Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive29

British Isles : Users User:HighKing and User:TharkunColl
This underlying dispute is related to Troubles in a way, so I feel like the remedies there could be useful. One user (TharkunColl) adds the term "British Isles" (referring, in general, to the area on the map that is primarily of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland) to articles, and the other user (HighKing) opposes the term completely and utterly, and they've fought battle after battle for months about this issue. They both have tried various parts of dispute resolution in the past, and it hasn't stopped them. The latest war at WQA shows how intractable the two are in this matter, and the sheer vitriol and argumentum ad nauseum shows that things won't change unless they're made to change. Therefore, I propose the following two remedies:

A) Both TharkunColl and HighKing are placed under 1RR on any article that has to do with the area of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and the related geographical area.

B1) In addition to A), HighKing is hereby restricted from removing the term "British Isles" or any such related term from any article. TharkunColl is hereby restructed from ADDING the term "British Isles" or any such related phrase to any article.

B2) Any new account or IP address that starts these battles up can be placed under the restrictions in remedies A and B1.

I think we have a strong case for both.. A) seems to be necessary no matter what, we've gone through edit after edit war, because these two people can NOT agree with each other.. and quite frankly, the reason I am calling for B1, is to be quite even handed, to take away the reason to edit war between the two of them SirFozzie (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope we look at this very carefully and act with judgment. Even the diffs raised by User:HighKing against User:TharkunColl at the WQA, viz. European Green Party, Cup and ring mark, Old-time music, Drovers' Road, Derry and and Saint David make it appear that HighKing is using this "dispute" (which I strongly suspect to be near enough artificial) in order to damage articles. In at least 4 of these cases, it seems to me that TharkunColl's use of British Isles was necessary to an understanding of the article topic. Removing "British Isles" in those places appears to be disruptive. PRtalk 12:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Reply to SirFozzie) HighKing has removed the term from literally dozens and dozens of articles, both under that name and under his previous account, User:Bardcom. I have added it only to about 3 or 4, though have also reverted many of his deletions - especially those that degrade the article in question by removing useful and legitimate information. The area described by the term is not restricted to the United Kingdom and [sic] Northern Ireland, but includes the whole of Ireland plus the Isle of Man, and no other term is available in the English language for this. HighKing has repeatedly refused to explain his reasons for removing the term wholesale from Wikipedia, though he claims they are non-political. ðarkun coll 12:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes to all IMO. Completely nip the problem in the bud. Viridae Talk 12:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Though the final one shouldnt used used to get in the way of consensus. Hence the specification "new" Viridae Talk 12:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I should also add that I have attempted discussion and compromise on numerous occasions. See, for example Wikipedia talk:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force - and notice HighKings' refusal to even answer. Also note Talk:Alexander Thom for an example of how, when engaged in a discussion on any particular article, no amount of references are good enough for him and he continues to revert regardless. Personally, I think it's unfair that I should be penalised for attempting to put right the damage caused by his single-issue campaign. ðarkun coll 12:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This ArbCom case has been opened in a very one-sided non-neutral way, and I would like to ask SirFozzie to provide, with diffs, the evidence of his accusations. Stating that HighKing opposes the term completely and utterly is wrong and I vehemently strongly disagree with this assertion. It is a bald lie. I don't, and I'm working at the British Isles terminology taskforce to create guidelines to usage of this term. In addition, I supported the use of the term during a recent edit war over the river Shannon. All of my edits are being reverted and being made the subject of controversy as a tactic. I have not edit warred over the recent articles, remained civil, and followed policy. I find it disconcerting, odd, and also one-sided that the WQA opened, to discuss Tharky's behaviour on reversals and personal attacks, has been let slide - effectively his behaviour is being sanctioned and condoned. If SirFozzie is referring to edit-wars, I believe other editors should also be asked the same questions - namely User:Blue Bugle, User:MidnightBlueMan, User:LemonMonday, and the numerous anon IP addresses - perhaps a checkuser would shed some light on why this has occurred. I'm very happy to be reasonable, but these accusations against me are the result of "marketing" and false claims by other editors, not based on fact. --HighKing (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that not only does HK revert addition of the term that TharkunColl has made, and disagree with them, he also removes them from articles TharkunColl is not involved in, and seems determined to remove it from anywhere he sees it on the project. That was the bulk of his editing a few months ago, anyway. He recieved a block specifically for this in July.  These proposals seem fair enough.  I am pretty sure a checkuser will not find anything amiss as far as TharkunColl himself is concerned.  Could it be that more than one editor disagrees with HK?:)  Wikiquette board is not the place to discuss sanctions on people's behaviour IMHO, it is an early step in dispute resolution, and as I understand it is just meant to alert the person accused and other editors to a person's behaviour and let them know more formally that it is considered bad form.    HK has his own conduct issues such as templating people with warnings if they question his edits.  Sticky   Parkin  13:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also feel that neither Tharkuncoll nor Highking have probably used any socks themselves, but I feel that the sheer number of different IP editors who pop up and make highly inflammatory messages on a wide range of articles' talk pages about these issues needs attention. If it were possible, I would like to see a systematic investigation of every anonymous IP editor who has made inflammatory comments to see if they have been used by registered editors hiding behind this screen of anonymity to be disruptive and abusive. I think this kind of blockable behaviour may well have happened on both sides in this dispute, and possibly involving some old well-known sockpuppeteers who have been disruptive in this area before. They are merely inflaming the entire area. However, I realise that this mass checkuser action will never happen, but I think it is important to express a gut feeling I have by stating it here.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to draw people's attention to the comments and exchange I have had on this matter here. I believe some of the comments are highly relevant to the issue, but it would be tedious to reproduce them here (because it would also involve reproducing a message from Highking). A large part of the problem is the use of fallacious arguments (on both sides) coupled with a biased interpretation of messages and actions that attempt to allow the real underlying issues that need resolving be ignored in favour of deficits like "fragility" in other people's reactions, or that other editors do not work to high standards of evidence or proof. Both these problems mean that unless both editors can be persuaded to change, or have change enforced upon them, disruption in my opinion is likely to be maintained and grow in intensity and scope.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish the articles to remain stable & I don't want to see Tharky & HK getting blocked over this issues. The 1RR solution? will save them from themselves. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Oppose as it appears Tharky & HK have reached an agreement to halt edits/reversion, while Taskforce is in progress. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If anyone is in any doubt about how WP:LAME this warring is, have a look at the history of Glowworm from September 30 onwards. I would add User:MidnightBlueMan and User:62.40.36.14 (which I've just blocked again per WP:DUCK) to HighKing and TharkunColl. There are probably a few more as well. Actually, thinking about it, just indefblocking anyone who adds or removes BI repeatedly without a good reason would be a good way of fixing the problem. Black Kite 15:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like that automatic block idea for veteran IP accounts, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of IPs about, though. Some, like the mobile phone IP that I've blocked above, are easy to deal with, but others, like the Eircom dynamic addresses from Ireland and the BT Broadband dynamic addresses from the UK, are impossible to deal with permanently as the collateral damage from rangeblocks would be too big. Black Kite 15:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Before adding my comments, a couple of more general points - 1) Is this the right place for this proposed action? Reading the guff at the top of the page it seems as though it isn't, but maybe I've misunderstood. Is there a sanction already in place against HighKing and TharkunColl? 