From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Suspicious new SPA accounts[edit]


Atabəy (formerly Atabek)[edit]

Domer48 (again)[edit]

Breach of 1RR on Troubles Article[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nothing to see here. I have already dealt with this issue and so has Rocketpocket and Thunderer was not guilty of more then one revert anyway because the edits concerned were sequential. Spartaz Humbug! 08:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

After a long a protracted discussion here, all Troubles related articles were placed under a 1RR restriction. Notification was placed on the Ulster Defence Regiment article here, though editors were aware of this decision. Since the Arbitration Enforcement closed The Thunderer, has set about reverting editors work, despite the restrictions IMO. They engaged almost immediately in a revert war here, here and here.

They subsequently went on to revert editors work here and here, types of edits which lent itself to the origional dispute. They then reverted my edit here, after I had just added this text here.

This prompted Rockpocket to post a reminder on their talk page here, and BigDunc suggested likewise and to exercise some caution with this type of editing in light of sanctions. These type of edits had given rise to the above mentioned AE.

I then made a number of sourced and referenced editions to the article here, here and here. However despite both Rockpockets and BigDunc’s advice, The Thunderer set about reverting regardless, describing the reverts as rewriting opening section and Rewriting section. It is obvious that the text was simply removed.

In addition to this they have made a number of reverts which are IMO written towards a particular POV, such as here, and here. The reason I raise these two is that Spartaz had pacifically raised this matter on the talk page here, and only today raised it again here. The introduction of unsourced text, in addition to not keeping to our policy of WP:NPOV.

Since the AE the editor has refused to assume good faith, and has on each tread made a number of comments about me. They accused me of wanting to do a hatchet job on the article, and was asked to stop. They then said I was only adding Catholic or Nationalist opinion suggesting that I should resist the temptation to put in material which is detrimental to the UDR's image, and that we shouldn't give too much weight to the controversy because that's a matter of opinion. They then suggested that they were going to have a look through the article at some point and delete a load of it. I objected of course, but as seen above they paid no mind. They then suggested I was using the article as a condemnation, and that this was my sole purpose in editing this article. Suggesting that if I "don't moderate this pro-Nationalist editing style then their going to have to involve ArbCom." They then went on to suggest I change my modus operandi and if I don't remove the information then they will take it further.

I would like to have this addressed, as I'm trying to move on to some other articles like here and here, as well as addressing vandalism on other WP:IR articles such as here and here. This editor appears to be a WP:SPA account with a clear case of WP:OWN, which is all well and good as long as they do not edit against policy, or keep making accusations. --Domer48'fenian' 20:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the protection was placed with a time stamp of 20:00 by yours truly, according to the link Domer has supplied. The Thunderer/Ben W Bell issue was before it. That's not a violation. I'm looking at the rest of Domer's report for information, however, I don't believe that there is a violation of the 1 RR, unless I'm missing something. The section where he says that he's looking to delete a load from the article is not bad in context. That was all hypothetical. The point is you can fill the article with all sorts of cruft about the regiment being bad and counter it with more cruft about the regiment being good. The end result is that you finish up with an article full of cruft. If you agree with the way it's done then fine, if not I'll self revert to stop anyone getting sanctions. Sound fair? While Domer and Dunc make a point that maybe it would be better to post somewhere first what he was willing to delete, I found it quite acceptable under Bold Revert Discuss. I fully invite others to look at Domer's request/evidence, but I do not see anything actionable in my quick look at it. SirFozzie (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I have pointed to were sourced and referenced text was removed, despite ongoing discussion on the talk page. So IMO Bold Revert Discuss is not the case here. The edit summary suggests a re-write, yet clearly the text was simply removed. No mention is made of the comments directed at me at all. Now for context, I have posted information here which details this type of conduct in more detail. Would my replacing of this information which was removed be considered as part of Bold Revert Discuss?--Domer48'fenian' 07:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Domer, just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it's not cruft. It depends on the context and notability. We have to watch WP:UNDUE on both sides, that's what WP:NPOV means. I think that especially because Thunderer offered to SELF-revert if there was a problem, we really must Assume Good Faith. But that is why I offered to have other editors review your section of evidence and see if they agree with me. SirFozzie (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment The reply That was all hypothetical was inresponce to something compleatly different. The text they suggested removing is not what is being discussed here, though they were asked not to. What was removed is part of an ongoing discussion. No mention is made of the introduction of unsourced and unreferenced text, despite being ask not to. If it will help illustrate what I'm saying, I can post the diff's of previous actions like what is being discussed now, and linked above. --Domer48'fenian' 08:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for injunction in Pseudoscience/Homeopathy[edit]

Breach of sanctions[edit]

The Thunderer has reverted here and here this is in breach of the 1RR sanctions on this article. Also he states here that he wants the article protected which is a device he has used previously when somethig in the article he doesn't like. BigDuncTalk 11:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

At first look, I do agree wtih the core request. Thunderer has reverted twice withing the span of 17 minutes. I have blocked him 24 hours (he was specifically warned previously that he was skating on thin ice with regards to multiple reverts of different material previously). I have reminded him of the proper way to handle things, IE, seek a neutral administrator. SirFozzie (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

While I consider Thunderer's last edit a breech of the 1RR, this is the first block under the new sanctions. As this is in breech of AE, in my opinion his last edit should be reverted, and Thunderer unblocked. This is a learning curve, and I still do not understand about "Multiple single reverts" being not "strictly against the working of the 1RR." I'd like that explained to me. Any text added should be discussed on the talk page first, likewise content removal. Since every edit I made was reverted, with the introduction of AE sanctions, to re-add it was pointless IMO. If I had of re-added would I have been in breech of 1RR? As you can see, I have to get my head around the 1RR and no doubth Thunderer also. I would suggest unblock and they self revert, and lets move on? --Domer48'fenian' 13:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just some friendly advice to the editors who are under 1RR. There's a way to avoid accidently breaching? one shouldn't revert at all, but rather use the respective talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that I'm able to edit again I would like to say that while I believe every involved admin has acted in good faith I think this could have been handled better. The first reversion of information here by user:BigDunc took away the work of several days which had been discussed on the talk page and an offer to self revert any agreed items was in place. A complaint had been made here by Domer and as you can see the admins who reviewed it agreed that although the changes by myself were bold, they breached no sanction. In view of this why did user:BigDunc feel it was appropriate to remove them? In the circumstances I felt it was correct to revert him. That should have been the end of it but then Domer steps in again to re-revert. Now I don't know about anyone here but I saw that as vandalism and gaming. When two editors are ganging up on another to force something into the page, whether they believe they're acting in concert or not, is gaming. Given the recent discussions and sanctions both of those editors should not have pushed the matter. I have placed a new heading here on the talk page which sets out my objectives and what I object to. Given the discussions over Troubles articles I would be very grateful if all interested and involved admins were to give my comments, both here and on the talk page a little consideration. The wiki should not be used as a platform for political point scoring. Particularly in view of the sensitive nature of Irish articles in some cases. It would be nice to have some support in this case to ensure that what the reader is getting for reference is verifiable fact devoid of POV. Thunderer (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Eupator with regards to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2's decisions[edit]

This user has been engaged in persistant and continuous wholesale reverts in a Turkey related entry (Hemshin peoples), taking the entry back to an ancient version (of more than a year ago). The following are notable about this user’s approach:

1) (Directly quoting from my recent appeal to admin Khoikhoi who has not yet responded)
"User Eupator has again engaged in a wholesale revert taking the “Hemshin peoples” entry back to an ancient version for the fifth time on October 7th Wholesale Revert 5.
Just to remind you about Eupator’s attitude, this user has not done a single contribution to the entry and the relevant discussions… He/she has appeared through a wholesale revert taking the entry back to an ancient version (of about a year ago) on July 4th, 2008 Wholesale Revert 1. He/she has then repeated this action on July 5th Wholesale Revert 2, August 3rd Wholesale Revert 3, September 11th Wholesale Revert 4, These reverts have basically taken away an entire section plus a big amount of fully referenced material. This user never presents what he/she objects in the version he/she persistantly erases. In response to Eupator’s reverts, I have asked for his/her arguments on the talk page, to no avail.
This user was joined by 3 others who took turns making such wholesale reverts. (Here is a link where you might see one of my appeals to you earlier about the developlment of the Hemshin peoples entry, in case you want to refresh your memory).
Following your protection of the entry in its ancient version and pursuant to your advice I have also asked for mediation which was blocked by Eupator and users who have the similar attitude (Rejection Report).
If you recall, in our last exchange with you, you had told me that you would talk to these users . In fact in the time period between September 12th and Oct. 7th, no such wholesale reverts were made. Well, now Eupator is back with the same attitude.
This is now without doubt a clear and persistant violation of wikipedia rules and policies and I ask your help in this issue. This user now needs to be warned seriously on his/her talk page and/or be blocked from editing the entry considered. Thanks for your help."
2) This user has removed my warning to him/her on his/her talk page asking him/her to stop such wholesale reverts (diff).omer182 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a non issue as far as this report is concerned. Omer182 is an SPA that has been owning an article for over a year now, refusing to accept the simple fact that his additons have no consensus whatsoever. See the relevant discussion. He has ignored our concerns constantly, never directly addressing them and when doing so (with user Meowy fruitlessy) never actually compromising. Recently another spa account showed up supporting Omer, User:Cihsai. I'm sure that everyone will agree that the odds of there being two spa's with the same pov on one obscure article are slim to none.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Every new user starts somewhere. It is not against policy to be a single purpose account. Do you have evidence that the user is running an invalid alternate account? If not, assume good faith and explain your view on the content dispute and use dispute resolution as needed. Jehochman Talk 01:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Omer182 is not a new user, he has been editing that article and no other article for over a year, nor do his edits there suggest anything in common with that of a new user. The whole matter has gone well beyond the capabilities of neutral editors to sort out. The Hemshin Peoples article is a disaster. Nobody can usefully edit there thanks to Omer having taking possession of it.

