User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 23

PeterBreggin claims to be Peter Breggin
He is a bit perplexed by wikipedia. I'm not sure about what is done in this situation so I contacted you. :D --scuro (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Will it be photos or words first?
I may be a day or so early, but you have been missed. I hope you have had a lifetime's supply of adventures and stories to keep you dining out for years. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bielle. Its great to be home. But first, to sleep... Rockpock  e  t  04:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Rockpocket. I hope you had a great trip. Best, --John (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. Perhaps I could trouble you for a brief update on certain issues over the next week? I'll drop you an email when I get my act together. Rockpock  e  t  05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. I daresay you'll find not much has changed. One Night In Hackney, after what appeared to be a marathon 31 1/2 hour editing session, had a sense of humour failure over the Mairéad Farrell article and announced a semi-retirement; a parthian shot was exposure of Kittybrewster's alternate accounts, which was felt not to be unduly serious (see here); BigDunc made an allegation of racism against Gibnews on AN/I, which petered out on John's talk page; and Vintagekits is agitating for a return. Giano is still tilting at windmills, but not in way that affects the usual suspects. If I were you, I'd turn round and head straight back to your tropical paradise! --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, dear, dear Rockpocket; you must remember always that you may leave for four years in space but when you return it's the same old place ! Anyway, I'm so delighted to see you back, safe and well! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And I've stayed 100% out of trouble but now that you are back time to change all that! Sarah777 (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect anything less. However, I have avowed to avoid troubles (and Troubles) as much as possible and write myself another featured article this summer, so perhaps you better find yourself another partner in crime for a while. By the way, I actually thought of you a few times while spending some time alone in my tent. That isn't a dirty as it first sounds, because I was reading Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond at the time. The themes of his book seemed to mesh quite nicely with some of the things we have discussed about colonization and hegemony, and it occurred to me you may be inspired by reading about his theories on how and why some cultures were historically dominant over others. I think it has lessons for us about even recent history. So if you have a chance, see if you can check it out. I think you may enjoy it. Rockpock  e  t  11:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Begorrah (as we black folk say) I must check it out :)!Sarah777 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland
Page protection required here as someone keeps inserting a political rant. Sarah777 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh - nice photo! Sarah777 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is just cause for protection now, per PROTECTION since the revert-warring has stopped and discussion moved to the talk page. On cases such as this, I often find it is better to move the disputed content to the talk page for discussion and see whether there can be some compromise reached. Rockpock  e  t  17:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicolas Atwood
Please respond on the talk page there. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Giano at Kittybrewster's page
Oh, lovely. Taking an unrelated opportunity to snark at an editor you don't like, Rockpocket? Are you by any chance hoping for Giano to respond angrily so you'll have the pleasure of seeing him blocked for violating his civility ban? This is a warning: don't be so spiteful. Bishonen | talk 09:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your comment, and my apologies if I came off sounding spiteful, that was not my intention. I was making an observation based on a repetition I have seen. And I commented on it because those involved with the Troubles have enough grief of their own without getting sucked into that which indisputably surrounds Giano. If there was any insinuation, it was on the predictability of the consequences of Giano's actions; as much referring to those that will be only to keen to challenge him as Giano himself. I'm an equal opportunity snark - its the inevitable drama I was lamenting, not the protagonists.