2) GoodDay, will you stop banging on about IPs at every opportunity. It just deflects contributors from the point at issue, as has happened here, yet again (see above). Take up your arguments elsewhere. So, regarding the subject of this "enforcement"; It's simple. HighKing is a tireless deletor of British Isles. The reasons he's given for removing it are many and varied. So far as I can see - correct me if I'm wrong - TharkunColl hardly ever inserts the term; just one or two examples recently. I don't insert the term, I only revert HighKing's deletions when he has no justification for the deletion (nearly all of the time). I am quite happy to abide by a sanction preventing the addition and deletion of BI right across the encyclopedia, apart from where there's a clear, agreed error. I'd put money on it that TharkunColl would do likewise, and all other editors would as well; apart from HighKing. He will not agree to any compromise; he reserves the right to delete British Isles wherever, and whenever, he thinks fit, and it seems that no amount of persuasion will change him. Why then, is the "enforcement" directed at HighKing AND TharkunColl? In consideration of British Isles addition and deletion, and not about civility or any other side issue, only HighKing has a case to answer. Other editors are merely reacting to his continuing antagonistic edits. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  17:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the main sentiment that this is not the place to handle this issue, but I also believe that something must be done sooner rather than later. To that end, perhaps an Arbitration forum is the correct place to have a proper analysis done on edits and conduct.  The recent examination and overturning of Sarah777's block gives me hope.  MBM's attempt to paint Tharky in the glowing colours of sainthood, complete with halo, is comedic value at it's finest.  You get a "You Made Me Laugh" barnstar!  (ask me and I'll grant it, I wouldn't want it to be interpreted as a taunt if I just put it on your Talk page) Seriously though, it seems that editors are more concerned with making stuff up than with looking at the truth.  How many times today have I seen editors (usually British editors) refer to me a "tireless" and my edits as being wrong - yet if you check my edit history and the articles in question, it shows that my edits are reasonable.  In fact, measured against any yardstick you'd care to put up, even by the draft WP:BISLES, my edits are reasonable, as is my conduct (more than reasonable).  It appears to me that some editors regard any tampering with the term British Isles as a form of vandalism.  And yet, still, no comments on Tharky's behaviour.  Or the fact that MidnightBlueMan is continuing to revert articles.  --HighKing (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It may interest admins to check back a few months to find the time that - on a previous occasion - the term "British Isles" was removed from a bunch of places that it didn't belong (i.e. it was incorrect) and it was serially reverted by TharkunColl and similar editors. I can't comment on HighKing's edits.  I haven't followed them.  79.155.245.81 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would like to cite some actual evidence. On no occasion have I restored British Isles to an article where it was incorrect. ðarkun coll 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I have always been loath to make official complants about anyone - I value freedom of speech too much for that - this has now gone too far. I would like to inform HighKing that I've just done precisely that at Administrators%27_noticeboard. ðarkun coll 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Freedom of speech' or getting your own way? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman has reverted the section, stating quite correctly, that a discussion is going on here, and it smacked of forum shopping. SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So I'm not even allowed to complain now, am I? Well this is what I said, anyway: For months and months now, both under the name User:HighKing and User:Bardcom, this editor has been systematically removing the term British Isles from as many articles as possible, and is virtually a single-issue account. Any reversions are greeted with cries of vandalism, plus a large number of spurious and time-consuming official complaints. He says take it to talk, but as this example will show Talk:Alexander Thom no amount of references are good enough for him, and he will continue to revert regardless. And when people tire of discussing it with him, he accuses them of breaking the rules. I have many times tried to engage him in discussion, to suggest compromises, and to enquire after his reasons for this campaign of removal, but on no occasion has he ever acceded to such requests. In my opinion his campaign is a form of serious vandalism, because by removing this information the articles - many dozen at least so far - have been degraded, sometimes ridiculously so. Furthermore, those of us who have been trying to revert him have ourselves been accused of edit warring. Those who revert serial vandals don't usually get this sort of treatment. ðarkun coll 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support 1RR on these editors, and maybe on the dispute over BI in general. I am confused about one thing, User:HighKing is User:Bardcom? If that is true, why are we allowing it? I had no idea I was in a debate with the same editor when I was discussing the Alexander Thom removal of BI by HighKing (who denied having any political motivation). Doug Weller (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed my username, and I do not have any political motivation. Funny how everyone tries to pin that one on me :-)  Would it make you feel better perhaps, if you thought of me as a rabid republican British-hating ginger-haired irish-dancing Louis Walsh lookalike?  BTW, I'm still waiting for your response on the Alexander Thom ... --HighKing (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He changed his name after he was blocked by User:William M. Connolley for "vandalism" for removing instances of the term British Isles. Make of that what you will.  However we're all allowed to change our name within reason/policy at WP:CHU.   Sticky   Parkin  19:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So just how would 1RR work then? HK takes out BI, TK puts it back, HK takes it out again - BLOCKED. Or perhaps, MBM inserts BI, HK takes it out, MBM puts it back - BLOCKED. If that's how it's supposed to work - it isn't going to work. Much as I don't like what HK is doing, the scenario I've just described is unfair. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be best, that you didn't get involved with a HK/TC edit dispute. It would be seen as though you were taking advantage of one of the editors 1RR restriction. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What we have here is a dispute about a naming convention. I suggest somebody creates a subpage to the relevant page, perhaps Talk:British Isles/Usage and then everybody goes there to discuss when to use this term in Wikipedia. To me, an American of East European heritage, I cannot see the reason for all the fuss, but I can understand that this must mean a lot to those who are British or Irish. Rather than playing ping pong with a bunch of articles, why don't we go get a consensus as to how this term should be used? Jehochman Talk 20:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We've got one, British Isles naming dispute & a Taskforce on British Isles usage, in progress. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. We've got a task force WP:BISLES which I've signed up as a participant from the start. The draft so far is at WP:BIDRAFT2 and comments are invited at WP:BIDRAFT1.  I would readily accept the guidelines and recommendations made by this task force, but I also worry that the taskforce has been bogged down in the past by arguments and stonewalling by a few editors, and I am concerned that the intention of some editors would be to ensure that the task force never finished...  --HighKing (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At risk of stating the obvious: there is no reason to change British Isles usage in existing articles until such time as the task force completes its work. Why make temporary changes that won't stick, and will only encourage edit warring?  If anybody is stonewalling the discussion, please report them at the appropriate venue and somebody will deal with it. What would be good is if everyone here agreed not to take provocative actions, such as changing Great Britain and Ireland to British Isles, or vice versa. If some other editor unknowingly steps on that land mine, I think anybody can revert them, and point them to the taskforce discussion.  Does that sound like a plan? Jehochman Talk 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to agree voluntarily not to add the term to an existing article, if HK agrees not to remove it from any existing article. ðarkun coll 21:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to wait until the taskforce completes it's work and I also voluntarily agree not to edit any article that results in the removal of the term British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well now, that's what I like to read. If you both feel ya's don't need to be restricted (1RR), I may just remove my support for it (the 1RR). GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya see guys, If HK paved half my road green & Tharky paved the other half blue? It'll be great, 'cause my entire road is paved. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