As background, back in July I wrote in the article's talk page Talk:Hemshin_peoples#Edit_war:

Omer182 has taken "ownership" of this article in order to POV war his opinion – an opinion that is not supported by any sources. He has, through a process of reverting or removing anything that he has not personally written and by actively distorting sources and altering text written by other editors, created an article that is not only extremely misleading but is almost unreadable.

Omer182's edits appear to have the end goal of muddying the waters mostly in order to create the impression that the Hemshini are not Armenian in origin, and that claims of their Armenian and Christian origin are disputed and unproven.

He initially went about this by trying to POV fork the article. He argued on this page for removing two of the three recognized Hemshinli groups from the article and moving them to separate entries: the Christian Armenian-speaking "northern Hemshinli" and the Muslim Armenian-speaking eastern or "Hopa Hemshinli". This was presumably because the Armenian origin of those two groups would be obvious to everyone. That initial attempt failed, and he has subsequently been engaged in rewriting the article to suit his POV and editing out any other editors' contributions. Any editor adding new material will find, often within hours, that Omer182 has reverted the article to a previous version, that version invariably being Omer182's version.

Omer182 has persistently removed fully referenced material from the article. He does not discuss beforehand his edits (most of which are reverts) to remove referenced material, and he does not justify their removal when asked. On a number of occasions he has said that he will, quote, "consider the additional information suggested" after removing the material from the actual article - an example of him behaving as if he owned the article.

The methodology of Omer182's edits is to discredit or marginalise mainstream academic opinions about the Hemshin peoples. He does this by using four primary methods.
1/ He will use weasel-words in his text
2/ He will exclude all material that strongly disagrees with his POV.
3/ He will deliberately falsify or cherry-pick source material in order to manipulate the source to suit his POV.
4/ He uses sentence stuffing: making accepted facts appear vague or uncertain by disguising them within overly convoluted and unreadable sentences.

As a result of edit warring the page got protected and after discussion it was agreed a way out could be to revert the entry to a "pre-Omer" version and then discuss what changes should be made. Personally, it meant losing a lot of material that I had contributed, but as a solution it seemed to make sense. That "pre-Omer" version is the version Eupator has recently been reverting to. Omer has been reverting to the "Omer version". As for the discussion, thanks to endless nit-picking by Omer, it never got beyond making proposed changes to the article's introduction section and the process became a grinding war of attrition that no decent editor should be made to go through. I left to go on a long holiday, both literally and as a break from the article. I think that the only solution is to restrict Omer from editing the article for a period of time, say two months, in order to let the article advance to a decent state of development. Meowy 16:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Meowy's above appeal, please note the following:
1) This page is not for content discussion. I have opened the topic to report on some user conduct which I do not think is in coherence with the remedies of the relevant arbitration.
2) My answers to the claims that Meowy has quoted above can be found under the link Meowy has provided. Further, the linked section was created by the admin whom I had invited to help in creating a reasonable discussion environment. His brief comments can also be found there.
3) Meowy mentions a consensus that surfaced after a discussion on the need to take the entry back to it's "pre-Omer" version. There is no such discussion/consensus on the talk page of the article. Is it possible to have clarification on this?Omer182 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I realise that this is not about content, I was trying to explain the context and the reason for the reverts by User: Eupator. I'm not unquestioningly in agreement with his actions because in the long term I don't think constant reverting will get the article anywhere. However, if you still are not willing to get over your ownership issues, there is no progress going to be made anyway. Remember, you have been doing as many reverts as he has, and your reverts are to a version that you substantially created and that many editors have had difficulty with (so you are not neutral in this issue). I took the de-facto consensus to be that discussion is better than edit warring and the article should go back to a neutral version (i.e. one that existed before the current edit disputs started) while that discussion took place to decide on new wording and content for the article. I had assumed that you had also agreed to that, given your participation in that discussion and on your apparent willingness to let the "pre-Omer" (for want of a better term) version to remain the current version until recently. The discussion may have broken down for now, but that does not give you the right to now return the article to the "Omer version". Meowy 23:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Any reason, why the violation of 1RR by an ArbCom paroled user requires such a lengthy discussion on AE? And why does Meowy always appear in any AE or other board debate related to Eupator? Someone complaining about ownership, should check out Sahl ibn-Sunbat and Khachen, as well as Osroene and Edessa, Mesopotamia. Anyone disputing Eupator or Meowy gets banned from editing them. Atabəy (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's called paranoia, Atabəy. Meowy 01:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
With regards to Meowy's statements above; I do not want to contribute to the digression we are having here from the topic at hand, namely whether or not there is a violation of the remedies by user Eupator. Therefore I will not dwell on the details.
Let me, however, merely point out the following: the entry was protected in its ancient version for some time following a period of wholesale reverts by 4 users taking turns (including user Eupator) and my reverting back..I then tried to initiate mediation. This issue is touched in my opening plea above. Meowy declares this protected period as one where I am supposed to have shown consent to that ancient version...Trying to assume good faith I believe Meowy's mind played a trick to him/her.
I strongly encourage the interested parties to have a look at the article talk page (including the archieved one) to see for themselves if what Meowy has stated above is factually correct. Omer182 (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I had assumed you had consented. However, though you didn't, the general consensus was to revert back to the version before the controversial edits were made and to discuss things from there. Meowy 01:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see my earlier comment above. Omer182 (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I see stonewalling here. Omer182 has been working on the article. Other editors have been reverting and refusing to discuss. They have also refused mediation. Has anybody raised a complaint, with evidence, showing improper editing by Omer182? I don't see any such complaints. I am going to leave this comment for a while to see if anybody has a change of heart and would like to discuss their disagreements with Omer182. I note that Meowy seems ready to discuss, which is good. How about Eupator? Will Eupator agree to use dispute resolution to resolve content disagreements. The other option is that Eupator can stop editing this and related pages. What is your choice, Eupator? Jehochman Talk 14:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:John Nevard with regards to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland's decisions[edit]

This account, which was a self-identified alternate account [56], has been invested on editing a number of articles covered under the above named Arbitration case, including Short (finance), and I made an attempt to warn him of the Arbitration Committee's directive that all editors must edit these articles under their main account, and he rebuffed it. [57]. User:Lar attempted to discuss the fact that John Nevard had previously self-identified the account as an alternate account, and John Nevard rebuffed that as well, see: [58].

So, per: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Editors_instructed (I've copied the section that directly applies here)

1) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to naked short selling,, Patrick M. Byrne, Gary Weiss, or closely related pages or discussions on any page is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This may need CheckUser involvement to determine if the John Nevard account IS the sole or main account in use here, but until such time as that has been confirmed by either a checkuser or ArbCom member, I am formally asking that User:John Nevard be topic banned from articles covered under the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case. SirFozzie (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:John Nevard contacted me by email (as this edit summary indicated would happen) and asserted that the "real name" account referred to in [59] was no longer in use, had not been for some time, and that JN was now the sole account being used, and thus was not in violation of the multiple account restriction. I carried out a CU investigation but I want to consult with at least one other CU about what the results indicate before I'm willing to discuss it further than to say I was puzzled by it. A topic ban may not be warranted, although JN's bedside manner isn't the greatest. ++Lar: t/c 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Lar reached similar views as I have. In light of Mantanmoreland's past I would not like to definitively rule out anything, and I would suggest close watching of the articles (nothing new there)... but overall at present the evidence tentatively (and subject to change if needed) tends to support that John Nevard is probably a separate person. To underline, technical tools are not "magic pixie dust"; watchful eyeballs are one of the best safeguards of quality. I would like to also check with Lar any extra matters he may be aware of as he has looked into it further.
I also concur with Lar in a second area. As JN is surely aware by his edits, the whole Overstock/naked shorting area is high profile and has been the focus of considerable disruption on Wikipedia. If you continue editing this area, please be very careful to ensure you do so to a high standard of editing quality, and focus on the content, not removal of matters concerning Mantanmoreland. To be direct, this does not show good judgement in such an area. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Nod. That removal is perhaps not directly the subject of an ArbCom sanction but it's terrifically bad form to remove a notice of something that way, and also rather bad form to repeatedly be snarky about it in responses, as JN was. John Nevard may not, in the end, fall afoul of this particular restriction but he's sailing close to the wind, in my view, to ending up being viewed as a (at least mildly) disruptive and tendentious editor by a significant fraction of our userbase. Which is not a good spot to be in if your goal is reasonable edits that stand review by your peers. ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Lar, there is no indication that John Nevard is close to "ending up being viewed as a (at least mildly) disruptive and tendentious editor by a significant fraction of our userbase"; unless, of course, by "our userbase" you mean the userbase of a certain off-wikipedia attack site that seems obsessed with him, among others. Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I mean a significant fraction of the editors of Wikipedia. I make no reference to anything else. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 04:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As Will points out, it's probably best not to speculate that an editor in good standing, who has no history of problematic edits, might "end up" being viewed in some pejorative way. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
And, as FT2 points out, statements like, "an editor...who has not history of problematic edits" with regard to Nevard are false. Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Since FT2 never "points [that] out", it is actually your statement that is false. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that coming into a discussion with BADSITES attacks is not useful, and can also be considered "(at least) mildy disruptive and tendentious" by a significant part of Wikipedia as well, Jayjg. SirFozzie (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
And I suggest that injecting the spurious "BADSITES" meme into the conversation is not useful, and can also be considered "(at least) mildy disruptive and tendentious" by a significant part of Wikipedia as well, SirFozzie. Anyway, isn't that Dtobias's job? Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... how dare anybody bring up the BADSITES meme without getting my permission first... I WP:OWN it! *Dan T.* (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that Nevard user is viewed as a "disruptive and tendentious editor"? Has he been reverted frequently? From the edits of his to articles that I watch he appears to be helpful and to follow WP norms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No there is not. But that's not what I said. What I said was a prediction, that if John Nevard continues "sailing close to the wind" he will end up being viewed that way. It was not a remark about current state. I stand behind that prediction, based on my experience. I hope that clears up matters. ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your statement. But predictions like that may not be the best way of resolving a problem. I suppose someone could predicting that I, or you, would come to be viewed as disruptive, and they could brushing aside requests for evidence since predictions aren't accusations. How could we respond? By claiming our crystal ball was clearer? By making a bet? If there is sockpuppeting here let's focus on that. If we have evidence of disruption and violations then WP:AE and WP:AI are appropriate places to discuss them. If all we have are gut predictions of future disruptions by an editor in apparently good standing (no blocks or paroles) then the appropriate places to discuss those would be, um, somewhere off-wiki. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Nod. However, as others point out, it's more than just a gut feeling... FT2 is spot on in pointing out that there are problematic comments that are clear warning signs here. You may not agree, but I find that one rather troublesome. Quibble about what it is exactly, if you like (tendntious, disruptive, or just snarky) but it's not good. Normally I don't get quite this analytic but this is a special case. Editors who edit in this area should try to be LESS snarky than average, rather than more. ++Lar: t/c 11:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd say FT2's comment: To be direct, this does not show good judgement in such an area. would point to disruptive and tendentiousness, as well as his edit summaries, Will. Have you familiarized yourself with his interactions with other editors? SirFozzie (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it tendentious and disruptive to delete comments from one's own talk page? I so we need to change WP:USER to reflect that standard. (I'd endorse it, as I find it annoying, but it appears to be a common practice.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Presumably it's the edit summary. --NE2 01:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
A rude edit summary on one's own talk page makes one uncivil, not disruptive and tendentious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that spreading discredited "WR vs. WP" memes can be disruptive. --NE2 02:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, that's right, WR is also trying to build a great encyclopedia. Good one!! Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You're helping less than I am. --NE2 02:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC) I just realized that that could be misinterpreted; my intent is to say that you're not helping in this discussion. (Unless your idea of help is to inflame a dispute, in which case you certainly are helping.) --NE2 02:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how making a negative remark about WR in an edit summary on one's own talk page makes one a tendentious and disruptive editor. We're not allowed to make comments about other websites anymore? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, come off it. The remark was negative towards Lar and Cla68, two editors in good standing. --NE2 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool down. I asked for evidence that the user is disruptive and tendentious and was given that diff as proof. I said that it might have been uncivil but not tendentious or uncivil, and you replied that talking about WR is disruptive. I disputed that and now you say that the original comment was uncivil, which is pretty much what I said before. Getting back to the assertion that the user is "tendentious and disruptive" - is there any evidence of that? So far all that's been offered is one uncivil edit summary. By the Giano standard, it wasn't even uncivil. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay guys, enough please. All of you. Jayjg, given the Mantanmoreland enforcement and John Nevard's early declaration that he was an alternate account, it was reasonable to make inquiries. Will Beback, it was reasonable to expect those inquiries to be responded to in a reasonable way rather than blanking with mildly rude edit summaries. Sir Fozzie, please don't rise to the bait - more light, less heat. Risker (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Balderdash. To begin with, this has nothing to do with the BADSITES strawman; rather, this has to do with a very specific attack site, which has taken a disliking to John Nevard, and started trying to tie him as a sockpuppet to its usual targets/victims. Rather unsurprisingly, soon after the thread about Nevard there heats up, one of the forum's regulars shows up on Nevard's Talk: page "advising" him to behave better, and soon after that another forum regular warns him, then opens up this section. The causality is clear as day, there's no point in pussyfooting around. However, the fact that that attack site is obsessed with Nevard (and no doubt working itself into a frenzy over this exchange) doesn't mean that "a significant part of Wikipedia" cares what it thinks, much less agrees with its conclusions. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, there is nothing to say that other Wikipedians hadn't noticed this dichotomy some time in the past and were simply more discreet in their inquiries. While that may seem, on the surface, to have been more diplomatic, the end result is that since there was no public discussion, John Nevard is now being discussed on a public noticeboard. Let's try to keep the heat down and focus on the fact that there is apparently nothing at this time to link John Nevard with any of the known sockpuppeteers who have been known to haunt this series of articles. To my mind, that serves to dispel the cloud that has been following John Nevard around for a while, which can only be a good thing. Risker (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
That was the whole point of my first comment; to refute the claim that John Nevard was close to "ending up being viewed as a (at least mildly) disruptive and tendentious editor by a significant fraction of our userbase". There has never been a "cloud" following John Nevard around; rather, an insignificant attack board started advancing various idiotic theories about John Nevard, as is its wont. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, unless you have been following these articles closely (and there is no reason to expect that you would), you would likely be unaware of the concerns of those of us who have been watching them. From my perspective, I am relieved that this issue is now openly resolved. Risker (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Who is this "us who have been watching them" you refer to, and where were you discussing it? Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A question for clarification - was the other/prior account disclosed, and did you confirm that this account is indeed long dormant? Neither Lar's replies nor FT2s replies give me an indication either way on the first half of the question, which prevents me from reaching a conclusion on the second half. Also, I know of at least one prior checkuser request related to this Arbitration case that came up with puzzling results, so it might be worth discussing your puzzlement with the checkusers who handled that case. GRBerry 15:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I am not aware of it being disclosed, it may have been but it was not disclosed to me. I asked, but did not insist. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Perhaps as a good-faith way of moving forward, John Nevard could disclose his previous account name to an Arbitration Committee member, privately? SirFozzie (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I do not see evidence of multiple account use by John Nevard within the period covered by the checkuser tables as of today. He appears to edit from a university, a business, a residence, and occasionally tor; I do not know if that is of significance. (Curiously, 3 other editors at his university appear to be sockpuppets of each other, but since they share a different residential ISP I'm ruling John Nevard out as a fourth member of the party.) I'm not sure what information John has volunteered about his location, so I will only say he is not in the U.S., which seems to rule out the kind of long-distance dial-up shenanigans discovered involving Bassetcat, and also rules out any direct relationship with JaneyRyan. Hope this helps clarify things. Thatcher 17:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I may be mistaken but I believe use of TOR is explicitly disallowed to be used while editing in that area. I'll consolidate my notes and consult with you, FT2 and the other CUs that have been investigating this to see if we can sort out any points of confusion. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        • That was my thoughts as well, Lar.. that TOR was, if not explicitly banned, was at least severely discouraged on these articles. SirFozzie (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It might be relevant is if someone else was logging in to JN's account to edit. As it happens, there are very few tor edits and none of them are related to naked short selling or other matters related to the case. The use of tor full-time would be prohibited for editors in this topic area (I think), but a large majority of JN's edits are made from non-proxy IP's, so it doesn't seem like an issue. Thatcher 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Use of Tor for this topic area is prohibited under 1B of the case remedies, but Thatcher has told us that the currently visible Tor edits aren't in the topic area, so that is moot for now. GRBerry 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how relevant this is to considerations here, but in my experience the principal antagonists on both sides of the fence were diligently recruiting Wikipedian volunteers to their POV on the Naked Short Selling content dispute. So there may be an issue about whether this person is proxying for a banned user. Maybe a caution at this time, with a possible request for clarification if problems continue? DurovaCharge! 19:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think proxying for a banned user is the right way to deal with this, given that there are banned users on multiple sides of this issue here. I'd use remedy 1C "To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies ..." as the relevant remedy here. Some of JN's highlighed edits/summaries have gone too far into WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND territory, but I haven't yet dug enough to see if that is a caution that should be issued. GRBerry 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
For those keeping score at home, it may be instructive to count how many comments here in this very thread veer into WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND territory. Some of the things said here would get a newcomer sanctioned, and some might not, but clearly are not the sort of things I'd be pointing to with pride had I said them. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing on this page that "would get a newcomer sanctioned", and if you were concerned about Wikipedia becoming a battleground, then you should not have volunteered in this matter to be a willing foot-soldier on behalf of a message board at war with Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
That characterization of this matter is not helpful, Jayjg. Really, you should reconsider your approach. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It was your characterization of John Nevard that was not helpful, and it is you who should reconsider your approach. Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll stand behind everything I've said to, or about, John Nevard. You are trying to spin this into something it is not. That seems to be something you do fairly regularly, and I think every time you do it, it casts further discredit on you. There were legitimate concerns about John Nevard's actions and identity, in view of the specific sanctions. That you don't like that is tough, really, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. Risker properly pointed out that this is a matter of some concern to many editors. FT2 properly pointed out that there are problematic comments by Nevard. Instead of acknowledging that, and admitting that you overreacted, you go on the attack, trotting out attacks on people and trying to impugn the integrity of everyone involved. Please reconsider that approach of attacking people. As time goes on it's less and less effective. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No, you're really not helping here. --NE2 02:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
You are describing your own behavior, not mine. Please review Will Beback's comments to you above. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As the author of the original decision, I'd appreciate ongoing administrator attention to this highly publicized and problematic group of articles, both with regard to enforcement of the remedies in the decision as well as enforcement of other policies including application of BLP. There are also a number of old talkpage discussions that probably ought to be archived or courtesy-blanked (I would say deleted, but we'd be accused of trying to cover up the problematic history here), if someone wants to go through these. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have continued to monitor these articles over the last few months, and will do some talk page archiving later this evening. Risker (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in Abtract-Collectonian[edit]