 * It wasn't meant as criticism on a personal level either. Giano is a very smart man and I never fail to be impressed by his nous and sense of fair play (he has obviously picked that up from the natives). Giano and I have corresponded on occasion so he knows my email address. He also knows my thoughts on him (and I can assure you its certainly not dislike, Bishonen). So if he wants to respond to me, angrily or otherwise, then he can do so without concern. Thanks again for your input, its always a pleasure.  Rockpock  e  t  10:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Stroke Air
What article? And when has anyone ever sung a song with the words londonderry air? It's sung one of two ways. Sorry if I got the mark up wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.127.211 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Our article called Londonderry Air says "The Londonderry Air (or Derry Air) is an anthem of Northern Ireland..." Hence we should direct to the name of the article. If you have evidence that this is incorrect, then you should bring it up on the Londonderry Air talk page. Rockpock  e  t  00:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It does say that, is wikipedia now self referentially validating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.127.211 (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, so if you have a reliable source that disputes it then we can change the title of the Londonderry Air article. But if there is disputing to be done, it makes sense that it be done on the primary article, not in those articles that link to it. This seems be contradict your claims, though. Rockpock  e  t  00:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Usercheck please
Rock, could you check IP User:86.27.162.213 against the list of editors involved in the British Isles naming dispute? The IP is used solely to edit-war on these articles and I strongly suspect a "regular". Include the relevant Admins in the check please. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't do that I'm afraid - I don't have the required tools. You could ask Alison, who does, or make a request at WP:CHECKUSER. But I very much doubt a check would be carried out in this instance, since it doesn't meet the criteria for a checkuser. If there is evidence of tag-teaming with an IP to avoid 3RR then I can take another look and perhaps semi-protect it, but until then I would just address the IP's point, rather than worry too much who is making it. Ultimately, I think, these two articles will be merged since they are essentially the same - the question will be which one will be merged into the other, and that should be formally discussed. Rockpock  e  t  17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rockpocket (and welcome back, BTW ;) ) Given that it's a Troubles-related issue and that we've had intensive socking already, I checked and can point out that this is a non-issue. More details on my talk page - A l is o n  ❤ 17:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there you go. Thanks for letting me know. Rockpock  e  t  18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think to force a merge of these articles would convince many of us (who are not already aware of it) of the dictatorial abuse of superior voting power of some Anglo-Wikians. Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be too pessimitic Sarah. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that would depend which way the merge went :p
 * I'm not really sure what can be done to counter that though, except perhaps ignore the the opinions of the Anglos and the Irish and leave the rest of the world to decide. I expect, in that scenario, the apathy would be deafening, though. Rockpock  e  t  22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a bit of tolerance of diversity would leave both articles alone. Clearly a purely geographical article wouldn't include the Channel Islands; so whatever "BI" is it manifestly ain't purely geographical. Whereas "B & I" is. Sarah777 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd think so, right? But where do we draw the line? Besides what is in a name anyway? Technically correct articles get merged all the time. When common usage is concerned, technical accuracy isn't really the over-riding issue. For example how many black people do you know? Technically speaking, I bet the answer is none. Though I expect you know some dark skinned people.
 * Also do the Portuguese protest at their peninsula being called Iberia (from Hispania) due to the misleading and offensive implication resulting from a historical naming? Should we consequently redirect that article to Spain, Portugal, Andorra, Gibraltar (which is really part of Spain anyway), and a tiny French territory in the Pyrenees. I jest of course, but it does seem to give some perspective to why this is such a contentious issue and where this could lead if we over concern ourselves with throwing off colonial shackles. Rockpock  e  t  23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of genocidal Imperialism there is no such thing as "overconcern" at throwing off its shackles - except maybe in the minds of the linear descendants of the Imperialists. You obviously have a problem with my call for tolerance and diversity? Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hell no, not at all. We should all strive to be tolerant of diversity. If we can manage that while adhering to WP:5P, which is what we as Wikipedians primarily have to concern ourselves with, then I'm with you. If not, I'm with 5P, I'm afraid. Rockpock  e  t  00:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Faux pas?
Did you mean "unlikely" :-) Giano (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, actually. I meant "find the articles that are likely to get him into trouble [and put them on the restricted list]".
 * My opinion, for what it is worth, is that its looking unlikely that there will be enough support for Vk's unblocking at this time and pushing it though could be inexpedient for the ultimate success. I think the page you are drawing up is a good idea and will eventually be put in place, but Vk's ongoing (or at least very recent) socking appears problematic for a lot of people. I think if Vk can lay of the socks for a month or two more, then your plan would be implemented. It might be too soon. Rockpock  e  t  19:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I always have a problem understanding the double negative, or whatever the grammatical term is. The VK "problem" is always going to be contentious, so I think it may as wel be faced sooner rather than later. I am fully aware there is a lot of undercurrents wishing him to remain blocked, and I think it is the undercurrents who are half the problem. I think, give him a chance - at the moment he is keen to edit and comply, I don't want to lose that, if he blows it now, well, that is his loss. I just don't want to see him as a troublesome sock in a few months, wandering embittered and unable to return because the hidden backbiting and goading has won. Giano (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The point about it being "too soon" is, in extremely concentrated form, the one I have been making, Rockpocket. Give the community a few months without socks, and I wouldn't even be looking for editing constraints, though your experience is much more immediate than mine. The current discussion isn't (or shouldn't be, in my opinion) so much about VK as it is about any editor who would behave as VK has behaved in respect of this block. I am concerned that the discussion to lift the block is taking the form of a licence to cover everything VK has ever done, whether related to the block or not. This doesn't feel reasonable or appropriate to me. The "backbiting and goading" Giano fears are much more likely to be the undoing of VK if the propsal goes ahead now than is any open discussion of opinions in dissent that are currently on view in the many places where this is being considered. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, Bielle, and used your elegant argument at ANI as a template for my reasoning. I understand Giano's point of view, but I also see why there is significant concern about the sincerity of an editor who claims to wish to stick to our rules but was indef blocked for sockpuppetry, and proceeded to create over 10 socks in response. As I said elsewhere, I am not particularly concerned about Vk coming back - I trust Giano's involvement would mean that will be resolved one way or another. But the other point of view is that is already resolved, and he has shown nothing that would indicate that he has addressed the issue behind his block (a blatant disregard for WP:SOCK).
 * Is Giano's point of view shared with a significant proportion of the community, on contrast to the other point of view? I'm not seeing that at the moment, to be honest, if anything its about 50/50. And my fear, also expressed elsewhere, is that forcing though an unblock with that famous Giano will when there is serious opposition will lead to meta-problems. In that case, Vk is going to end up reblocked and we will have another round of tedious drama for no practical real gain. The alternative, would be to convince Vk that this plan could work but he needs to show that he can abide by our policies by laying off the socks of a period of time while still blocked. In a month or two, those concerns would be alleviated and your plan would have a much better chance of attracting wide support.
 * Finally, it does appear on the face of it that the restrictions are draconian considering the block was for sockpuppetry. However, there is a looong history here. If Vk is to not just come back, but remain, then there needs to be some way of saving him from himself. Because he has shown time and time again that he cannot address controversial issues, and deal with challenging situations, in a manner that is acceptable to the community. So the restrictions are integral of any unblock motion, if he is to last longer than a week or two. Whether his past transgressions alone are reasons for opposing his unblock is a matter for debate, but it would be shortsighted not to at least consider them.
 * Again, I just want to reiterate that this suggestion is aimed at resolving the situation without the most light and the least heat, its not aimed at scuppering Vk's wish to be reinstated. Rockpock  e  t  20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a quick question (I dropped in here for a different discussion) - are you saying that 50% is not a significant proportion of the community?!! Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its as significant as the 50% that has the opposing opinion. Rockpock  e  t  22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So both are insignificant? You saying 100% of the community are insignificant?! Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the glass half full or half empty? It's both. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Which leaves us on ground ripe for exploitation by those wishing to push an agenda in either direction. But based on the comments made, a few months of non-socking would leave Vk with around 70% support. That would leave him with much better prospects for a permanent return. Rockpock  e  t  22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Being an Administrator, must be a headache at times
Hello Rockpocket. Concerning all the 'British-Irish' related disputes on Wikipedia. I don't envy your & the others job (Administrators). How do ya'll keep your emotions in check? GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With great difficulty :p - A l is o n  ❤ 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With very great difficulty after witnessing the spectacularly poor judgment demonstrated by some today. With friends like these, who needs enemies! Oh well, lets hope Vk has it in him to keep his nose very clean, because he is going to need to. Rockpock  e  t  00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Saw that; is Deacon in trouble? I hope not. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who knows where this will go now but it is exactly the sort of scenario I expected if someone unblocked at the moment. Its worse actually, because there is no structure to the probation conditions - everyone seems to have a different idea of what they are - meaning Vk will have to tread even more carefully. Now if he does something an admin, any admin, considers to be in violation he get banned, and he doesn't have much grounds for argument since he agreed to the conditions. Pure folly. I'm hoping Giano will see this for what it is and counsel Vk to wait, but we'll see. Rockpock  e  t  00:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked Vk to hold off from editing, until things are resolved between Deacon & you guys. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Y'know, this is a good thing. While I'm pretty sure VK is heading for unblocksville, we really need to make sure everything is by the book and there's no room for ambiguity - A l is o n  ❤ 00:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel as though the community is being managed. The discussion has moved from why Vk was blocked and whether or not he has redeemed himself, with no concensus, to an assumption that he will be unblocked, though controlled by constraints that have almost nothing to do with his block, also with no concensus. Now that the Deacon has moved pre-emptively, without him having had any involvement in the current discussion -unless all this has been on IRC and decisions made there- the focus has moved completely away from the original point (and person) and is turned to (a) getting the Deacon to unblock and absorbing a lot of energy in the process and (b) to discussions of the constraints. The process is being pushed along to an inevitable ending by sheer weight of misdirected emotion. Shortly, we will all be too tired to think straight and will just wish it to go away. I will just try to get the discussion back on track one last time, and then I, too, will be too tired to care. Vk was blocked for a specific reason: the creation of sock puppets to evade an earlier block. Throughout the current block he has continued to edit, without interruption, by creating more than a dozen block-evading sockpuppets. Where, in any of this, is there the smallest suggestion of a change of either heart or behaviour? Smoke and mirrors! How can we expect respect for the community's rules when the community shows itself none? ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I has been managed. It started by lawyering out of the "ban" wording, which would permit a consensus to overturn the block. It then proceeded to a discussion on Vk's talk page where, of course, his friends could contribute support to get the ball rolling. The goal is not to foster respect for the community's rules (if that was the case Vk would never be back, since he has - and I'm not exaggerating here - broken every single one of them I can think of: threats, harassment, personal attacks, revealing personal details, sock puppetry, meat puppetry, edit-warring... hardly any of which has apologized for or expressed regret). The goal is get Vk back whatever way possible and different people have different reasons for that, some out of self interest. Now, as most of us admins familiar with this situation saw very quickly that the way this was being set up, Vk was - as Allie puts it - "heading for unblocksville". It was, quite frankly, only a matter of time once certain people got involved. So I'm working on the cynical basis that, since he is inevitably is coming back, then lets try and ensure that we maximize the value to the project (Vk's good work on boxing), while minimizing the disruption (pretty much his contributions anywhere else). This is why the focus is largely on the probation rather than the block. If the probation is done right, then Vk can't damage the project and it doesn't really matter then whether he is blocked or not.
 * Your reasoning, supported by Andrew, is entirely valid and I agree 100%: why, on principle, are we even discussing an unblock for a sock puppeteer that has continued to use sockpuppets throughout his block? I don't know the answer to that, except to say Vk has always been a special case. Rockpock  e  t  03:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (Aside: Interesting, Special case in computer terms (rather than mathematical) seems to mean either something that slows down the processes or that provides erroneous answers. I have to find my amusement somewhere.) Here, we are preaching to the choir. All evidence, in this and many other cases, points to the fact that the drama is the goal, and not, as most would like to believe, an unfortunate consequence. What I haven't worked out, because it is late and I am old, is why this is all happening in this way and at this time. Is there a precedent needed for an even less appropriate return? Is someone looking to make a name? Is boxing so integral to the heart of Wikipedia that Vk must be brought back at all costs? Are there specific admins being brought into disrepute in a systematic way? Is all of this a set-up for Vk's faliure? I think I may have to move this to th talk page for the conspiracy theories. Time for bed.  ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned user IP editing on British Isles pages
Hi. Is it possible to tell me who the banned user is?