e/c - I'm not sure if this is resolving itself, but I'm going to add it as I've written it, and I wan't to defent HighKing regarding Wikialerts etc:

I'm going to offer my experience of each editor and make a couple of points on the background of this. I think all this is borne out of frustrations elsewhere.

A few months back now, HighKing, when he was Bardcom, went through articles that used British Isles and removed many cases of the term - some of which did go too far, and others were, in my opinion (and the opinion of other users 'pro' the term, such as User:CarterBar) - a genuine service to Wikipedia: the term was indeed over-used in a number of people's opinions. Unfortunately, HK didn't initially 'get' the strong reaction against him making his changes on such an 'ordered' level, no-doubt as he saw himself as doing a simple service. He was far too defensive about his actions for a while, objecting too strongly to people's protestations. When a user called Crispness started to 'back up' his edits on the revert table, things got complicated, and a few people started thinking in terms of a taskforce. Around this time HighKing stepped back, and has supported the ensuing BI taskforce (WP:BITASK) 100%. The taskforce is currently at a lull, and I'm sure the recent edit flurries are frustration with this. It seems that HighKing is testing the drafted guideline out (I think he has a right to at least try this), but Tharkuncoll sees the entire guideline as 'censoring' his notion of free speech.

In my interaction with Tharkuncoll, he seems to want to use the term whenever he sees fit, and have no form of guideline at all. It is very frustrating to argue with him as he used terms like 'censorship' and 'freedom', which I personally find a cynical convenience, and very weakly argued on the occasions he does argue it. IMO, we simple need some sensible guidelines, and Wikipedia is full of these: it is not an total anarchy where people can do what they want.

In my eyes HighKing has (thus-far) been the strongest contributor to the proposed WP:BITASK guidelines as they stand (excluding myself, as I broadly structured the proposal we currently have). DDStretch contributed significantly to begin with, and around 5 others have contributed to some degree. It has to be said Thurkuncoll 'backed out' of the taskforce before contributing at all, and steadfastly refuses to do so. But HightKing has been the most consistent and enthusiastic of the contributors - he has been continually positive, and has contributed a number of textual additions. Tharkuncoll has made no contibution at all, and has completely blanked various questions to him surrounding details of the guideline on perhaps a dozen occasions now - he is not easy to deal with at all, as he simply ignores what he doesn't want to address.

Tarkuncoll says that he has only inserted the term completely afresh on a few occasions, but his clearly calculated insertion of it at the River Shannon (the major Irish river) was a significant act for everyone involved - and was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and even Tharkuncoll signed up for the subsequent BITASK taskforce. As another BI-inserting act, he then immediately released an 'Islands of the British Isles' Template as his self-designated 'first act' of the taskforce, making it awkward for us from the very outset. So regarding Tharkuncoll's propensity to use the term, my argument is that if HighKing edits in a way that removes the term, and Thurkuncoll replaces it without actually improving HK's change in any way - then that IS an act of adding the term. I would add to this that HighKing is editing according the drafted proposed guidelines at the taskforce, while Tharkuncoll is typically doing as he sees fit.