The parties are directed to continue to comply with the existing editing restrictions detailed here until this case is resolved or until further direction of the Arbitration Committee. In the event of any disagreement concerning the scope of the restrictions, the parties should err on the side of caution and avoid any arguable violations. The parties are urged to present their evidence in this case as soon as possible and to indicate when they have finished, so that the committee can reach a prompt final decision which will supersede this temporary injunction. Nothing in this temporary injunction constitutes a ruling on the merits of the case or reflects any prejudgment that all, some, or none of the temporary restrictions will be included in the final decision.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tznkai (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha on Moldovan/Romanian linguistic and historical issues[edit]

1RR breach on UDR article[edit]

Edit-warring on Macedonian dab page[edit]

Edit-warring on Prilep-Bitola dialect[edit]


Those of you unfamiliar with the long history Vintagekits (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) may wish to skip this. But briefly, and adjunct to the The Troubles ArbCom decision, he was indef blocked earlier this year for the third or fourth time, ultimately for sockpuppetry (see the lengthy block log for all the gory details). He then violated the block with more persistent sockpuppetry. After much discussion, Vk was again unblocked per community consensus under very strict editing conditions. These conditions were explicit in that they were a very last chance, and any failure to stick to them would result in a permanent ban. The probation was in two phases. Firstly a three month highly restricted phase, followed by a year long topic ban. Soon after Vk referred to a murder carried out as part of the Troubles as an "honourable deed" which was in violation of his probation (see here). He was reblocked per his conditions. He claimed that he misunderstood the conditions and was eventually unblocked again, Ryan interpreted the community consensus, thus: "The way I see the "consensus" of this discussion, given the definition of a community ban and the fact that one can't be enacted now, is that the probation should be reset [my bold], VK counselled and told explicity that if this happens again, however minor, he won't get another chance."

The probation was reset and the 3 month period now ended on 3 October 2008. Vk observed this without issue. At this point the second phase kicks in. Per the agreed conditions, he is now under a "project wide topic ban on The Troubles, which will remain in place for one year." This is where the problems have began. Firstly, Vk began to count down in a manner that was hardly encouraging. [71][72][73] Then Vk rejected the second phase of the probation [74] and began to edit The Irish Civil War article. When I and another editor informed him this violated the terms of his probation he responded thus [75]. In addition, Vk keeps removing the conditions from his user page (he agreed to be unblocked on the condition they were displayed) claiming "no longer on probation so this doesnt have to be displayed on my page anymore" [76].

I therefore propose that the community strongly remind Vk the he was only unblocked under certain conditions. These conditions include:

  • A second phase of probation involving a project-wide topic ban on The Troubles and Irish/British geo-politics (our definition of that subject is extremely liberal and explained in the terms).
  • The second phase of probation continue for a year on the expiry of the first phase, which was reset (per Ryan's unblocking conditions based on community consensus). Therefore the expiry date is 3 October 2009. (I guess one could interpret the second phase as one year from the start of the 3 month first phase, rather than the end of it. In that case the reset date would be 3 July 2008. What is certain is that the probation was reset, so the expiry date is not 14 May, 2009, as Giano and Vk claim.)
  • That the conditions that are still in force should remain on his user page until they expire.

Vk must either adhere to these or else he is rejecting the terms of the probation. In that case he should be reblocked as per the community consensus. Rockpocket 18:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The core question for me: Does the article Irish Civil War fall under the Topic 1-year ban? If it does? VK breached; if it doesn't? VK is alright. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thats easy - was the Irish Civil War a. an occurance during The Troubles b. a British v Irish geo-political conflict or c. a Baronet? The answer is no and that is the reason I edited the article. Rockpocket is just stirring up trouble as usual.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it more helpful, in the first instance, to strongly remind Vk of his ongoing obligations. He has been told (by both myself and Giano) that the Irish Civil War falls under the topic ban. If he continues to edit the article knowing that then he has breached. If he heeds that advice, he is fine. The cogent question for this request is, do you concur that the probation terms were agreed as stated above? Rockpocket 18:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
When did Giano say that the Irish Civil War (the clue is in the title) was an Irish/British dispute?--Vintagekits (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
[77] Rockpocket 19:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Who many times are you going to straight out LIE on this page?? Giano askes me to stay away from the page but doesnt say that is broke the topic ban! --Vintagekits (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rockpocket's understanding of Vk's probation. --John (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What absolute nonsense from an admin that has been desperate to ban me from wikipedia for a long time now and cant stand to see me editing without hassle.

1. The three month probation was restarted the topic ban was never restarted. 2. "Vk began to count down in a manner that was hardly encouraging." Hardly encouraging - I was having a bit of fun to celebrate my successful passage through the probationary period - are you trying to say it was disruptive? No one else thought it was! 3. "Then Vk rejected the second phase of the probation" - what ABSOLUTE nonsense. I am adhering to the topic ban 100%. The ban is on editing on the Troubles, Baronets and British/Irish geo political disputes. I choose to edit the Irish Civil War article VERY carefully because it was an internal dispute and not one with Britain and therefore not a part of the topic ban.