PS. I notice you had a stint in CZ - I did too for around a week, and it actually made me realise what we had here: WP leaks gas in lots of places (abuse of email is my own biggest concern, followed by IP usage and the AfD process - esp. headcounting over un-WP POV forks) and despite the huge input practically crawls in many places, but we have clear strengths that CZ can't touch. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Its this this gentleman. CZ has its strengths for academic subject, but it could never match WP for scope. Rockpock  e  t  07:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I found CZ a little disappointing academically. I thought that some of their 'locked until re-approved' FA-equivallents needed improving, but they were focusing instead on new articles (as they were so short on academic editors). It was Policy which I (surprisingly) found WP stonger on, and in the end a number of combined factors made me actually resign (not least the fact that some misleading articles can exist without attention for months - a bit like Wikipedia used to like be before people got on top of vandalism). It's best to focus here I think. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I just added a comment on the BI page. The IP was reverting at least mostly supported text and TharkunColl was deleting supported text.  I suppose that MIGHT be relevant.  Did anyone else bother to read the reference?  Wotapalaver (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Is there any way to "initiate proceedings" against TharkunColl for his vandalism on the BI page. He deleted referenced text three times, each time with totally misleading edit summaries claiming that the reference didn't support the text.  Wotapalaver (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wish to initiation proceedings, the way forward is through Dispute resolution. You'll note that the first step in that process is what I and others have recommended you both do: Focus on content, not the contributor. If you try and and make no progress, then you can follow the other recommendations. Rockpock  e  t  06:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I accept that others do not share my interpretation of the definitions of vandalism.  For me it's clear, but I'll accept that others don't see it the same way.  As for Dispute resolution, I have very little faith that it's even worth trying.  Having read a few page archives I see that TharkunColl and other editors have been engaging in this "behaviour" consistently over a LONG time, deleting supported text that they don't like, inserting unsupported text that they do like, asserting things without ever providing reference, etc., and that this is from both "sides" of every argument. Also, the recent admin reaction to what's happened and a read through the archives lead me to believe that admins focus disproportionate effort on herding civility and insufficient effort on enforcing verifiability.  If this impression is even remotely correct then engaging in dispute resolution on Wikipedia will be about as constructive as engaging in logical discussion on Usenet, i.e. not at all.  If such blatant "whatever-it-is-ism" requires an individual user to go through a multi-step dispute resolution process while an offending editor can meantime simply go around deleting text because he doesn't like it and lying about why he's deleting it, then the system is near useless and only people with infinite time could possibly engage.  Since people with infinite time are more likely to be cranks and nutters then - like Usenet - that's what Wikipedia will become; a home for cranks and nutters.  Either admins enforce verifiability or they'll gradually end up policing a bedlam and asking the inmates to be civil to each other.  Maybe that's the way it already is, and look what happened to Usenet. I mean, there's a 3RR pending on BI already for a week and the "excuse" there was that the editor was so busy reverting that they forgot how often they were reverting...or something, and nothing has been done. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution can work, but only when all parties are interested in achieving something. My reasons for pointing you in that direction were to illustrate that nothing can be achieved unless the focus is on content, because name-calling and finger-pointing escalates content disputes to the extent that they no longer become this issue.
 * So your analysis is quite astute. You are correct that, in the first instance, admins tend to focus on civility in situations like these. There are a few reasons for this:
 * In content disputes, there are almost always three sides: those of the people disputing and the reality, somewhere in between. All sides are convinced they are correct.
 * It is not the job of admins to rule on content disputes. Their opinion on content carries no more authority then the parties in dispute.
 * Incivility and name-calling never resolve disputes, but frequently exacerbate them.
 * It is admins' job to curb incivility and name-calling.
 * Name calling and incivility is easier to deal with than content disputes, especially a content dispute inflamed by personal insults.
 * Being an obviously intelligent individual, you can see why in situations like this admins almost always attempt to curb incivility first, then when the focus is back on the article, they will attempt to guide the community to a decision on content and our policies. When that decision is made they can then enforce that if need be.
 * So, things have and continue to be said on both sides (TharkunColl's accusations of trolling aren't helpful either) but where have we got in resolving the core dispute (whether the reference is relevant)? Nowhere. If resolving that is your goal, stop harping on about what TharkunColl did and try and focus on what needs to be done. If you can generate a consensus that you are right, and the content should remain, then I will happily ensure that happens and that TharkunColl will accept that consensus. If you are both going to continue to making jibes at each other, the likely result is that you are both marginalized. Rockpock  e  t  17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Whether the content should remain is an entirely separate issue from the issue I have raised. My first question is whether or not it is OK to delete text with deliberately misleading edit summaries. If it is, then there is no point engaging on content or pretending to assume good faith because it would be a futile, Sisyphean task. If lying on WP is OK, then civility is a thin blanket covering the ulcers on the project. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Normal service resumed


I take a rather jaundiced view of WP and its incredibly childish politics, so this is one where, I suspect, we'll all have to make the best of it. In retrospect, it's clear that you and I were both right insofar as we were on a hiding to nothing: comment on AN/I and be damned as vindictive; don't comment and form part of the alleged consensus. Get ignored in either case.

After two years of quite pointless and unproductive name-calling, we had finally got the DEFCON back down to peacetime levels, and now this ill-advisedly premature act runs the serious risk of starting the whole thing over again. The next stage, I expect, will be for the mentors - who are only in place for the next three months anyway - to hand out the abuse on Vintagekits' behalf: chuntering by proxy. I just love sarky comments directed at me!

The only thing which vaguely surprises me is the identity of the unblocker; I had rather thought that it was going to be Guy, based on his previous unilateral consensus of restoring the User page but instead it's the archetypal random Admin, who's popped up from nowhere and taken no part in the discussion. Unblocking without notifying on AN/I was a masterstroke!

Sorry for letting off steam on your Talk page. This doesn't call for a reply. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do enjoy getting an award from you, Major, they are always unique. The anti-Kb jibes are getting tiresome, I agree. Still, once this is over I'm extremely confident we will see just as an enthusiastic campaign to unblock those on the other side. Perhaps our unblocker, a self-proclaimed paragon of "solid reasoning and listening, and patience", will cast his eye over their blocks and conjure up a consensus while the rest of the admin corps struggle with our emotions. Rockpock  e  t  07:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sorry, I (almost certainly) shouldn't have posted when I was frustrated, and simply calmed down with a bottle of Żywiec Porter instead!


 * There was a documentary on the television about Tony Blair two months ago, and they eventually got on to the issue of Iraq. There were then a dozen or so people interviewed, all of whom said that the wrong decision had been made, and gave a number of reasons why the invasion was a mistake. Next up was Tony Blair, who rebuffed any discussion by simply repeating, in answer to every question or point raised, only that he was still sure that he had made the right decision. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, Major, you aren't the only one who's bonkers - there is Blair as well! Sarah777 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was watching a terrifying science documentary with my son at the weekend - I didn't get the presenter's name, but he had a PhD - and, based on that, my new theory is that Tony Blair is a Sontaran clone agent, covertly working with his partner to bring about worldwide chaos, thus fatally weakening us Earthlings and preparing the way for alien invasion. You see now why I don't trust politicians... ?


 * I'm a bit ashamed that you've found this thread, Sarah. You'll be pleased to know that I've calmed down now, but we must now brace ourselves to face a far greater threat than Vintagekits' return to Wikipedia.