So for me it's not a case of 'six of one and half a dozen of the other'. Tharkuncoll is very much 'pro' the term, and wishes to see it on Wikipedia to a far greater extent than HighKing wished to remove it. HighKing is trying to follow some rules, Tharkuncoll has shown (me at a least) a number of times that he simply doesn't care who he upsets, and will play the 'freedom' card to justify himself like the most cynical of right-wing tub-thumpers IMO - John Lennon he is not. On the whole I am for using the term (and class myself as a 'British' editor), but extremism on both sides simply makes life impossible. In my eyes Tharkuncoll is one of the extremists, HighKing isn't.

I think a real problem here is that people are loathe to get involved simply because Tharkcuncoll alone is so hard to deal with. He has a real-life friend called StickyParkin who often appears as an apologist for him, but he stands by himeself as far as I'm concerned.

Another reason I feel that so few people are getting directly involved in some of these recent burst of edits (apart from general worrying about edit wars), is that people could be generally waiting to see what happens at WP:BITASK. Some people want a BI guideline that uses only 'Ireland' (and not 'Republic of Ireland') for the Irish state. This 'Ireland' issue is the why the BITASK guideline is at a current lull. An Irish disambiguation taskforce (WP:IDTF) was consequently made to try and find a conclusion over Ireleand disambiguation, which had a flurry of interest at the time across all the main Irish spaces. Unfortunately WP:IDTF is at a lull now too, as some users want Brown Haired Girl to chair the difficult opening debate, and she isn't answering her email and seems to have switched Wikipedia off at present. So it is extremely frustrating times for all of us who believe in these taskforces and guidelines. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to endorse this summary by Matt Lewis. It seems quite accurate in the estimation of the relevant degrees of willingness on the part of HighKing and TharkunColl to engage with the community on the British Isles Taskforce. I still think there are problems in both of their actions, and in some, but not all, of the actions of their supporters. I particularly want to say that in my experience StickyParkin has not demonstrated any problem behaviour in these areas.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks dd.:) The erudite subject areas that these people edit I find very impressive as it's a subject about which I'm quite ignorant.:) I should probably disclose that my interest in any of these debates is those of a slightly common English person who can find sources with google news, who also happens to consider myself an IRL friend of User:TharkunColl.  He has never notified me of any of these debates- you know how nosy I am on matters of the wiki and I usually notice them before TharkunColl does himself.:)  I think you're wrong about HK though.  He had this crusade on the BI front, which other editors have noticed, before he ever came across TharkunColl's edits.  TharkunColl has been here well over my three years and has made many prior, different edits. TharkunColl (and this is just my personal interpretation and not anything he's said to me) finds HK's edits irritating but he was not the initiator of this BI insertion/extraction feud- he just finds HK's edits bizarre and irritating and sees the obvious POV and wants to do something about it.  Sticky   Parkin  22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, HighKing has contributed (or at least he did when I was involved in it) to the British Isles taskforce, whereas TharkunColl ignored it, and spoken against restricting him in any way on the matter. However, I do feel both have their problems, as I stated. Some of the links I gave above show some of the problems I think are present in HighKing's actions (including some that have occurred after I posted the link to User talk:Snowded.) The problem in all of this is that both assert that they are working within the rules of wikipedia (I know, there are matters concerning edit-warring that cause us pause for thought on these claims, but let us accept that they are working within the rules for the sole purpose of the point I am making here.) What it is important to realise is that a rigid adherence to rules may not be possible, because the rules are messy, may be inconsistent in places on close examination, and some rules and guidelines have a precedence over others, such as the requirement to realise that we are trying to work in a collaborative, helpful, and friendly environment. In this case, although one is perfectly entitled to, say, remove a term from an article if it is not referenced, and if it is not patent nonsense, it is by far better to ask about it and discuss it on the talk page, or tag it, instead of mere removal which can cause unnecessary drama: by talking about it, the reasons can be given full exposure and all parties have the potential for learning in a way that mere and abrupt removal doesn't easily allow. Also, even if one's messages are responses to prior sub-optimal behaviour on the part of another, one is still obliged, unless it is patent vandalism, to not act so as to inflame further the matter: in other words, saying something along the lines of "they did it first" may explain the reasons for one's reactions, but it doesn't excuse one's actions. To sum this up: we need editors to show consideration and a willingness to consider the effects their actions have on other established editors, and not to behave in what I, a UK citizen, would call a "jobsworth" rigid adhering way to specific rules. That is why I think both sides need to be brought to a realisation that the current state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, and that both sides should make real and positive steps to examine their own behaviour, carefully listening to what others say, rather than counter-attacking anyone who raises possible problems in their actions, or ignoring them, or accepting restrictions through gritted teeth (I'm not saying all or any of these have happened). Even a small move in this direction may well help even if all of it is not possible.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's interesting how the fact that we are friends in real life seems to be such an unusual situation amongst Wikipedians as to actually be worth commenting on. ðarkun coll 22:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, I never noticed (giggle). Anyways, the adding/removing British Isles on Wikipedia? begs the question. Is it being added/removed for the benefit of innocent & less knowledgeable editors? or the benefit of all editors who adde/remove it. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol goody:) Yes T, people tend to get banned as socks or meats, there have been socks who pretend to be friends, but I've heard the joke (no offence other wikipedians, just joking) that wikipedians are suspicious/jealous of real world friends because they don't have any.:)  Sticky   Parkin  22:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hehe yes. Perhaps we should write an article explaining what they are. ðarkun coll 22:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I usually see my friends down the pub, who's going to buy me a drink on the computer! ;) Jack forbes (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We're both skint and lazy though lol:) Anyway, on with the 1RR show...:)  Sticky   Parkin  23:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that Tharky & HK have agreed to work things out at the Taskforce (while not adding/removing BI on related articles). Can this AE report be put on hold? GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I would fully endorse Matt's analysis here and support a 1RR on both editors. HighKing does appear to be attempting to follow some form of guidelines while TharkunColl is a strong advocate for the BI term. So while I don;t think its a 50-50 issue we need some form of action as this has been going on too long. Looking above we have conditional statements not undertakings which would itself justify some action. -- Snowded  TALK  23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I endorse Matt's analysis, but conditionally oppose 1RR (see above). GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Its gone on too long, all three solutions proposed by SirFozzie make sense. If the editors have reached agreement then they will not be affected by it.  There are two many conditions especially the "If  does X then I will do Y" which is mealy mouthed.  -- Snowded   TALK  23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna wait and see (what HK & TC do). I still have a little faith in them, yet. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to see. As long as neither side continues this disruptive war, I'd be willing to consider suspending any discussion for remedies.. I do warn both users that the community's patience is rapidly running out with the BI wars. You have your chance. Make the best of it. SirFozzie (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's up to you guys (Tharky & HK); don't disappoint us (the community). GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should be emphasized that it is not just the two main editors (HighKing and TharkunColl) who need to take care, but also the people who have been indulging in similar behaviour on similar articles as well. This includes anonymous IP editors as well as registered editors, some of whom appear to have been registered for only a short period of time, but who seem behave as if they have an immediate and wide-ranging knowledge of wikipedia's policies, and who should therefore know better. But I wish everyone success in modifying their behaviour for the better.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm very glad it has now been resolved amicably on all sides. ðarkun coll 09:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A bit late perhaps, but I generally support the summary by MattLewis. I didn't realise that HighKing was Bardcom but indeed, this has been going on a long time.  If anyone wants to see TharkunColl's typical approach, the recent attack at the main British Isles article is eye-opening.  The page is still blocked as a result.  HighKing/Bardcom's approach seems to be to remove "British Isles" references where it's inaccurate (e.g. the Storm of 1703), not necessary or appropriate, or just not unambiguously true.  