Can someone do something about Rockpockets unecessary stirring of the pot.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten, Vk, that it was I (and Giano) that spent many hours putting together a proposal that resulted in you getting unblocked in the first place. You would think that might count for something in your eyes, but obviously not. My only response is that you read this part of your probation conditions very carefully
"He has acknowledged these terms publicly, and has them posted for public access. After three months (from 3 October 2008) he is allowed to edit fully and normally, with the exception of a project wide topic ban on The Troubles, which will remain in place for one year. Should he find a page he is editing is notably connected to the Troubles, or be informed as such by an uninvolved editor in good standing, he will withdraw completely from that page."
When the probation was reset, there was nothing in Ryan's conclusion that it only related to one part of the probation. If Ryan meant that only the first phase be reset, he certainly never said it. I'll ask him to clarify if that was his intention. But irrespective, you have claimed numerous times you do not recognize the any ongoing probation [[78]. Do you not see how that is in conflict to the statement above, which you agreed to on condition of your unblocking? Rockpocket 18:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you please stop lying and twisting my words. I said do not agree to a FURTHER year or probation because I have served most of the time period already. --Vintagekits (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm outta here; getting a headache. Hope ya'll figure things out soon. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The key word in that highlighted section is the word "remain". Thank you and goodnight. I've been banned from this topic for nearly a year and you are trying to make it two - do you think that I am justgoing to let the likes of you or John bully me around wikipedia. I've learned my lessons from my probationary period and wont be rising to the bait anymore mate. --Vintagekits (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is more time being wasted on this? Either the last chance has been expended or it has not. In the case of the former being the case, why has he not been indef blocked?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a ridiculous situation, Rockpocket and Vintagekits are the proverbial red rag and the bull. My advice to VK is to stay away from anything political concerning Ireland, that way Rockpocket has no excuse to come after him. I have no idea whether one can definitively say the the Irish Civil war and The Trouble are connected - I do no have any qualifications in the subject, and neither I suspect do Rockpocket or VK. VK's probation does not insist he avoid such pages, I merely feel it would be wise, considering the way he is watched, if he did. Finally, and most definitively the Irish Civil War is not in Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland so like it or not VK has to be given the benefit of the doubt. There is no excuse for prolonging his probation. Giano (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it be prolonged. I'm proposing it be observed as you, I, Vk and the community all agreed in order that he be unblocked. Rockpocket 19:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually the probation is over - its the topic ban that is in place - two different things.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Rockpocket, this is your edit [79] is it not? You have not ben cloned? Please Rockpocket back off and leave VK alone. Giano (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
How very observant, Giano. Indeed that is my edit. It was to change the conditions to reflect the community consensus when Vk was unblocked again after violating them the first time. It was made by me as the person who drafted and presented the original conditions to the community in the first place. I think that makes me the idea person to make that edit. It was also made 3.5 month ago, and there was no objection to it then. You didn't warn me to "back off and leave VK alone" when my efforts were helping get him unblocked, so I suggest you give it a rest now. One doesn't become biased just because one disagrees with you. Rockpocket 19:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you will find Rockpocket - it was I who drafted the original conditions, and set the process in motion. You merely stepped in and allowed your obsessive antipathy for VK to take over. Now I have proposed an ammendement for clarity here [80]. That no one in the right mind will object to. Giano (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

((Undent)) Just for the record, can VK please give us what he thinks his current editing restrictions are, in full?--Tznkai (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it was The Troubles but Rockpocket extended it to geo political conflicts between Britain and Ireland and also the area of Baronets. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Forget that, what do you think the original agreement/conditions was?--Tznkai (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Tznkai, I'm a bit thick can you clarify that as I am unsure what exactly you are askin me.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
If I understand the thread correctly, at some point you were blocked, then unblocked, under certain conditions, that some combination of Ryan, Giano and Rockpocket were involved in. (Please, Gott im Himmel , I do not want to see that particular disagreement hashed out on AE) What, based on your understanding, were/are those conditions, in both broad and specific terms?--Tznkai (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The agreement was that the topic ban was to stay in place and the probation period for the extended topic ban was to be restated from the date of unblocking. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a dif of a direct quote from anyone supporting that? Rockpocket 20:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Seriously you are becoming very annoying and tedious now. He asked for my what "my understand" was!!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what made your think that, since I was not aware of anyone stating it. If you had documentary support for this POV then it could resolve that particular issue right here. Rockpocket 20:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I have formulated my understand after reading ALL of the posts on the suject.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Undent: Hold up, do we have an agreement that User:Vintagekits/terms is the salient area?--Tznkai (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Which version? Rockpocket 21:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The facts:[edit]

  • The section of the editing restriction that applies is "After three months (from 3 October 2008) he is allowed to edit fully and normally, with the exception of a project wide topic ban on The Troubles, which will remain in place for one year. Should he find a page he is editing is notably connected to the Troubles, or be informed as such by an uninvolved editor in good standing, he will withdraw completely from that page." (emphasis mine)
  • On October 17, 2008, Vintagekits made three edits to Irish Civil War between 1043 and 1307 hours UTC.[81] At 1635 hours on the same day, an IP editor left a message on Vintagekits' talk page suggesting that Irish Civil War might fall into the broad description of VK's topic ban.[82] Vintagekits has not edited the article since, nor has he edited any other article that could fall into even the broadest interpretation of his editing restrictions. Risker (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Correct. That isn't under dispute. What I am asking is that the community remind Vk that these conditions "remain in place for one year" which is either 3 July or 3 October 2009 (depending on your interpretation of when the one year starts. I interpreted it as the latter, but appreciate the wording is ambiguous). Vk now disputes this. I'm also asking that the community remind Vk that he must have these conditions "posted for public access" per the agreement. Again, Vk is now refusing to do this. Only on him accepting these non-negotiable conditions did the community agree to his unblocking. If he is now unwilling to adhere to these conditions, then there is no mandate for him to remain unblocked. Rockpocket 21:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually its 14 May 2008 - the probation was reset not the topic ban. I agreed to post the details of the probation - the porbation is now over so there is nothing to post on my user page - stop shit stirring!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The definition of "The Troubles" from section 3.5.2 of the the Final Remedies for the Arbitration case on this subject that closed in October, 2007 which may, or may not, be useful:

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. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on the evidence presented here, it appears to me that the topic ban continues until October 3, 2008. Further, it appears that VK made an honest mistake in editing a topic he thought was outside the ban. Per the discussion here and communications by other editors with VK, he should now understand that the topic ban covers "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". Testing the limits of the topic ban diminishes the community's patience. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I didnt make any mistake - that definition is NOT from my case but from another. Also what "evidence" say that the topic ban continues until October 3, 2008?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I take it you mean 2009, Will? Rockpocket 21:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my error. 2009. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That definition is not part of the Arbitration Committee decision. It is something that was developed and added to the decision on October 5, 2008, as a result of intervention on this board.[83] It is a definition created months after the drafting of VK's editing restriction, in relation to a different dispute, and there is no reason that Vintagekits would have been aware of it. There's also no reason to think it would apply to VK's editing restrictions; one doesn't change the rules midstream without directly notifying the editor affected.
As this would be a change in the terms of the editing restriction, it is important that Vintagekits agree to follow this definition. As well, the provision that he hold off on articles identified by uninvolved editors should remain in place.
I participated in the discussions in June/July, and do not believe that there was a decision or an intention to prolong the editing restrictions, only the probation period. Risker (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
While the definition of "articles related to the Troubles" may have been refined or broadened, it is not an essential change in the topic ban. By my action here, I am informing VK that articles matching that definition are within the topic ban. It is not a matter that requires his agreement. Regarding the ban duration, it appears that the topic band was intended to follow the probation, not run concurrently. Since the probation was extended the beginning (and ending) of the topic ban was also extended. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
No I do not agree to that and I do accept that anything you have said there is valid - the terms of the probation and return were set out from the start they are not going to be changed like that. You cant add a different topic ban on to me for no reason. --Vintagekits (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a negotiation. The terms that you agreed to as a condition of being unbanned calls for uninvolved editors to determine the boundaries of the topic ban as needed. I've clarified those boundaries to indicate that they include Irish nationalism and British nationalism as it relates to Ireland. That is within the broad definition of "any Irish/British geo-political dispute". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I know its isn't a negotiation and I am not negotiation. I am just not prepared to agree to such a ridiculous interpretation of the topic ban. --Vintagekits (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What I have found of the terms is: the July version of User:Vintagekits/terms that was untouched before the last three days, included a footnote stating a broad definition for Troubles:

For the purposes of these conditions and any subsequent use of the term, "The Troubles" includes articles related to any Irish/British geo-political dispute, and to all articles about Baronets"

The duration of topic ban was stated here:

After three months (from 3 October, 2008) he is allowed to edit fully and normally, with the exception of a project wide topic ban on The Troubles, which will remain in place for one year.

It continues with the determination for a topic ban trip as:

Should he find a page he is editing is notably connected to the Troubles, or be informed as such by an uninvolved editor in good standing, he will withdraw completely from that page.