 * (You can watch the documentary on the BBC's web-site until either Saturday or the invasion of Earth - whichever comes first: ) --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Major, I'd be the last person on Earth to throw stones at folk for losing their cool!! Sarah777 (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The only one behaving well . ..
according to Giano, is Vk himself. It is easy to behave when someone is sitting on your typing fingers. I wish I agreed with you, that setting the rest of us up to play policemen or nanny, is a step forward for the community. However, with FloNight and Giano lined up to do roll call, it will happen anyway. I will stay out of the way; I can recognize a steamroller from far enough down the road to get out of its path. We will talk again of happier things. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Things have settled down enough to respond. As you have seen, your reasonable and calmly stated position, even when supported by Andrew and others, was essentially ignored (and you were taken to task by Vk himself for your efforts: "John, Andrew, Bastun and Bielle are all being pretty harsh on Deacon for his unblocking of me." Notice all those named are those who have highlighted the sock issue, while all the rest of the people who were harsh on Deacon are still possible supports, so get a pass for the moment!). No, drama like this is driven by shady back-room politicking behind the scenes trumped by admins wishing to make a name for themselves out front. This is what Wikipedia is largely like at a certain level. I have learned that, in these situations, when you see the steamroller coming its a good idea to either get out of the way or jump on board and try to help steer it to relative safety. Those who politely but resolutely stand firm against the traffic get run over.
 * Nevertheless, when the conditions are finalized there will be an opportunity for you to express you opinion again, though it would be understandable if you have given up in disgust. Rockpock  e  t  06:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "When conditions are finalized" anyone who dares speak against them will be torn apart by the crowd. At that point, there will be so many people who have been caught up in the process, and thus are heavily invested in its being accepted, that any small voice saying "We are focussed on the wrong thngs" may never be heard again. Vk was right. In my case, I was being harsh on Deacon, but the short-sightedness of his action deserved it. (Every once in a while, even with this case, I forget that the each step is a part of the managed process, and objections or admonishments are a complete waste of typing time.) Perhaps some others may pick up the banner. That those of us who keep going back to "Show us you can behave" are being so very pointedly ignored says, in its own way, that we are definitely being noticed, but that the word has gone out to stay away from all questions of sockpuppetry and the value of Vk's word. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see Vk says "Why did I use the sock to !vote on Gianos page? It was stupid retaliation for Kitty, Lauder and his socks piling in and !voting against him." This may be Vk's memory but is not true. The fact is that Lauder appears to have !voted twice (once as Christchurch and also as Chelsea_Tory whose vote was discounted because he had too few mainspace edits - not that Vk knew they were the same person at the time) but noone else did so (although I can only speak for myself of course but Vk specifically and falsely names me). By contrast Vk scooped up a number of meat or sockpuppets earlier to !vote in afds on various "volunteers". Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a mendacious argument, and clearly false, as you point out Kittybrewster. Had Vintagekits really learned about David Lauder's vote-rigging, as he claims, he should have alerted an Admin or posted on WP:AN/I; he certainly had no right to behave as he did. It's also yet another demonstration of blaming someone else for his own behaviour.


 * We currently have the ridiculous spectacle of Vintagekits saying, "I only did it because of him", and the argument being made (by proxy) that David Lauder's behaviour was worse than his own; and David Lauder saying, "I only did it because of him", and his behaviour was worse than mine. Both, alas, need to take responsibility for their own actions. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. And it is precisely because he is not taking responsibility and is seeking to blame others that I remain opposed to his return at the moment. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the time or place to be discussing Sussexman's ban.He and his sockse were banned for altogether different reasons, a long time before VK had even heard of them. They are not "associated." We now know the sock, Lauder, had no business here in the firts place, so can be erradicated from the equation. Giano (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether there is merit in it or not (and I don't know), I think things are complicated enough without trying to factor another person into the same equation. Once we have settled Vk's fate, we can turn our attention to Lauder. It may be that ArbCom will take this out of the hands of the community (for reasons was are not party to), in which case I'm not sure what else could be done. However, if ArbCom indicate that they are willing to let the community discuss a return, then I promise that I will give that matter the same attention as I have Vk (though I can't guarantee that there will be as much community interest).  Rockpock  e  t  21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That strikes me as eminently fair and humane; thank you very much. I'm just concerned when I see a vast amount of effort being expended on behalf of one editor (yet again, hem-hem), whilst the other miscreant apparently languishes in an eternal limbo. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a bit of a mystery why some editors appear to pique the community interest more than others. Once Vk is resolved, I'll contact the Arbs and see where Lauder stands. If they do not object to it, we can see if there is some way we can implement a Vk protocol (as it will be known) for him too. Rockpock  e  t  07:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Of the best of my knowledge, Mr. Lauder has already brought it up with ArbCom who have not taken up his cause. While you know how I feel about VK (especially the constant socks, etcetera), I stepped out of the way of the unblock discussion, because there was already a consensus.


 * But for all VK's numerous faults/mis-steps, to be honest, Rock, I think it's daft to even CONSIDER unblocking DL. He's been banned by ArbCom (as Sussexman). He's been banned by the community. (as David Lauder). That's two very formidable steps to overcome. But even if the "BAN" is overturned, I can promise you that I will fight like hell to make sure the block is not.


 * Mr Lauder's history is consistent, especially considering his legal threats, his block/ban for making them, and then just making a new account to get around it, and the use of sockpuppets to fake consensus on items. SirFozzie (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said up there, I'm not really at all familiar with Lauder's story. If Foz's summation is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then clearly there will be little chance the DL will be unblocked at this time, ArbCom would not permit it. However, I gave my word, and therefore I will look into the situation as promised. The reason I think that is fair, is because for most of Vk's appeals in the past, the party line was that "those on the other side are behaving just as bad and nothing gets done about it". Well, something was eventually done about it and chickens came home to roost for a number of parties. Now we are proposing giving Vk another chance as long as he is not in a position to cause problems, there is no reason, on principle, that we can't at least consider that for other parties.  Rockpock  e  t  02:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BHG, FloNight et al
Hi Rockpocket:

I came across the following on BHG's talk page. It's the "6 hours emailing" among an inside group that troubles me. As it would appear that everything is being arranged behind the scenes, it is even more of a waste of time for anyone not on that emailing list to get involved than I thought. We can hardly present sane options if we are not given the whole story. I am really sorry about this. No, this is not a plea to be on the list; it is a plea for transparency for all. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Bielle. Well first of all, there is no "list" (that I am aware of). Secondly, its not uncommon for admins (and, I expect, non admins) to communicate by email about Wikipedia. I get emails from people all the time informing me of things they would like me to look at, and I will often email individuals if I have something to say to them personally, because posting it inevitably leads to others chiming in.
 * The emails I referred to in this instance were those sent to Vk himself and some of his supporters indicating that, while I'm sure they were pleased he was unblocked, it was not in his long term interests for it to happen that way. I indicated that I believed Vk would be reblocked presently and asked them not escalate tensions further by protesting, but to remain focused on putting his case across so it could be discussed properly. They were also responses to people who were expressing annoyance over Deacon's untimely and unhelpful intervention. Those were sent by email, I expect, because they used slightly uncivil language borne out frustration.
 * There are people with plans, most certainly, and one of those plans is to get Vk unblocked and I personally think that will succeed. I have a slightly different plan. My plan is for the never-ending saga of acrimony around Vk to end: be it by indefinitely being rid of him once and for all, or by permitting him back in such a manner that he simply can't cause any more problems. And my plan to is to let the community decide which of these it would prefer. I can't control that decision (maybe others can, but I can't). But I can do my best - on and off-wiki - to shepherd those people with their own preferences to a position where the community can decide between them and everyone will abide by that decision with a minimum of disruption.
 * And if we can get in that position, I think everyone should have their say. I don't envy the person whose job it is to determine what the community decides, but I would hope they would read every comment and give each the value it merits. I don't intend offering an opinion myself, therefore I hope you can see that I am working behind the scenes to ensure the community can have its say in an informed manner, not to somehow pre-empt that decision by forcing one option through. I can also assure you I am not saying anything fundamentally different in private that I am saying in public, just using slightly different words! Rockpock  e  t  02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt either your good will or intentions. I am always troubled by Wikipedia decisions, conferences, discussions, et. al. happening behind closed doors, unless the matter is one of privacy (which is not, so far as I know, the case here). I have sometimes been tempted to go to email to make a comment or suggestion, but realized very early on that the only reason I would be doing so is to say something not permitted by policy (or ordinary courtesy), or that was inflammatory or unkind. It is a way of creating an "us" and "them" set-up: that is, I can say this to you because you are like me (in some unspecified way) but I cannot say it out there because "they" are not like us, and either wouldn't understand or would understand all too well. I decided, instead, that I would simply not say what could not be said to all.
 * The content is not the issue, the process is. Your integrity is not in question with me, so your assurances that it is only the tone that is different from your exchanges on-wiki I am not challenging. There is, however, an appearance of an in-crowd and an out-crowd. To the extent that this is a functional difference or even a heirarchical difference, it is perhaps in evitable in any human grouping. The dysfunctional part is that it is done while we all pretend that what is on-Wiki is what determines the course of Wiki, and that is patently untrue. (And I am not here, obviously, referring to management matters, ArbCom consultations and the like. They are set-up so that a shroud can be drawn around their proceedings where necessary.)
 * Your hard work notwithstanding, I still believe the outcome has been decided. Even if the "vote" (sorry, "concensus") goes contrary to that outcome, Vk will be unblocked, by whatever means it takes, and without any proving time. I don't hold this against him. Someone wants him back or someone stands to gain something for themselves by having him back. He wants to come back and as soon as possible. There is something important about the timing; I laughed aloud when I read FloNight's comment about the planets being aligned in favour of the unblocking. Time is everything to the alignment of planets.
 * I wish you well in your efforts to set up a discussion basis for the community at large. If I turn out to be wrong about all this, I will be back, with just as many words in apology. I won't go pulling out the humble-pie recipe just yet, though I do keep it handy. One of the disadvantages of a (relatively) long life is that I have a lot of experience in apology. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point and you a probably correct. In general, unless matters are sensitive, such things should remain on-Wiki. I should make it clear, though, that (at least from my perspective) that has largely been the case. I have sent only 4 emails in relation to this, 2 to Giano, 1 to Sarah and one to Vk. Two of these were replies and they all pretty much reinforced what I have said publicly. My excuse is that the chatter that often accompanies posts on-wiki is distracting and potentially inflammatory. This is particularly the case with regards to discussions with Vk and Giano, both of who have legions of talk-page watchers. In the past, one-on-one discussions have turned into meta-debates as people chip in with their personal grudges. Generally, that generates more heat than light, so I have learned that if you wish to resolve something with Giano, then its a hell of a lot easier and constructive to do so by email.


 * If the outcome has already been decided, I don't know who by, because at the moment I appear to be the person who is being nominated to assess the community consensus (not something I particularly relish). To that extent, at the same time I was planning to offer your proposal: That Vk be unblocked after a sock-free period. I am aware that has not been discussed to the same extent, so what I would like to know is: What period would you propose that be? and, after that period, would you propose Vk be unblocked with zero restrictions, under the restrictions here, or under different restrictions? If you, and those that expressed support for this proposal, could give me some idea of that, I will propose both (along with the remain blocked option) fairly and equally. Rockpock  e  t  08:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if I might chip in here, Bielle? (And I do apologise for taking up yet more of your Talk page, Rockpocket.)