On at least some occasions his edits have perhaps been a little biased.  A sin, but hardly a mortal sin.  TharkunColl, on the other hand, is a determined troublemaker on many articles.  He'd edit the article on The Netherlands to describe it as a country east of the British Isles.  79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW - here's a classic TharkunColl edit on the British Isles talk page.  I believe that saying that a country is uncivilized might qualify as a little bit uncivil. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, that is exactly one of the problems that has plagued this whole area. However, I'm not agreeing with this comment by 79.155.245.81, but criticizing it. Tharkuncoll does not say that a country is "uncivilized", because that is a biased interpretation of what he wrote. He did write: 'I think the only thing I can be bothered to take issue with is your characterisation of Irish society as a "civilisation". ' The wording he uses makes your interpretation unlikely in my opinion, as he uses the phrase and form of words 'a "civilization"'. Instead I think the more likely interpretation is that he was saying that he disagrees with the idea of an "Irish civilization" in the sense of a culture and society associated with the Irish which is distinctive and notable enough to be called a civilization on its own merit, separate from other related cultures and societies: go and read it again. So, there are interpretations other than the one you have given, and I believe that there is a more likely interpretation that does not approach being uncivil in the way you are attemptimng to pin on him here. It is not an act of good faith to take the most uncharitable interpretation to describe and interpret what he said in a biased way. This kind of inflammatory interpretation needs to be countered strongly in thjis area. I imagine that some would think a formal warning would be in order for you for making such a potentially inflammatory interpretation.  DDStretch    (talk)  07:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very tempting. I agree, Tharkuncoll is not saying anything is uncivilized.  'Civilization' is very different from 'civilized' and I am sure Tharkuncoll knows that.  Doug Weller (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Perhaps you're right. However, that's how I read it. As I've said before, I have long ago stopped assuming good faith with TharkunColl. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd suggest people start re-assuming good faith. This is just a chance to let all parties show they CAN edit under WP's rules, not ollie ollie oxen free. SirFozzie (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP's main rule is verifiability. As soon as TharkunColl starts backing up his opinions with references I'll be delighted to start to assume good faith with him again.  Meantime I have seen plenty of reasons not to.  79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've only been around a month. On those grounds, you might have said the same thing about Bardcom/HighKing if you'd looked at their edits as closely as you seem to have looked at TharkunColl. Tharky can be a right pain, don't get me wrong - I've had real disputes with him before.  HighKing/Bardcom is much more civil (although agressive at times), but they aren't that different in what they are doing. Which is a political argument, no matter how much either one of them claims it isn't. Doug Weller (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't let that slide. Let me be very clear.  I AM NOT EDITING POLITICALLY, OR WITH A POLITICAL MOTIVATION.  Don't go around making that accusation again.  I've always made it clear that I'm interested in accuracy.  Your attributing of motivation to my actions, especially trying to politicize them, is not fair, not accurate, and most importantly, not true.  My edit history will also bear that out.  Which reminds me - I'm waiting for a response on the Alexander Thom article from you, as the references you have provided do not appear to stand up to scrutiny.  I've been patiently waiting for nearly a week. --HighKing (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my experience that a lot of people aren't aware that they are acting politically (with a small 'p' please note, not a thinking that if someone is focussing on something like this "to make it accurate" they must have a reason other than accuracy to do so many edits). I think my references stand up enough to show 'interest', by the way but I also don't think anyone will convince you. And an interest in accuracy should have meant that you took enough time in removing 'British Isles' to make sure that the deletion didn't leave obviously ungrammatical sentences. That was some time ago and I'm not suggesting you are still doing that, but I remember a number of examples. Doug Weller (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is more my experience that a lot of people are unwilling to accept that one can edit articles for accuracy in a non-political way. It is also more my experience that people continue to believe in an easy lie rather than do some hard work to uncover reality.  Whatever.  --HighKing (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, there should be no problem with pipelinking: [British Isles|Britain and Ireland]. That the link stays intact with the British Isles article & while presenting the growing usage of Britain and Ireland. Nice compromise, eh? GoodDay (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can someone roll this up? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal: Before doing that (rolling up the debate), it might be worthwhile to remind people that a lot of the problems are maintained by a continuing misuse of the relevant talk pages. For example the history and current state of Talk:British Isles is full of soapboarding, political comment, attacks and derogatory comments about both sides, and much other stuff that is not supposed to be on talk pages. I recommend that admins and established editors take time to review WP:TALK and be quite stringent in dealing with comments posted on the relevant talk pages that are nothing to do with the specific task of how to improve the relevant article. WP:TALK states that it is a "behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The amount and extent of disruption suggests to me that the time has come to be much more stringent in not allowing so many exceptions. There are specific warnings for misuse of talk page (see the uw-chat templates) as well as the personal attack templates. I suggest that they get used more if appropriate when misuse of talk pages on relevant articles to this dispute are detected. Additionally, I suggest that common sense suggests to us that, given the antics of some editors in this area in the past, editors should be warned about gaming the system to issue warnings messages to "get back at" editors with whom they are in disagreement over content.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to move those questionable discussions at talk: British Isles, to talk: British Isles naming dispute (assuming the latter article would be more appropiate for such discussions)? GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For some of them it might be. But for most of them, the content is so laden with personal comments, anger and invective, and other inadmissable comments for a tak page, we might as well merely delete them. But for the fact that some of them are "stale" in the sense that they were made a day or so ago, I think it would be appropriate to warn the authors of the messages. But it is probably best to start afresh now, and I have modified one of the notice template messages at the top of the article into a stronger warning one, with warning that comments not abiding to WP:TALK may now be removed and the editors may, in certain cases, be formally warned. It may still be an idea to archive the discussions that are inadmissable, which might well remove almost all of that talk page in one go. I suggest similar action is taken on related pages where such inadmissable messages have occurred that are inflaming the entire topic.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In agreement, as there's alot of mud-slinging on those British/Irish related talk-pages. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also in agreement. Actually, I've been calling for stricter policing on comments for some time now...  --HighKing (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Provisional IRA article
It looks as if edit-warring tactics are being used again on another article. I made a good faith edit at Provisional Irish Republican Army because I noticed something incongrous. Two editors thus far have stepped in to revert me without discussing the reasons I placed on the talk page for my changes here. This just appears to be a continuation of the bullish attitudes of some editors who prefer readers to believe politcal spin rather than be educated by the Wiki. Two reverts have been made by User:O Fenian despite my attempts to reason with him here andhere. This appears to be a relatively new editor and perhaps he could be given the benefit of the doubt after a warning? Thunderer (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I appeal to admins to urgently assist as a result ofthis.  The discussion is ongoing here and I'm afraid User:O Fenian is completely out of order in my view and needs urgent guidance on WP:Civil and other items in the five pillars. Thunderer (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take a look at it as soon as I have a free moment. In the mean time, I'm going to place the article on protection so we can sort this out. SirFozzie (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know that that's necessary. The only issue is this relatively new poster who doen't yet seem to have the grasp of how to discuss matters.   He's just inadvertantly shot himself in the foot by providing a link which proves himself wrong.  I've posted on the talk page that he should self revert because I don't want to do any more reverting on that page and invoke sanctions on myself.   He's a newbie and I don't want him shooting down because he'll blame me and that will only makes possible discussion with him in the future more difficult. Thunderer (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

