encyclopedic record, and then said that I “appear to want a general condemnation of the regiment and suggested that I read "well poisoning.” The editor not for the first time then said that they had pointed out the futility of using An Phoblact as a reputable source even though I'd never used it at all! They did.

They then accused me of POV editing saying that I had made strong representation to remove some information which is not sympathetic to the Republican POV, and that I was using questionable sources and filling the article with accusations and allegations, later to be told that this was a Republican propaganda method. They then continued in the vein with Already we're seeing what this agenda is Domer, saying that I was “selectively gathering quotes in order to slant the synthesis of the article to a deliberate and known Republican POV. That this was "propaganda" and, a case, "well poisoning" again, and that I should keep my "edits to a neutral POV.”

They then carried on and started to describe my edits as being "factually incorrect" "and appear to be based on Republican POV" that they were "very coloured" and that I only knew history "from a Nationalist perspective.” They again not for the first time that I was "making edits which were both incorrect" and "which appeared to be well poisoning." They suggested that their “in depth knowledge of the subject is invaluable" at that point "in keeping the article free of POV."

For the second time they then said that I was "drawing heavily on An Phoblact as a source" for certain opinions and again, I'd never used it at all, they did! They then claimed that I was trying to "contriving an edit war", and that I wanted to "fill in as many criticisms of the regiment" as are currently doing the rounds.

By attributing comments to Potter, they said I was "absolutely determined to fill this article full of references to "Major Potter", even though I have never quoted of referenced Potter once? In yet another blatent attack they claimed that "once again that your only objection is that it doesn't conform to a Nationalist or Republican POV."

In what can only be described as a personal attack they say "Domer has been busying himself posting incorrect information," and that they "haven't had as much fun in ages," later saying I should "go kick something and take a deep breath."

When they started to revert my edits they said they were "Removing erroneous information" and that doing so was "not edit warring." When I replaced the sourced and referenced information I was told to "cease with this constant effort to try and portray the UDR as a re-incarnation of the B Specials", and that it was not "within policy for you to try and slant the history". They then suggested later I should "Go ahead now, fill your boots and I'll come up behind to check spelling and grammar and provide quotes if necessary."

They finished of by claming that "This article is in severe danger of becoming innacurate because of clever synthesis," and later "From where I am sitting it is a clever method of synthesising information". There is no doubth in my mind if I had of stayed on the talk page this would have continued. The reason I say this is they did continue on the alternative articles. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Editwarring

Under normal circumstances 3RR acts as a deterrent, but it depends on how and who applies it. Some suggest 3RR is an electric fence, others, well:

1 August 3RR report (no action)

9 August 3RR report (decline)

13 August 3RR report (final warned)

14 August 3RR report (page-protected)

Notice how on the 13 August report I’m told that no current warning was given? That’s strange since no current warning is needed, only for the editor to be aware of the rule? Now the accusation is made that I was tag-teaming the editor, but I had not edited this article since the 24 July?

Despite the final warning, however, they still don’t get blocked. Well they were, but then they were unblocked because the blocking admin did not see the entire situation?. Which was?

1. Improper Edit Summaries

See

"Removal of sourced and reference information" for some examples

(edit summary) they want to word it their way?

1. Sources

To expand:

Having used both English and Irish papers I got this resonce. However they use references 83-86, 93-96 I did not add any of them. Now some papers are fine, the Belfast Telegraph for example. Also on sources here is a good example. And as for reasons to revert here is one. Again on sources some must be taken as gospel. Regardless of what anyone says. While other are well, of no consequence. The point is however, these authors would not be or consider themselves to be Nationalist and definatly not Republican? --Domer48_'fenian' 12:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether it is 1RR or 3RR the analysis above indicates that without active Admin oversight (not after-the-problem macho banning sprees), then edit restriction only facilitates the more numerous cabal. Unless we have Admins, awake and willing to enforce rules (on, say, referencing) then this is pointless. Take my own bugbear, civility - most of it directed at me actually comes from the very Admins who were nowhere to be seen when the organised warring was ongoing! This is a huge problem for Wiki in general; I don't have a solution yet but I'm working on one. But while random/biased "civility" rules are being used to silence people that Admins get into dispute with/are irritated by/don't like their political views - then this is going nowhere because we don't have the Admin quality in sufficient quantity to deal fairly with the problems here. So we get the logistically convenient "solution" of simply trampling on minority (in this case Irish) views. Sarah777 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This exactly sums up the problem here. Look, a year ago you had two admins, Alison and Rocketpocket, keeping an eye on stuff but they both got burned out trying to deal with it. Frankly, any admin willing and able to get involved in policing troubles related articles needs their head examined. Its a recipe for constant harassment, finger pointing and getting general crap. Just understanding the back and forth would take days to research. Domer's screed above would take, what, 3-4 hours to properly read and digest? Who has time to properly study and think all this through? I don't, that's for sure, and I'm more active then most admins. If you can't work without fighting each other, which it often seems you can't, then its inevitable that you won't find anyone willing to play the role of piggy-in-the-middle. I don't have a solution to this but general probation including 1RR rules on problem articles would at least slow down the edit warring to give you all time to agree on solutions. Its not the job of admins to give you answers to issues like judging references, we can only be referees and sometimes the wrong player gets sent off when things are moving too quickly. That's what happened here and its a systemic issue that stems directly from the pressures and grief that the editors working on troubles related articles engender. Please don't blame admins for this situation - none of us have been edit warring or disrupting the project and very few admins have serious civility issues either. That seems a staple of editors working round here and the ultimate solution is to have a long hard look at yourselves instead of seeking external solutions for problems you create by being undisciplines and overly combative.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Thanks, Sarah. That was singularly unhelpful, mostly completely inaccurate, and as Spartaz says, neatly sums up exactly what the problem is here. Ia it any wonder that sweeping probations are being proposed, when the people that have to deal with the messes that Troubles articles create are routinely accused of bias and inadequacy? Black Kite 22:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Black Kite & Spartaz, as Admins (not mentioning Tznkai here) are wont to say when they make a howler - "I stand by everything I said". There is no point in saying "if everyone was in agreement on everything there'd be no need for policy enforcement". In that happy circumstance there be no need for Admins either. Sarah777 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a diff of the last time either of you intervened in a dispute and explained our policies to editors, and I don’t mean 3RR. Say

WP:NPOV. If you don’t or won’t will neatly sums up exactly what the problem is here? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Straw man argument. You know very well that I (or any other admin) shouldn't have to explain any of those policies to editors as experienced as the ones mentioned here. We are not talking newbie editors here. For example, did I need to explain

WP:EW here? Clearly not. Black Kite 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

So you just like to dish out blocks and bans? What dose an admin do then? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one "likes" to dish out blocks and bans. It is done to protect the encyclopedia from editors who are incapable of editing in a collegial way, and know they are flouting the policies that you linked above, as is the case with many articles in this area. I'd suggest that you, Sarah and others stop blaming the admin corps for the problems here, and start looking closer to home. Black Kite 23:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Rubbish!!- User:William M. Connolley for one gets off on it (Example). Lucian Sunday (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you're entitled to your opinion, this section is really about Troubles-related articles rather than administrator actions in general. Thanks, Black Kite 13:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to a specific comment made by yourself (on a subject raised by yourself in this thread) which is simply indefensible by any credible administrator. Lucian Sunday (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again - this is not the venue for it. Black Kite 14:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WELL SAID Black Kite. Us admins would much rather write good articles but someone has to handle things like ANI, Arb cases, 3Rr, and oh yes, AE cases. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So anyone can add what ever crap they like to the encyclopedia, as long as they don't edit war? Because Admin's don't do policy! Your right about one thing, we do know when editors are flouting the policies, and Admin's like you are incapable of helping in a collegial way. Straw man argument. Was that the best you could come up with? Because we would much rather write good articles we end up with things like ANI, Arb cases, 3Rr, and oh yes, AE cases --Domer48_'fenian' 23:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Attempting to debate civilly clearly isn't working here, so it's time to disengage. I refer you again to my previous post. Black Kite 23:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that is a Straw man argument. Could the next Admin who wants to have a pop at me please provide a diff of the last time they intervened in a dispute to help explain our policies to editors and prevent edit warring. Say

WP:NPOV, the cause of most of the problems. If you don’t or won’t will neatly sums up exactly what the problem is here?--Domer48_'fenian' 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Protect the articles-in-question, as I mentioned above, with 1RR. An editor is not gonna revert the opposing editor's revert if his/her opposer gets the last revert every 24hrs. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but then you have whats called the Tag-teaming? If the information which is added is

WP:OR why would it be reverted? If it is reverted, then an admin should step in and say hang on a minute why did you revert that? That's what should happen IMO. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Any administrators out there, agree to give it a try? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]