 * Throughout my own postings on the subject of Vintagekits' return, I have tried always to be conscious of the fact that the two people who have suffered the most from his behaviour are Kittybrewster and Rockpocket himself, and I don't expect either of them to have agreed with the position that I took, which is that an unblocking might be justified. However, as Rockpocket says above, the potential prize would be drawing a line under the whole 'Troubles' aggro. That requires weighing up a number of factors: is Giano an appropriate mentor? Can we trust Vintagekits this time? - but - as you have identified - probably the central question is: should we over-ride policy for the hope of finally ending a two-year edit-war? This is the nub, I suspect, which will form the basis of the eventual WP:AN/I discussion and vote on Vintagekits' return. I take the attitude that this is one time when we should accept, however reluctantly, that Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
 * Can I just interupt here and point out, that I don't think me being a mentor to VK has ever been on the cards. How can I be a mentor, I'm not an admin? Secondly, regarding emails, it is often easier to talk to me one-to-one by email, in spite of me being so famous and important I always reply :-). Rockpocket has my permission to quote from those emails if he wishes, there is little there that is not said here. Giano (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Achieving an end to the troubles surrounding 'the Troubles' sorry! will also (I think) require a resolution, one way or the other, of the associated David Lauder ban. As that can only, apparently, be lifted by the ArbCom, that would be yet another reason to send both cases up to them. Oddly enough, I disagree with you that these matters are preordained; if and when this case goes back to WP:AN/I for wider community discussion and voting I would expect quite a strong 'No' vote, or at least a no consensus. So I don't think that 'the planets are aligned' or, as we worshipers of great Cthulhu put it, 'the stars are not right': In his Talk page on Wikipedia dread Vintagekits waits doodling . --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rk, quote: "They were also responses to people who were expressing annoyance over Deacon's untimely and unhelpful intervention. Those were sent by email, I expect, because they used slightly uncivil language borne out frustration." Then, in a later posting. Rk, quote: " I have sent only 4 emails in relation to this, 2 to Giano, 1 to Sarah and one to Vk." Your rhetoric is not quite making sense. Are you self-contradicting? Or are you making "it" up? I detect a smoke screen, is that true? 78.19.232.249 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm generally not in the business of engaging with banned users, but since the implication is now made let me clarify. Your confusion comes from some rather clunky sentence structure: Multiple people expressed annoyance to me by email, but I haven't replied to them all (yet). I did send multiple responses though. If you are any good at logic puzzles you should be able to work it out. Please go back to your hate-site now, any further communications from you on-wiki will be removed. Rockpock  e  t  17:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * An associated post that you might be interested in: here. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really familiar with the background of Lauder and his block, to be honest. I was on a wiki-break when it happened, and I keen hearing hints of some terrible business he is supposedly behind, but no-one seems able or willing to say it (presumably either because it is libelous or untrue). I agree that if we are reviewing Vk's block, I see no reason we don't review his either, unless there is some additional WP:LEGAL issues that make that problematic. I presume ArbCom is aware of the Lauder/Vk parallel and are taking that into account in their discussions. Ultimately, unless there is a consensus in the community on Vk, his case may end up back in their hands anyway, either formally or informally. Rockpock  e  t  17:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (After ec, and then after a maintenance pause for the servers to catch up, and thus not taking into consideration either of the two immediately preceding comments, the first of which I don't understand anyway.)
 * First, in response to Major Bonkers: I don't think that Rockpocket minds us using his talk page to try to sort things out, as long as we are being civil to one another and not setting out to start flames in other places. I am equally sure he will let us know if my assumption is false, though in the kindest possible way.
 * And to Rockpocket: To have the Wikipedia version of The Troubles be over is a wonderful goal. (I will stop there, though I wish you all the very best and will also do my best to ensure, at the very least, that I say nothing to endanger that goal. If I say more about it at this moment, I risk fanning flames unnecessarily.) As to the "Foreordained", I did say I do a good line in apology if I am wrong. It is quite possible, I suppose, that the concensus should go against unblocking Vk. I just believe, however, that that will not be the end of the process, and I am not thinking of the reaction of Vk himself, but of what may be pushed along by others. (If the stars are not aligned, then they will be made to align or made to appear to be aligned.) I have some thoughts about "Cui bono", other than Vk, of course, but to discuss them further would be a senseless distraction at this time, and only just slightly more than conjectural distraction at that.
 * For some reason, my thought that welcoming Vk back should have something to do with a visible change in the specific behaviour for which he was blocked, has been catagorized as a "policy" position. If it is, and I know of no such policy, then my choosing a policy is entirely fortuitous, though, given the general high esteem in which policy is held by many of the participants, surely not serendipitous. I do like a process to make sense, however, and, if it does break new ground, the new process is only really useful if it can be a precedent for future cases. (There will always be, in a community this size, somebody with great knowledge in a useful area, who cannot disengage from a challenge or a disagreement, however much continued engagement may cost himself or others.) If you want a suggestion, I would say 3 months entirely away from Wikipedia (less any time since the use of his last sock) without using a sock, an IP or anything other way of communicating, and without talk page commentary or "backstage appeals". As for what should guide him once this period is over, there are many of you with direct experience here who are much better qualified to say. I was content to say he should then be readmitted free and clear, except with the knowledge that the next block/ban would be a permanent one. Vk knows what the problem areas are. If he wanders back into them, he will know. If he is baited back into them, then both parties should be treated equally strongly. (That's my Grandmother's rule about consequences, by the way. The only exceptions were babies and those family guests who could not be expected to know the rules.)
 * I have one further suggestion. Rockpocket, if you write up the presentation for the AN/I page, I would strongly recommend that someone else assess the concensus. Find someone with stature in the community in general, a lot of experience with contention and no known bias with respect to matters Irish, matters "Giano" or matters "Vintagekits". ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is my strong preference, Bielle. I only intend to assess the consensus if it is very clear (and, realistically, when is anything very clear in this topic?) I think 3 months from the use of his last active sock seems a sensible proposal. I think a simple Troubles ban for one additional year would be a suitable condition at that point. Vk says he doesn't wish to edit in that area, and if we can help not lead him into temptation, then it can only be to his advantage. Additionally, feel free to use my talk-page to discuss at will. Rockpock  e  t  17:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rock, it might be helpful to now line up someone else to assess the consensus. It seems at this stage that the consensus will be clear, but I think that the worst possible outcome would be for someone who is perceived as involved to close the discussion controversially, and generate another meta-drama. Lining up someone else now would be a good way of avoiding that. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I agree. I have been fortunate, perhaps lucky, that I have managed to walk the tightrope here so far. I think I'll quit while I'm ahead! My tentative plan is, when the discussion matures, to contact the 'crats collectively and ask if one would considering reviewing the discussion and coming to some sort of conclusion at the appropriate time. I have seen some very sensible summing up from them in the past, and would hope the could make the right decision this time. By the way, your option 1.5 seems like a very good summation of the opinion so far, but that may change. I wish NYB was still around, he would be a perfect guy to close.  Rockpock  e  t  19:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * John Rock, you have done a brilliant job of walking the tightrope, and it's no reflection at all on your good efforts that I suggest someone else for the final stage. I like your idea of asking the 'crats, and suggest an early approach. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense taken (an I expect John won't take any either either ;). I'll approach them later today. Rockpock  e  t  20:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * oops! Yes, dunno why I typed John, but I did mean you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * has indicated on the 'crats noticeboard that he was considering closing the discussion. I have no objection to this. My feeling at the moment is that the close shouldn't be too controversial, but if anyone knows of a good reason why Ryan wouldn't be a good closer then do let me know. Rockpock  e  t  07:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If the opinions continue in the same vein, then the close is not likely to be controversial. As long as the person who does the close has no known "side" in the matter, who he or she may be is not going to be an issue any more. Ryan would be as good a choice as any, though I don't know why he would be volunteering. (Perhaps I just don't grasp the process. Are there points ascribed for such work? Does it go on your "I wanna be a ___________" score card?) However, the timing might be significant. All of the opinions gathered so far have been over a weekend. I would suggest that the matter remain open for at least two or three more days. This is not because I think there will be any change in the current overall view, but because we are looking for a decision with as little potential for drama, now or later, as is possible on Wikipedia. ៛ Bielle (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should be closed, and VK unblocked, at a suitable time, by a Crat or an Arb so that the whole things appears whiter than white, I also think if VK does fail to abide by the rules the blocking should be done by an Arb or a Crat - but hopefully it won't come to that. Giano (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits at WP:AN/I
You've done a good job on setting up the proposal, being neither too obviously directive nor too partisan. Well done. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, very well done for your good work. --John (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both. My hope is now that there can be some sort of consensus on one of the options and, if it is to unblock, then it is successful. Rockpock  e  t  06:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your good work here. You have laid out the options very clearly, but also remarkably concisely ... and given all the tangled history here, that was no easy task. I feared that whoever summarised things would find their summary being attacked from some quarter as a misrepresentation, and the real proof of your success is that there is no sign of this shooting-the-messenger. Very good work :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, if there's a criticism to be made, it's that you've been too fair, by drawing a discrete veil over Vintagekits' previous bad behaviour towards you (eg. User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 18) and the harassment issue. Still, a thankless task, well done. And, by the way, I'm surprised to have to pull you up for your English, but 'disinterested', primarily a legal term, means that you have no interest or bias in a case and therefore that you are acting objectively; 'uninterested' means a lack of intellectual interest, one step removed from boredom. Thus: you are disinterested in the case of Vintagekits and uninterested in baronets. We are all extremely uninterested in continuing this discusion further! --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Too fair" is oxymoronic. You either are or you ain't. Sarah777 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't say fairer than that. --Major Bonkers (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Sarah777 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are the fairest of them all, Sarah - my wiki-lovely! --Major Bonkers (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:David Lauder
Please can you protect this page for the moment; it's attracting the usual wind-up merchants. --Major Bonkers (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Need I remind you to remain civil and no personal attacks. BigDunc  Talk 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I missed your request, I spent most of today in an emergency department with a sick wife (all sorted now though). I don't think that discussion was going anywhere constructive and think Alison took the right course of action. I don't think engaging Giano on this subject is a good idea. Either he knows something we don't (or he thinks he knows something we don't). But either way, he clearly doesn't want DL's situation to change and any amount of discussion isn't going to change that. That may appear inconsistent with his position over Vk, but it is his prerogative.
 * If it comes to that stage, Giano would get his opportunity to oppose or support the same as anyone else, but its probably not in DL's interest to have him involved at this time. I'll see what I get get from the Arbs when I get an opportunity this weekend, but until then I would recommend thinking about how one would draft unblocking conditions that would be acceptable to the community. Rockpock  e  t  00:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in replying. Agree with you re. Giano; last week he was constructive and this week he was - ah - not quite so constructive. He and I have become part of the problem, and I agree with you that I don't think much would be gained by continuing. Will leave it to you to try to bring about some sort of fair conclusion; you did a very good job with Vintagekits and you're doing a good job with DL. Thank you for your interest.


 * Also sorry to hear about your wife; for what it's worth, best wishes to you both - and wait until you get children - they're great hypochondriacs, always at the doctors or in hospital! --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say well done on being willing to stick your head above the trench to approach the Lauder issue? Lauder remains in my mind as a good editor no matter what occured in the past. Regardless of the outcome, it is nice (refreshing?) to see people taking action rather than settling for the far easier status quo (And I speak there as one of the lazy buggers who will generally go for the status quo providing the quo doesn't involve his leg on fire) Narson (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Narson - only just noticed yours (sorry!). Is anything happening on this issue? --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving Article without agreement
Rock, pl check Great Britain and Ireland asap; some e-warriors are trying to merge it despite an active discussion which is not concluded. Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Edit Warring by User:CarterBar
Rock, pl note that this British editor has moved the article while discussion is ongoing. Are you going to do anything?????? Sarah777 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So - everyone making remarks about "ranting", "incredibly extreme" (!), etc etc etc is cool. Article deletion etc and warring with endless blocks for 3RR, incivility etc is cool so long as you're...eh...supporting "mainstream" pov. But, apparently on the talk pages of Wiki "the comparison of the British Empire to Nazi Germany is patently offensive." and merits a Community Ban. Does this guy even realise what he is saying there?!! The implications for Wiki WP:NPOV? And I guess if they silence every person who holds anti-Imperialist/liberal views they look at one another and see the their own reflections and all is well in the Wiki-world. It seems to me, based on the number of constant reverters, warriors, vandals, IPs, squabbler, serial getting-blocked-ers that it can't be the alleged "disruption" that provokes talk of Community Bans. It must be the views expressed per se.