New Edit Warrior under The Troubles
This new user has jumped in with both feet, legs, and assorted other body parts to the trouble. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is banned user User:Wikipiere, or another blocked/banned/reincarnated user but I'd probably get rejected for fishing. I am going to leave him a one and only warning that if he continues to jump in under these articles in a contentious way, he's subject to the enforcement of the principles of the ArbCom case. SirFozzie (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Defamation of my name
I would like to invoke discretionary sanctions from Digwuren's case regarding the following defamation of my person in a very public forum (ANI) in a thread not involving my person, actions nor articles edited by me: on Oct 29 has slandered my name with the following remark: "However the biggest irony about him, is that unlike some active POV-pushers and stalkers like User:Piotrus..." (link to current threaded discussion for context). I certainly hope that the community will take a stance against such slander.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I second this. Such casual defamation of uninvolved users at ANI is unacceptable and seems like an attempt to escalate the reported incident by turning it into part of the wider ongoing conflict between "East European" users. --Folantin (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This falls within the remit of standard administrator intervention (or lack thereof) as described in WP:NPA. No arbitration enforcement required, take up the issue at the appropriate ANI thread.--Tznkai (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cited arbitration enforcement seems to require putting that user on the Digwuren's warning list, this is why I reported the case here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Eupator with regards to Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2's decisions (again)
I had appealed on this page on 11 October 2008 (now in archieve 28, here), regarding the persistent wholesale reverts of user Eupator (until the specified date) on the Hemshin peoples entry. In the mean time, this user has ceased to implement such wholesale reverts.

There has been no resolutions or comments from the Arbcom. Therefore, I want to bring this issue to attention again, as I really want to learn about the Arbcom's perspective and decision on this issue.Omer182 (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want Arbcom's perspective, you need to go to RfAr.--Tznkai (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually the issue is not to start a new arbitration case. It is more about bringing to attention of this user's conduct which in my view violates the remedies imposed on him/her by the AA2 arbitration case. Even though the user has ceased such conduct after my appeal here, I think the case needs to achieve some kind of resolution. This would at least give me an idea about whether my opinion regarding his/her conduct as being a  violation is correct or not. Omer182 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have strongly recommended mediation to the parties. This is sort of a last chance.  Next, I think we must determine which parties are stonewalling, and ban them from the article and related articles. This article is covered by Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Jehochman Talk 16:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Cukiger
is currently under an WP:ARBMAC revert restriction (1rr/48h), imposed by me in August, but in the present case I'm "involved" so I'm bringing it here. Cukiger broke not just his limitation but 3RR itself yesterday, on Macedonia naming dispute. He was extremely lucky in that he got "only" a standard 24h-block, disregarding his prior record. Now he sat out his 24h, comes back and immediately repeats the same revert again. This is not only a demonstration of intent to continue edit-warring, it is also formally yet another breach of his revert limitation, as it comes again in less than 48h from his last revert. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 05:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Basboll (appeal of topic ban)