So, we have a 3 month from 3 October, and a 1 year topic ban. I think Vintagekits should be advised to give Irish conflicts a wide berth, and ask permission instead of forgiveness, and then quite possibly, we can all move on to all of the other Ireland related issues, and eventually the rest of the wiki.--Tznkai (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, except that the 3 month period ended, not started, on 3 October 2008. That is when the 1 year topic ban starts. You also did not mention that other agreed term, about the display of the conditions, which Vk is reneging on. Rockpocket 21:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I agreed to display the terms of the probation NOT the topic ban - two different thing - stop twisting words and frankly lying on this page please.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I dont see why I should have to give subjects that arnt covered by the topic ban a wide berth especially if I am not editing in a disruptive manner - after all isnt that the main goal!!! Also the 12 month topic ban doesnt end 12 months AFTER the probation ended - the 12 month topic ban STARTED in May 2008 and therefore ENDS in May 2009 - there is no fuckin way that I am doing another 7 months that I dont have to do this is unfair and only caused by Rockpocket stirring up shit - who is here to protect me???? I have not violated the terms of the probation and I have not edited in a disruptive manner - where is the fairness in all this?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I copied the "from October 3" directly from under point 9, so whoever was responsible for putting the original there will have to explain it not me. And Vintagekits, all I'm saying is its easiest to be cautious here, and this is a suggestion, not an administrative sanction. The rest I leave to y'all to figure out while I catch up on pressing real life concerns.--Tznkai (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I'm troubled by the vagueness of this phrase in the posted conditions: "an uninvolved editor in good standing". Who would count and who would not count as being an uninvolved editor in good standing? The reason I ask is that it appears to have been an anonymous IP editor who posted the message. So, is this kind of editor one "in good standing" for this purpose or not? Given the amount of sockpuppetry we have seen on other articles concerned with Ireland and the UK, it could be a registered user who is not in good standing trying to stir up trouble. So isn't it the case that we cannot be sure of the quality of the IP editor, unless the condition "in good standing" itself becomes too vague to be useful. Surely it would have been more clear, though possibly not wanted, to have the conditions require that the editor should be not only uninvolved and in good standing, but that the editor should be actually registered as well for the purpose of these conditions, otherwise it would become too vague to be enforceable, in the way I have just explained. If this is the case, then the obvious solution to this part of any problem here is to advise Vintagekits now, and then expect his behaviour to change from now on.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
DDstretch, the "uninvolved editor in good standing" was specifically to address two situations: where involved editors logged out and made comments on VK's talk page as IP editors; and to prevent editors who were under sanctions from baiting VK. IP editors have no standing, good or bad; obviously, editors under sanctions are not in good standing. Risker (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Risker. Might it not be a good idea to always expand what "good standing" means here though, to avoid any claims that it was too vague? Not everyone placed under similar restrictions may immediately know who counts under these circumstances. Just a thought.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I am really not happy with the situation as it stands - all this has come about because of the ambiguity in the topic ban and Rockpockets eagerness to stir shit and any opportunity - its needs clarification.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
As per Giano, I agree that The Irish Civil War is not connected with The Troubles, and is not on the list of Troubles related articles. I'm also troubled by the vagueness of the phrase, and the interference by an anon IP editor. Checkuser that IP address and it may reveal a deliberately disruptive editor attempting to stir things up. I would also add that an uninvolved editor may not be even qualified to draw a correct conclusion, although no harm in an uninvolved editor making a comment asking VK to pause and verify before continuing to edit. --HighKing (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Ya'll know my views on IP accounts, particularly in discussions like these. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is not based on the request of an IP, which probably don't count as an established editor "in good standing". For this reason I clarified the anonymous IP's request by directly citing the condition:
  • "let me be clear per your agreement: as an uninvolved editor in good standing, I'm informing your that Irish Civil War is notably connected to [our definition of] the Troubles. Therefore you will withdraw completely from that page. [[84]
  • Giano did the same: "Also please note: "Should he find a page he is editing is notably connected to the Troubles, or be informed as such by an uninvolved editor in good standing, he will withdraw completely from that page." Now, I'm not an Admin, but I'm informing you - stay away from that page." [85]
  • As did Will Bebeck: "As an uninvolved editor in good standing, I am informing you that "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to ... Irish nationalism, ... and British nationalism in relation to Ireland" is "notably connected to the Troubles". In order to comply with your topic ban do not edit such articles." [86]
Vk's response [87]. It needs to be made very clear that Vk is not in a position to negotiate these terms. If they are to be changed, then we should go back and ask the community whether they wish him to be unblocked under the new conditions. Rockpocket 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I AM NOT NEGOTIATING - I am just trying to stop you getting the topic ban expanded ever further - the topic ban was supposed to by just on the Troubles and now it pretty much covers and infinite subject area - this is complete bullshit and I wont be forgetting it Rockpocket.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
(reply to Rockpocket) Ok. Fair enough. The problem then should be to do with any behaviour that happened subsequent to 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC), which is the earliest point at which a registered editor advised VintageKits. If the behaviour continued, then the most serious breach would be if any occurred after the third advice, given at 22:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC), by Will Bebock. If I were in VintageKit's situation, and I disagreed with the advice (thinking the editor in good standing was mistaken), I would immediately attempt to get a wider view, given the consequences that might happen, so that arguing with the individual editor may not be such a good course of action here, and editing the articles in question until a wider view was received would certainly seem very foolish to me if I were considering what to do.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your point. Obviously, Vk is permitted, and encouraged, to request other opinions if he disagrees. But I just want to make clear that I'm not suggesting Vk be blocked because he edited that article. He edited it, he was warned not to by a number of established editors (and an IP), and he has not edited it since the warnings. No problem there, that is how the sanctions are supposed to work and they appear to (notwithstanding Vk's increasingly protests). If he continues to edit this article or others like it in the coming year, then he will have a problem.
The point of this request was to confirm the length of the topic ban per the agreement (and there now appears to be a number of editors agreeing it runs until 3 October 2009) and to request that Vk be asked to replace the terms of the conditions back on his user page. Again, I am not requesting action be taken for the Irish Civil War edits. Rockpocket 23:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • So effectively to sum up, there is no doubt that VK is currently editing under a restriction of not touching Troubles / Ire-GB / Baronets articles, but the argument solely revolves around whether the end date for that sanction is May 14 or October 3, 2009? In that case, I'd suggest that VK observes the topic ban until May 14 2009, and then - if he has 100% complied for that 7 months - he can apply to have the ban removed. FWIW, I'd say that if VK can safely negotiate 7 months of a topic ban, he'd have proved that he can edit co-operatively and perhaps doesn't need the extra sanction. Black Kite 22:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input Black Kite - despite what Rockpocket says I am happy to edit within the terms agreed, I am just not prepared to edit within his manucfactured and extended terms. I am happy for the topic ban to remain until 14 May 2008 (which would in effect be a 15 month topic ban) and to avoid articles within the Troubles area and Baronets but I am not happy about the Irish/British geo political conflict clause - this was supposed to mean conflicts between Irish and Britain but now could concievably by extended to the 2008 Irish Budget it there was a disagreement over it. I am not happy with this section.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't object to reviewing the matter in May and lifting the topic ban if, in fact, there have been no further problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I, personally, don't have an issue with your proposal, Black Kite. The logic appeals. But would still point out that I took Vk's conditions to the community with a defined and explicit set of terms. There was a significant amount of opposition to any unblocking, and it was only when these explicit conditions were attached, and assurances given they would be adhered to 100%, was there any sort of agreement to give it a try. I am wary about changing those terms now, since it was such a divisive discussion.
While it was always my understanding that the 1 year probation should run from the end of the 3 month 1st phase (and that appears to be the understanding expressed here), reading back over the discussion I note that Giano first proposed it as running concurrently with the 3 month 1st phase. That effectively means that there would by a 9 month ban left to serve at the end of the 1st phase restrictions. The final wording is somewhat ambiguous and could be interpreted either way. Therefore, in the spirit of Vk's good behaviour so far, we could interpret it Giano's way. That would mean it expires on 3 July after the resetting of the terms. I'd support that date. That said, I'll of course defer to the consensus. I would also be clear, given the amount of lawyering we are seeing, what does "reviewing the matter" on that date actually mean. Does it mean an automatic end to the topic ban? Does it mean it triggers a discussion without prejudice either way? Rockpocket 23:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
My view would be that it triggers a discussion. However, I'd almost certainly expect that the result of that discussion to be a removal of the sanction in the event that VK's conduct had been exemplary. Black Kite 23:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
As would I. But if that discussion resulted in non-removal at that time, would the topic-ban then automatically lapse on 3 October 2009? I guess I could support that. Rockpocket 23:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
No it wouldnt. Also the date that the topic ban started was 14th May not any other date. The date of the topic ban was not set back to zero with the probation.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It's probably irrelevant anyway though, as the likely outcomes if we go with the above proposal are that either (a) VK edits impeccably and it is agreed that the topic ban lapses, or (b) he doesn't and ends up banned. I doubt if the May/October situation will arise. Black Kite 23:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Yet Vk still insists that the 14 May date is an automatic end, not a discussion. We are just going to end up in this same situation again on that date unless it is made explicitly clear. Anyway, this can easily be resolved. Ryan was the one that closed the discussion and, in doing so, reset the clock. He can tell us whether he intended just the first phase to be reset, or whether he intended all the timed conditions to be reset. If its the former, then the 14 May date is indeed correct. If it is the latter then the 3 July or 3 October date is correct. Lets simply wait until we hear what Ryan intended in his conclusion. Vk was happy to abide by those conditions at the time, to get unblocked. If he doesn't like them now, he can always reject them and return to the alternative. Rockpocket 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding that "Irish/British geo political conflict clause", that was a crucial factor in his unblocking should remain exactly as it was set out. Vk has lost the privilige of editing any article that involves Irish or British geo political conflict due to his track record of disruption on the subject. Personally I wouldn't judge 2008 Irish Budget as being included, but other editors in good standing might. Rockpocket 23:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That needs to be clarified - the probation terms for the 1 year topic ban say only "includes articles related to any Irish/British geo-political dispute" although I am aware that the idea was to keep VK away from subjects like the Falklands (hence the "...and to articles relating to British government interests abroad." in the original sanction). Black Kite 23:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That clause was meant to mean Irish v British conflicts - you are not twisting it too mean Irish and British conflict which I will not accept.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This is what I am trying to ascertain - the original 3 month sanction did include the "British interests abroad" clause, but it is not stated explicitly on the 1 year topic ban, unless I am mistaken. Black Kite 23:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it - but even if it doesnt include "British interests abroad" I cant for the life of me see how the Irish Civil War is covered by this.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the Irish Civil War is probably not covered. Black Kite 00:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article is: The Irish Civil War pitted supporters of the Anglo-Irish Treaty against its opponents. The Anglo-Irish Treaty is clearly part of the Irish/British geo-political dispute. Looking through the remainder of the article, one finds extensive discussion of the Irish Republican Army. The IRA is clearly related to The Troubles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"Irish/British" was always meant as Irish or British, not Irish vs British. This is clear from the original discussion on the terms talk page and thus includes the Falklands and Gibraltar where Vk also caused problems. (See particularly my comment "I would propose adding baronets and British aristocracy, Irish/British geo-politics (and those of other separatists: Basque, Gibraltar etc)" to which Giano agreed). The plan was to try and keep the terms general and non-specific because Vk insisted he was only interested in sports articles and didn't want to get back into controversial subjects. If we took him at his word then all we needed to worry about was him accidentally stumbling into something controversial and getting carried away in the heat of debate. Thus the clause about the editor in good standing doing the warning. Now, perhaps unsurprisingly, we see that Vk would quite like to get involved in geo-politics again and is beginning to lawyer around the terms that were put in place. If he was a man of his word then all this wouldn't matter, since he very clearly said he had no intention of going there. Irrespective of how Vk interpreted the Irish/British term, the community discussion was very clear that he can only return if he goes nowhere near controversial geo-political articles. The "editor in good standing" clause means that he can be kept away from articles even if he doesn't agree. Three editors in good standing have all made it clear to him that these articles are problems in their collective opinion. Rockpocket 23:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'm about to log out for the night, and probably need to examine this more closely - my inclination would be to say to VK that getting involved with contentious British foreign policy articles which were problematic previously would be inadvisable, though. Black Kite 00:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"If he was a man of his word then all this wouldn't matter, since he very clearly said he had no intention of going there" - are you deliberately trying to wind me up and drag this into the gutter? Either strike through that or there will be trouble. I'm really pissed off with your conduct and the level of your twist and bullshitting today - its out of order. "Irrespective of how Vk interpreted the Irish/British term, the community discussion was very clear that he can only return if he goes nowhere near controversial geo-political articles" - its not just how I have interpretted it - its just you that interprets it otherwise. Up til today it was accepted the it was Irish v British conflicts not Irish and British conflicts. Anyway I'm off to bed - try and keep the bare faced lying and bullshitting to a minimum whilst I'm gone.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I would also note precedent here. We have seen editors edit pre-Troubles era articles about Irish Republican history while under Troubles related restrictions. This has been seen as gaming the system. Here is one example I was previously involved in. This is why we should keep Troubles related problem editors away from articles like The Irish Civil war. Rockpocket 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for moving forward[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement over what the original sanctions covered, and when the 1 year topic ban ended. Thanks to the vagueness of slash punctuation marks and a missing "now" or "then" in the terms, I have to say I can't figure it out just by reading [User talk:Vintagekits/terms]. We hav,e in my opinion, three basic options. 1.) To take a poll of the original participants of the discussion that created the terms, and try to figure out what the consensus at the time was (This includes JzG, Risker, Rockpocket, Giano, Flonight, Brownhaired girl, and others)2. To continue to watch certain users bicker about it. or 3. Come to a clear self correcting agreement.