 * "the comparison of the British Empire to Nazi Germany is patently offensive."
 * But - stating that calling Ireland part of the British Isles is offensive is patently disruptive!
 * And characterising the above as Orwellian is being....eh....even more disruptive.
 * How could you advise me to buy that COS in order to be allowed stay on Wiki?

Sarah777 (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you have much choice if you want to stay on Wiki. Sometimes we have to bite our tongues and accept things around here don't function as we would like. This is one of those times. Irrespective of how right you may feel you are, Wikipedia is not a battleground or a soapbox and a significant number of editors are seeing your contributions as exactly that. Statements about geo-politics rarely go down well, and in persistently suggesting they are the motivation for just about any edit that you disagree with, it was pretty much inevitable that it would come to this. By painting the criticism at ANI as further examples of Anglo-American POV, you are simply reinforcing their point. Maybe it is, but it is also the community POV. Which would mean the the community has a systemic Anglo-American POV. Is that a big surprise?


 * What those at ANI wants to hear from you is that you understand that Wikipedia is not a geo-political battleground and will stop treating it as such (and really, Sarah, you have been recently. The whole Great Britain and Ireland palaver is so subtext driven that any outsider can see what is really going on). That means that you lose the terms "British POV" and "Anglo-American POV" from your talk-page repertoire, quit making disparaging references about any nation or its people, and stop couching any editoral dispute in terms of a cultural war. Are you willing to tell them that, and mean it? Somehow I doubt it. So the question then is, how important is Wikipedia to you. Because things really aren't looking that good for you at the moment. I have tried to temper the calls for a community ban, which I think are ridiculous under the circumstances, but you need to offer something more than a stubborn assertion that you are right and everyone else is wrong if you want to continue to edit unrestricted. Rockpock  e  t  06:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Since you were heavily involved in the discussion at Responding to suicidal individuals some time ago I thought you might be interested in discussing the merits of a similar but slightly different proposal here. I would be very interested in your opinion. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777
Her civility has greatly improved recently. Now Sarah should not be vilified for the errors of then Sarah. She promised to try and has done so.  Milk Float  10:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully Sarah will be given an opportunity to demonstrate that. Rockpock  e  t  18:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review
Thanks for you answer. I changed it a bit though:

from a "...not..." to "...no...".

Does this change your answer? Thanks68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I understood what you meant first time around. Rockpock  e  t  18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for protecting my talk page, my user page was also vandalised yesterday by same anonymous user. I hope he doesn't return. Thanks again for helping me out and to BigDunc for informing you.I'm still new here and am still learning the ropes.jeanne (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Ss
Ss has made more personal attacks after your final warning. Specifically here lower in the subsection -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#Is_ADHD_a_Biological_Illness

This was followed by a personal warning on his talk page here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ss06470#Hit_and_run

Which was followed by more attacks here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#status_of_article --scuro (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Further character assination attempts today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#Poor_sources_make_for_a_poor_article:_include_academic_and_medical_journals --scuro (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at this later today, Scuro. Rockpock  e  t  16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

TOR
Care to suggest any? I'm not at all up to speed on TOR or really much of what is involved with the CU background, although I have used CU extensively in the past. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. He is the one we tend to use . See also WikiProject on open proxies for more tools. The only reason I suggest we put this to bed immediately is because Sarah, for her sins, is avidly anti-sock. There is no way she has been sock-puppeteering. I believe that 100%. Rockpock  e  t  02:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I considered it dropped after Sarah openly admitted to the IP addresses, but was a tad offended by the pile-on that ensued. It was a legitimate request, and was designed to find additional (potential) TORs or IP addresses if that was the case -- and not knowing Sarah's full background prior to March (and the ANI threads)... I've seen worse, and it's always better to play it safe. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar tourists
You might take a look at Talk:Mair%C3%A9ad_Farrell as I feel there is some POV censorship of highly appropriate material. --Gibnews (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Appropriate to the McCann and Savage article not to the Farrell one. If as you say to show the company she keeps then lets expand article and talk about the shoot to kill policy in Ireland to show the company that murdered her. BigDunc  Talk 09:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * gasp* The 'M' word! We're not allowed say that on WP, remember?  Only that someone got convicted of murder. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 09:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the talk page. It appears, BigDunc, that the shoot-to-kill policy is indeed now being talked about in the article. From your comment it would appear you agree with me that that is equally inappropriate for a bio on Farrell. Perhaps you could assist in de-POVing the article from both angles. Rockpock  e  t  17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As soon as I touch this article I get accused of a lot of things from Gibnews we have a bit of history on this article with opposing views but will give it a go. But wouldn't mind if you keep an eye too thanks. BigDunc  Talk 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give Domer a chance to mull over it and, hopefully, rework it himself to find a better balance. If that is not forthcoming, I'll have a go myself later. I agree with you that these sort of things are a consequence of push-and-pull editing from people with opposing opinions, but the point I am trying to make is that Gibnews is no more a POV-pusher than Domer is. Both are trying to make the article accurate and informative, but - both having strong POVs on the subject - find themselves doing exactly the same thing. The problem is that people see faults in others' edits much easier than they do of their own!  Rockpock  e  t  17:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've mulled, nice to see you back around Rock:) --Domer48 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 (again)
Well done for this, very clearly and eloquently put. Let's hope the penny drops this time. Waggers (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No joy. Rock, can you PLEASE make her understand if there's no bending (not bending the knee, just realizing that a lot of people find her editing problematic and adjusting her behavior to that), there's very likely no unblock, and this block might just become permanent after all (by that I mean it's going to remain status quo.) SirFozzie (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried again, Foz. But there is only so many ways one can say the same thing. If Sarah isn't going to flex on this then I guess we wait. Or we come up with sort of restrictive conditions and unblock anyway with the hope she sticks to them. But experience suggests that would not go well. Rockpock  e  t  03:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, if she doesn't flex, then, sadly, the block has to stay up. SirFozzie (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

chromatophore
Hello Rockpocket, just letting you know that I translated the excellent article Chromatophore article into Esperanto and it is currently article of the week there. Cheers! - Eb.eric (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is awesome. Well done! Rockpock  e  t  00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My comment on DiHyMo's RFA
I was just wondering, but why did you remove the numbers on my comment, was it in violation of some policy or something? If possible, I would like to have it replaced because it clarified my two points. Anyways, no hard feelings, I was just wondering why.  J kasd  03:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I removed the numbers because they reset the numbering of the Opposes (See here}, which I thought was more important. I retrospect I should have just replaced the # with "1." and "2.", I'll do that for you now. Rockpock  e  t  05:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't realize that it would get reset since nobody was after me at the time. Thanks for fixing it.  J kasd  15:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, thanks for catching that. I've removed the logo. I didn't realize it was a non-free image. It's fixed now. I don't understand your charge of racial harassment. Jeanne's White, I'm White too, and we're both damn proud of it. I changed the language for the haters out there. Let Jeanne take it off if she doesn't like it. I'm on the road, by the by, so the IP is constantly changing. Cheers! 72.85.128.63 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you let Jeanne speak for herself. The box is there in the history, if she feels "proud" enough she can revert to that version. Rockpock  e  t  18:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking
No, I'm not mistaken. User removes warning for mild insult from his talk page. User removes it. User sees that it's been sanctimoniously added back, and gets irked. User then gets blocked for being irked.