On April 21, 2008, I was topic banned for making this edit. (The edit was based on this talk page discussion). The ban cited discretionary sanctions stipulated in an ArbCom ruling that required that users be warned before being banned. I was not warned, the ban was not justified at all adequately, and the edit was far from disruptive. My appeal was nonetheless largely ignored. At this time, I therefore request that the ban be overturned. (Note: "Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue." )--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly I doubt the encyclopedia will benefit from having Basboll edit 9/11 articles. Moreschi (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support unbanning. Thomas has behaved with great dignity and it is time for a second chance for him. I suggest mentoring to help him stay out of trouble this time. --John (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not keen on indefinite topic bans. How much harm is there in a good faith trial?  If it does not work, the ban can easily be restored.  Thomas seems to have played by the rules and honored his ban. Jehochman Talk 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it does not work, the ban can easily be restored. I think you misspelled "it might be possible to restore the ban after a great deal of drama including several AN/I threads and perhaps a wheel war or two." Hope this helps. ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a valid point. I don't really want to come back as an easy-to-ban potential "repeat offender". As I see it, the original ban was not justified. I have never even been blocked. I simply want the ban overturned, stricken from the record. That may seem unrepentant and, well, it is; I don't want to come back on some sort of parole. There is a lot of detailed work to do and, as we know, the articles are very controversial. I need as much space to move as everyone else.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can support that, sorry. Jehochman Talk 21:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The ban cannot be stricken from the record. It can be withdrawn on a trial basis. I think you would need support if you were not to get into the same trouble all over again. You would not be on parole, but you would start afresh. I would support that. --John (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I partly understand Jehochman's position (no need to apologize). There is something about my past behaviour he doesn't want me to repeat. The problem is that he provided only one example of that behaviour, and there is nothing obviously wrong with what I did there. So this conversation might best begin with a list of things that I have done in that past that I should not do again. We could start with explaining what was wrong with the cited edit.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the specifics of the incident, and I am not the one who enacted the ban. That was User:Raul654, I think. As a co-editor of the article my opinion is not particularly weighty.   At the moment I feel lazy and good natured and just want to take Thomas at his word. Forward looking statements are best.  If Thomas promises not to edit war and tries to work collegially with other editors, that would be encouraging.  Short Brigade, if there are any editing problems, a quick thread on this board (Noodles! not ANI), should be all that's needed. Jehochman Talk 21:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere! Looking at it in this light, it is possible that you didn't even suggest the ban. Raul just thought that's what you were doing, trusted your judgment, and banned whoever was making the edit you happened to cite. So perhaps the ban really was a mistake?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I don't think it was a mistake. Thomas, you are pushing too far rather than trying to seek a consensus here.  This regrettably undermines your appeal.  Jehochman Talk 21:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Then explain the reasoning behind the ban. Look: I understand and appreciate the spirit of what you are doing. Please try to understand mine: you are suggesting that I go back to the articles, do some housekeeping chores and otherwise "stay out of trouble". That is, when it gets interesting (something like this for example), I can just watch you other guys reduce the question to POV pushing, kick the anons and TruthWarriorMasterPlan123s around and call them names. Rather than let me help find a well-sourced, carefully written solution. If I step into the fray ... Noodles! ... you ban me. I understand your position. I hope you can understand mine.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

<--I am not interested in re-litigating past events. As I said above "forward looking" is a good approach. If you can pledge to not edit war and to work toward consensus, you might get the ban lifted. Otherwise, it is not a good idea for you to go back to this topic area. Jehochman Talk 22:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand. You don't have to. Any admin can look at the ban and its basis and see that it was unjustified. I have never edit warred. I have edited talk pages trying to build consensus roughly as much as I have made article edits.


 * Edits by namespace:
 * Articles 1014
 * Talk 1141
 * User 222
 * User talk 383
 * Project 209
 * Project talk 244