Since I won't have anything to add on option 1 or 2, I'll add my thoughts on option 3, simply coming to an agreement now:

What we are trying to avoid is Vintagekits disrupting Wikipedia and getting himself banned. That is the situation we should be trying hardest to avoid, and other concerns are secondary. Since, the original issue is apparently Baronetcy and the Troubles we can safely say that Vintagekits should topic banned from:

  • Anything that related substantially to Baronets, Baronets by name, a group of them, or the actions thereof;
  • The Troubles, article and subpages thereof, participating organizations or individuals in The Troubles, anything within the category of The Troubles in Northern Ireland.
  • Articles focusing on the state or history of Irish and British relations, and major conflicts where Ireland and Britain were participants. (This does not include, say, Global Warming. This are lateral definitions, not insipid ones.)

After that, we get into some fuzzy areas, and what we're really trying to avoid is disruption based on strong opinions on British-Irish relations, which is where some judgment calls need to be made.

The self correcting part of this is pretty simple: Before editing in a fuzzy area, Vintagekits should ask uninvolved users in good standing and/or a large panel of uninvolved editors who will be agreed upon before editing, and those editors will tell Vintagekits whether the article will fall under the process.

As an example, lets say Vintagekits wants to edit History of Dublin. An univolved editor would probably tell Vintage kits "sure, just stay away from the Nothern Ireland section of the article." This advice would be recorded on Vintagekits talk page.

As a final note: these rules are designed to be comprehensive (we will be improving them based on suggestions) but they are not editor proof. Errors in judgment will be made, and that's ok, the solution is to revert the edit, trout the persons involved, and move on with life. What is NOT OK, is any act of system gaming. Any attempt to game these rules by Vintagekits or another editor attempting to bait Vintagekits should be dealt with swiftly and dramatically. Sanctioned editors are on notice to modify their behavior, but they are not, and never will be, target practice.

This topic ban would expire in October 2009, but with appeal window opening in May 2009, where we will either decide the sanctions worked and Vintagekits should be free of bans, or we probably will have already permanently banned Vintagekits.--Tznkai (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the language you propose in the last entry of the revised topic is too vague: "Articles focusing on the state or history of Irish and British relations, and major conflicts where Ireland and Britain were participants." Vague restrictions are a source of some of these problems. In its place I suggest "Articles related to the state or history of Irish and British relations, to conflicts where Ireland and Britain were participants, and to Irish Republicanism." There is no need for this editor to be getting anywhere near these contentious topics, given the history of his involvement. The rest of Tznkai's proposal looks reasonable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Will, except to note that it should include "conflicts where Ireland OR Britain were participants." Vk (and others) caused problems on issues related to the Falklands and Gibraltar in the past. His issues are not just with Britain as it relates to Ireland, but also other British geo-political disputes with other states. If the goal is to avoid Vintagekits disrupting Wikipedia and getting himself banned, then why would we not include these other articles that contributed to his disruptive influence? In addition I would like to draw attention to Vk's statement when the possibility of him being unblocked was first floated. He said "if you look at my edit history at the time I got blocked I had given up editing articles on Irish republicanism and "The Troubles" because it was giving me a headache and I was almost solely focusing on boxing articles. .... I would still like to be able to edit football articles or articles about music or railway stations or geography or places of interest so long as it didn't stay into the sphere of Irish republicanism or politics. [my bold]" [88] Consider my surprise, then, when his 3rd edit to article space after the first phase of his probation expired was to edit the sentence "The Anglo-Irish Treaty established the Irish Free State under British dominion and without the six counties of Northern Ireland" in an article that is clearly about both Irish republicanism and politics. [89] Given his own clear statement of intent if unblocked, there should be no problem for Vk if every article on "Irish Republicanism" and "politics" should be restricted. It was under this expectation that the original terms were drafted. If that is no longer the case then perhaps we should make the conditions more lawyer-proof. Rockpocket 01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I too agree with Will. We shouldn't feel we have to run round the houses to cater for the lawyerish tendencies of a problematic editor. It's pretty clear that Vk's unblock was on condition he avoided the sphere of Irish republicanism or politics as he put it himself. Let him live up to that and there need be no problems. --John (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
A couple of general observations:

(a) When the limits of any restrictions within an area of uncertainty are tested by a problematic editor by the action of making edits and then disputing whether they fall within or without the limits, then this may be viewed as an attitudinal problem to do with the desire to reform and conform to wikipedia principles. It may well be that in these circumstances, the community chooses to be more restrictive in its interpretation than would have happened if, say, the limits of restrictions were first enquired about by the troublesome editor in discussion with others prior to making any edits in some area of uncertainty. This reaction may or may not be reasonable dependent on what then ensues.

(b) When there is room for interpretation by restrictions being described in too vague a manner, there is room for wikilawyerism. In future, there is much to be gained by being as specific as possible, removing all reasonable vagueness from any restrictions so that problematic editors are encouraged by being prevented from engaging in behaviour (specifically wikilawyerism) to further exhaust the patience of the community and take up time that we could be spending editing articles by disputes like this.