It's not my fault that a lot of folks suck at dispute resolution. If one chooses to ignore WP:DTTR, one shouldn't be too surprised when users get irritated by that. What exactly did the blocking admin think would occur if he blocked Timeshift here, apart from exactly what happened? There are many ways to deal with a user who contributes great content but can be abrasive sometimes, and that sure ain't a helpful way of doing it, unless one is seeking to generate drama. Rebecca (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift9
I saw that, and I've registered my displeasure on her talk page. Thanks for letting me know, anyway, especially since she didn't do me that courtesy. My displeasure notwithstanding, it was a short block for an offense that, in the grand scheme of things, wasn't a serious offense, so I consider the matter closed (although I am concerned that she's sending him the message that overt disregard for core behavioural policies will be tolerated). Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That said, I don't endorse your re-block - I think you're veering awfully close to WP:WHEEL, no matter how bad Rebecca's unblock was. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a wheel war - it was undoing an ill-conceived block that was only serving to generate drama, and wasn't going to do anything to either make the user concerned less pissed off, make them less likely to swear at the blocking admin in future, or otherwise benefit the project. However, I see that you've gone ahead and restated, thus stirring up more drama for no apparent reason. Congratulations. You should be very proud. Rebecca (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * it was undoing an ill-conceived block that was only serving to generate drama? stirring up more drama for no apparent reason? Ha. Read that back. Rockpock  e  t  08:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you absorb it. Rebecca (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? I've been here a lot longer than you have, and your type does more harm than his ever will. Your last thousand contributions are not the slightest bit comparable to Timeshift's, you seem to really enjoy playing the enforcer, and you don't seem to be too good on the social skills. That's the last thing we need around here, and you're no model for anyone to follow. Rebecca (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If your justification for unilaterally undoing the admin action supported by three other admins without consultation is I've been here a lot longer than you have, then there is little point conversing with you further. I bet your daddy is bigger than mine too. Get over yourself.  Rockpock  e  t  01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment at Sarcasticidealist's talk page. As it doesn't really address the block at all but more your two comments about it, I thought I'd better notify here as well. Orderinchaos 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi, deary me, I must really have a bee in my bonnet or something about this :-) - I'm being particularly pedantic on the issue of ad hominen attacks (mainly because I attract a lot of them). On the British Isles Talk page, you posted that This is completely unacceptable and labelled it an ad hominen attack.  If you get a chance, would you mind pointing out the ad hominen nature of the comment please?  I'm coming at this more from an intellectual curiousity than any emotional connection. Now this was definitely one (should have been warned too).  --Bardcom (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There appears to be some confusion as both examples you link are to the same attacks. For the record, the ad hominen was I see TharkunColl and Matt Lewis are obviously back from that BNP leaflet drop over Antrim today... Your politics is reviled, and deeply so. Implying that other editors are members of a racist political party, then criticizing their politics. Rockpock  e  t  01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

UAN corrections
Hi Rockpocket

I think, it is important, that you and other wikipedia editors watch over the quality of the articles that are posted on this very important encyclopedia, in order to keep it as good, as it is. So thanks for that.

I've edited the original UAN articel, because I thought it to be important to informe interested readers about the whole story of this organisation.

I've just recently started to work for Franz Weber, the original founder of the UAN, a man of now 80 years, who never worked much with, nor has given much importance to the internet. I now are obviously interested in providing as much information about the original UAN as possible on internet.

Problem is, that the american UAN, which was founded by one of the original founders of UAN, has over the years forgotten about the original UAN but still uses the original Logo, with slight changes, and the www.uan.org URL. Therefor, whenever we tell people about our UAN and get publicity, people go on uan.org and are confused, because there is nothing about the work we did and do.

It is hard to find references or other proof of the existenc of the original UAN on internet, other then newspaper articles or references on other homepages, would it still be referenc enough, to mention them?

The Logo I placed, because this is the original Logo, the blue-one is the changed one from UAN USA. About the copyright-info, I'm not quite sure how to do it? Maybe you could help me out with this, and with how to make it a better article?

Many thanks and regards

Sirlobster --Sir Lobster (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777
Please could you drop by; I've very generously offered to add to your workload!

(Sir Lobster - what a good name! - wish I'd thought of that.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Sobo returns
Dr. Sobo returns, the window of opportunity is here. He is editing the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies and unusually, is not name calling.--scuro (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Rockpocket
Thank you, for your kind reply and all your information an offer for help. Your thoughts about the Logo are correct. And I will see, that I find some newspaperarticles talking of the foundation of the UAN.(in English)

To Major Bonkers: thanks for the flowers, wasn't my idea either. Was named like that from a friend, 'cause she thought I dance salsa like a lobster...sidewards, with my arms in the air.

--Sir Lobster (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you need a special User box. Do you also turn red?

--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Sobo attacks me personally again
The man needs his beak straightened. For how long is a good faith contributor supposed to accept repeated attacks? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies&curid=4833604&diff=218534496&oldid=218518634 --scuro (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lost Wages, Nevada
Welcome back from the water hole and money pit in the desert. Is your wallet empty? I didn't hear the mighty crack of any banks breaking in the general area, so, if you are "in the money", you haven't yet caught up to Mr. Gates. We are being drowned, wave after wave of high-intensity thunderstorms tonight. I walk the house looking for leaks, the sound of the pounding rain from a broken downspout having wakened me from a deep sleep. My spouse continues to sleep; his is the daylight shift. For everything there is a season, and this one is rainy. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland conflict
The ban specifically refers to the "Northern Ireland conflict", not the "Irish-British conflict over independence" as you refer to it on my user page. Your interpretation is unique in my experience. To extend the scope of the ban a full half-century back from that stipulated by arbcom is very much egging the pudding, especially when the group in question did not even operate anywhere near what became known as "Northern Ireland". As for the British terrorists category, surely it exists for a reason. If not to categorise British terrorists, what else? Or do uniforms preclude the possibility of terrorism altogether in your opinion?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you believe you should be able to edit articles regarding 20th century Irish Republicanism, then I suggest you seek clarification from ArbCom, since futher editing of similar articles may well lead to longer blocks. With regards to the (now numerous) Northern Ireland related ArbCom remedies, they have generally been interpreted broadly, and to include the incidents leading up to the formation of NI. After all, the problematic editing that surrounds NI related articles is equally persistent in those articles. Lawyering over exactly what is included is against the spirit of the ban, which is stop disruptive editing in the general sphere.
 * I don't have an opinion on whether the Tans were terrorists or not, other than to note that there has been almighty objections to referring to Republican paramilitaries as "terrorists" (note how empty Category:Irish terrorists is?) and therefore the same objections holds for those on the other side. The reason Category:British terrorists exists is because someone created it, no other reason. I would suggest you read WP:TERRORIST before adding such clearly controversial cats in future. Rockpock  e  t  03:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the deletion discussion for Category:Irish terrorists I note the following !vote:
 * Delete. Lapsed Pacifist 11:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * By the same token, don't you think that Category:British terrorists should be deleted also, rather than be added to articles? Rockpock  e  t  04:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I do. Well spotted, I had forgotten that. To explain, I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not we should use the word, it's that I find its current application is often highly selective. The possession (or not) of a uniform invariably being the deciding factor, in my experience.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is true, unfortunately. All the more reason to be rid of the word completely, unless attributed to a source, I think. Anyway, I genuinely would check where ArbCom intends the line to be drawn with regards to that remedy, since it may well lead to problems down the line. Rockpock  e  t  04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Vintagakits
As you added the probation header to his page, you may want to see the probation violation thread on his talk page. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You got email
Look for an email from me. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: the "favourite hate" name poll
You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)