I suggest that whatever comes out of this, attention is given to being as specific as possible, with as little, or preferably NO, room for manoeuvre on the part of the editor under restrictions. So vague methods of writing such as "Irish/British" and similar should not occur in any cases in the future. This should be a specific matter that is attended to in future cases. I know people may baulk at this, but much is to be gained from what would be a more focussed attention spent on those who devise the specific restrictions in future, with relatively little extra effort on their part.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the update as above. I would suggest that if VK makes it through to May, that we leave it that he's no longer on the parole, never mind opening up a window.. but that's because I'm dreading the absolutely epic knockdown dragout donnybrook that would come from such a discussion. But VK.. I've noted the "keep the lying and the bullshitting to a mininum" quote above. That's not a good start, and not a road you should be going down. SirFozzie (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what the substantial difference between May and October is myself, so I have no objection to shortening it to May. As to the complaints about vagueness and wikilawyerism, I have no problem with tightening up the language and wording, to a point: but no terms will be gaming proof at least not without causing massive amounts of collateral damage. (No editing any article that includes any of the words: Ireland, Britain, Irish, British, at any point in the article's history) An additional problem is that sanctions can be gamed in both directions: someone can game to make the sanctions seem smaller than they are, someone can game the sanctions to seem larger and more expansive than they are. The application of common sense is going to have to come into play.--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, surely the thinking should be conservative - i.e. "does this article approach the limits of VK's restriction" - if yes, then probably best to stay away from it. I'd certainly recommend staying away from any of the British imperial articles - i.e. Falklands, Gibraltar - that he got into hot water over last time. But I don't see the problem with anything that is purely Irish politics, as long as doesn't involve either the Troubles or Britain. Black Kite 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
(e/c reply to Tznkai) Oh, I agree that we probably cannot entirely remove the opportunity for wikilawyering, but if we take care, we can probablyreduce the opportunity to indulge in it in relatively simple ways that have no discernible problems or knock-on effects, because we aren't in the situation of having to say "if we can't do it all, we can't do any of it": For instance, in the discussions about when various kinds of sanctions were due to end, the matter could have been made as certain as they were in the original specification at the point when they were revised by merely repeating all of the new conditions again, rather than just the amended bits. This would ensure that ambiguity would be similar to, and hopefully, at most as great as they were in the original unmodified specifications. In the case of the "Irish/British" phrase and whether there was an implied "and" or "or" there, it could have been resolved by simply spelling it out more rather than using what I have called IRL as a kind of "sloppy office shorthand". I agree that other situations might be problematic and not conducive to this, but that doesn't mean that we cannot eliminate some kinds of vagueness, and some very similar to the ones I've illustrated, above, with relative ease. It may mean more typing (or cutting and pasting) by the person stating or restating conditions, but I think that is more than compensated by the reduction in time spent dealing with arguments and questions similar to what we have seen here.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Bear in mind, though, that these were drafted in understanding that Vk only intended to edit sports/music/places of interest/geography articles. He clearly expressed an intention to avoid politics completely. Therefore, assuming good faith of him, gaming didn't seem to be something he was interested in. Nevertheless, the "editor in good standing" clause was put there to avoid gaming of the system. He can push the boundaries as much as he want, but it will not get him anywhere when he is bound to a reasonable request to avoid a contentious article henceforth. As someone who was heavily involved in the discussions, its fair to say that it was largely because of that clause that the community agreed to unblock Vk. I have grave reservations about removing those conditions clearly agreed by community consensus. But, if we are going to over-rule the community, I hope someone will take it upon themselves to document the new terms at User:Vintagekits/terms and put them back on Vk's page for public access. I drafted the original terms and have kept them updated. I everyone was happy with that until Vk decided to start gaming the system this week. Now, apparently, its inappropriate that I edit that page.
I know it sometimes feels like the lunatics are running the asylum around here, but I really don't think we should be letting people, still under probation terms from an indef block, rewrite their own conditions at will. On that note, I'll leave it to the rest of you to deal with. Rockpocket 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone just clarify, because I'm sure people are becoming confused here - has VK edited a page in Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland? Has he vandalised or harmed any other pages remotely connected with Ireland? Just a simple Yes or no. Giano (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No.--Tznkai (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Slapping a {{fact}} tag onto text that reads The Civil War ... left Irish society deeply divided. Its influence in Irish politics remains evident today. is most certainly an edit related to any Irish/British geo-political dispute, and therefore within the scope of his topic ban. Giano II's link to the specific articles in Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland is a red herring, as Vintagekits' topic ban was not specifically constrained to that. (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
(EC) The new self correcting mechanism is designed to enhance the one used previously. The intent remains the same: to make sure there is a neutral, uninvolved thinking agent able to notify VK of where is a good place to go, and where is not. The specificity is as much for them as it is for admins and VK. I believe the spirit of my proposal is the same as the terms: to put a firewall between VK and areas where VK will conflict with other users, causing disruption. A statement from Vintagekits about what subjects he feels he would avoid and what subjects he wants to edit specifically would be helpful. I think at this point we are in discussion about what we, as members of the community think is the best way to proceed forward, and all input is useful. Decisions should be put on hold until then.--Tznkai (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Rockpocket purports to me hauntin me for my own good, Rockpocket purports to me hauntin me to save me from myself, Rockpocket purports to me hauntin me to avoid disruption. What I ask is WHEN is the last time I edited an article in within the area of the topic ban in a disruptive manner? Rockpocket wants the area of the topic ban to be extended as much as possible so that he hope that I make some minor edit to one of these articles, whether disruptive or not, and then he can campaign to get me banned. He's transparent. This is supposed to be about disruption - where is the disruption??--Vintagekits (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I found this edit] disruptive, which is why I posted it to your talk page. You have not replied to me. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
All we need now is Astrotrain and its a full house! How could adding a fact tag in that manner be disruptive? what planet are you on? "which is why I posted it to your talk page. You have not replied to me" - did you?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The {{fact}} template is intended to be used to tag information which may be questionable. Inserting it into Irish Civil War should not be looked upon as a casual edit, as you added political POV to that article. I do not understand your "did you?" question. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I think VK is saying that you don't appear to have asked him about the fact tag on his talk page, as you stated. Regarding VK's question, the topic ban is absolute. It doesn't allow for non-disruptive edits. An editor under a topic ban may not make any edits to covered articles, not even vandalism repair or non-controversial formatting changes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe your Topic Ban expires in May 2009 (unless I'm missing something). GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You are missing something. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
That's nothing new, for me. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

<---(unindent) In response to some of the points made above: Andrwsc, your signature does not appear anywhere on Vintagekits' talk page in relation to the edit you are pointing out. I have to say, as a truly disinterested editor, that the {{fact}} tag in that article is probably appropriate, as there are no references that support the statement anywhere in the article, not even in the "Legacy" section. I know, though, that that is not the point you are trying to make. Whether or not an edit is "disruptive" can often depend on the eye of the reader, not just the person making the edit.

The objective in front of us, as a community, is to identify as precisely as possible what subject groups are completely off-limits for Vintagekits, what the grey areas are where he needs to get a second opinion before proceeding, and what is clear sailing for him. Some no-go areas are pretty clear, and have been delineated to some extent by Tznkai above. I'd be inclined to throw in any articles that have one of the 1-RR tags instituted as part of the UDR resolution from earlier this month as no-go articles. Rockpocket has identified some of the clear-sailing areas (boxing, music, etc.). Let's keep our eye on the ball please, and detail what subject matter should be categorized where. Risker (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That IP edit was me, editing before I logged in; sorry for not making that clear. (Not all of Special:Contributions/ are my edits though—it's a gateway from our corporate network.) Your interpretation of my concern about the "fact" tag is precisely correct. As for the situation at hand, I was concerned about Vintagekits' misunderstanding of his probation and topic ban terms, and the subsequent discussion here has only affirmed that I think he is trying to change the terms that the community agreed upon (whether knowingly or unknowingly is irrelevant). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone takes this forward, the discussion will be archived without any conclusion. Does anyone intend to establish new terms? If not, then the alternative is to leave the terms as written as per agreed at the time of the last unblocking. We then wait until May next year and argue about when the probation ends then. As someone above pointed out, irrespective of when they were originally meant to expire, if Vk observes the conditions until then without any problems its difficult to imagine there would be much opposition to an appeal at that time. Rockpocket 22:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, let's wait until May 2009. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've made my proposals, but I was hoping for some more input, relying on consensus by silence tends to get you into trouble. --Tznkai (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that anyone with any experience of this subject is utterly and completely sick of the hassle that comes with it, that they can no longer face getting involved. Every single admin (and I'm not exaggerating, I really mean every single one) that has attempted to enforce restrictions on Vk finds themselves on the wrong side of an attack campaign. I don't see much more input forthcoming, so either you go ahead with what you propose or we stick with what we have and wait until the next time Vk decides to sail close to the wind then have the same argument all over again. I really don't care which, but leaving it hanging like this is a recipe for disaster. Rockpocket 23:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll put up a revised draft later tonight, and then move forward tomorrow barring objection.--Tznkai (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. If you're busy its not essential its done immediately. I just wanted to be sure someone was willing to see this through. Rockpocket 23:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Something interesting has come up, so I'm going to have to hold off on modifying the proposals until at least tomorrow.--Tznkai (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)