 * Some of my ideas have been rejected on the talk pages (and I have abided by that). Most of my article edits have had lasting effects on the articles. You are asking me to pledge not to do something that I have never done.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW: I am looking forward. I am (rightly) concerned about how I will be treated. Will I be treated with suspicion because of past issues, or will it be understood that I was wrongly deemed to be a POV pusher?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: For those who are already tiring of this. I have respected the ban for six months. I made some low key inquiries with John, Jehochman and Aude, which suggested that I might have a contribution to make. Now I'm here with my conditions for a return. I fully understand if no one finds it worth the bother. But I also think that Wikipedia would benefit from a gentler hand with SPAs like me, who are not here to push an agenda (I am not a truther) but to tinker with the details of specific articles. Because they enjoy such tinkering. I think we can all learn something from this, but not if the community is not, first of all, willing to retract this ban as a mistake. Have a look a the facts of the case and decide for yourself. I'm not going to push at this for very long.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thomas, if I may comment one more time, I think you have behaved with great dignity throughout this. I, for what it is worth, did have some reservations about your ban, but I think I advised you to sit it out. This you have done. I think there was a problem six months ago with your behavior among some of our community. I am sure that if you are able to avoid antagonizing people in the same way, that with your dignity and intelligence you could improve our coverage. Whether the ban was a mistake or not, I think as Jehochman says, the best you are likely to get is a clean slate, as we don't deal in Royal Pardons here. Take it, agree to work within consensus and our other rules, and let's get on with it. We won't get anywhere trying to revisit the past I think. Let's look forwards, please. --John (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we're talking past each other. You must think I'm dying to get back at it. I'm actually quite hesitant to do so. My ban is symptomatic of the fact that my kind is not wanted around here. I haven't changed; I would edit as I always have. It was Jehochman who suggested I get the ban lifted after I pointed out a factual error in the article to him (which still has not been fixed).
 * Let's be clear about what is on the table: Jehochman is not proposing a "clean slate" and I am not asking for a "pardon". Jehochman wants an assurance that if my edits become the subject of controversy, which there is a good chance they will, then the ban can "easily" be reinstated. I very explicitly want a clean slate. I don't want to hear "Haven't you been banned in the past for pushing conspiracy nonsense?" when things get a bit controversial. At the very least, I want to be able to respond: "Yes, wrongly. And the ban was overturned." It goes without saying that I would work towards consensus, within the rules.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, in practice your edits are going to get more scrutiny in the future. Regardless of whether or not anyone offered to give you a clean slate or even went so far as to call the original ban incorrect, you are going to be treated differently and editors will be likely to give you less leeway than they would an editor without a similar history. This isn't something specific to you, its the same for any editor who's been on the receiving end of a sanction.  If you don't feel that's something you could live with then it might be best if you give this topic area a pass.
 * As an aside, rebuffing editors who opine that its no big deal to give you another shot and giving conditions under which you'll allow your ban to be removed is unlikely to win other editors to your cause. Shell    babelfish 07:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Shell. I don't mind the scrutiny. What I mind is the abuse, which has been going on from the beginning and which includes the ban. It's okay if you don't want to look at the case, and instead talk in general terms about how I might win people to my "cause". But I don't have a cause. The articles need the input of someone like me. I have some suggestions about how to get people like me to contribute (and, specifically, how to convince me to do so). It requires rethinking the enforcement of that ArbCom decision. You are simply saying "No thanks, we're doing fine." That's a perfectly legitimate position to take. I understand it, and if it dominates no "cause" of mine will be set back.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, when I said "cause" I meant only your request here to have the sanction lifted; I apologize if that gave the impression that I felt more was at stake here. However, given your responses to editors here who are offering advice and constructive criticism and the sense of entitlement you seem to feel about editing, I'd have to say "no thanks" about covers it.  At this time, I don't believe I could support a removal of the ban; if this is your typical behavior, its unlikely you will fit in well with the editing environment on Wikipedia.  Shell    babelfish 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's sort of right. I presume you are working on the assumption that the original ban was justified. My "cause" here is to show that it wasn't. More generally, my point is that the typical editing environment on the WTC articles has hindered progress. My ban is a symptom of that. If we let the ban stand then the environment won't change. But if I return exonerated there is a chance that things will get better. I'd encourage you to think less about the "no thanks" part, and more about the "we're doing fine". Are you? There is a very specific kind of editor that no longer works on those articles (went out with the bathwater, which I'll grant was a bit dirty). And there is a reason for that. In my stubborn way, I really am trying to help.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is one standard for all editors. On the 9/11 articles, the standard is high due to extensive past problems. You won't be singled out because of past sanctions. Editors should not discuss a past ban on the article talk page. It is not relevant to a content discussion. If however you end up back here, it will be clear that you were already on notice. If there is a valid complaint with evidence, you won't get lots of extra chances. If you uphold standards, that should not matter. Can you live with those conditions? Jehochman Talk 11:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was banned because of a dubious complaint with, demonstrably, no evidence. I didn't have a chance. Now you expect me to believe that I'm not even going to have to put up with the usual "conspiracy theory cruft" barbs? Of course I will. If anything, the ArbCom decision has lowered the standard of civility for dealing with suspected truthers. (I have accepted that I will have to live with that suspicion. But I don't have to accept uncivil treatment because of it.) Like you say, you are proposing to let me back but put me "on notice". You can't tell me that won't be well known to the usual suspects.


 * We can continue to look at this as though I am asking to come back and you can put conditions on a return. Or we can look at this as though I am offering my assistance on the articles and you (i.e., the WP community) have to find a way to make me trust the situation. After I was banned, almost nothing happened on the articles I had been working on. Not even the simple thing of nominating one of them for GA status, which it would almost certainly have received. If you see my return only as a perhaps tolerable threat (under the right conditions), not as a real opportunity to draw on what I know about the topic, then you have no reason to support my return at all. Why allow something risky just because there might be no harm? Why not make an effort to attract editors who can do some real good?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused here.It seems that 9/11 is a strong area of interest for you. When you were editing here without restriction did you do much editing in topics unrelated to 9/11? While you were topic banned, have you done much editing in topics unrelated to 9/11? I did a quick scan of your contribs and I got the impression the answer to both those questions is no. In general I am not keen on those who are here for one purpose only being given the ability to put that purpose forward (the notable exception I would make is for the academic who has come here to work on stuff related to his academic specialty) without restriction. I am glad that you've been a good editor and abided by the restriction, apparently with grace and dignity, according to what John told me offline. But I still would want to understand what you're bringing to the table that is vital to receive... Why is it exactly that you DO only want to work on 9/11 articles? I find my hand drawn to all sorts of things, there is so much to document and discover that I seem to dabble in many areas, when I have time. Thanks for any insight you can share. It would help clarify whether an unblock is a good thing to put forward or not. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not going to predicate anything on my academic credentials. I hope it will suffice to say that I have an intellectual interest in the topics I have edited. Like many editors, I imagine, I did not begin by making a commitment to Wikipedia as a whole. I just found myself, in the course of my research, reading a particular set of articles often enough to get a sense that I could improve them. There were ups and downs, good times, bad times, a few wikibreaks, and some thoughts about just quiting, but work on the substance of the article was sometimes enjoyable and edifying. Even with that narrow focus, however, I was spending a lot of time on WP when I was editing. So spreading myself around was never really an option. Is that a satisfactory answer?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an honest answer and I appreciate it, thanks. I will say that there are many who give a bit more credence to people who work in more than one topic area, rightly or wrongly, than people who work in just one area. Especially if the one area is one that is highly contentious, and one which has seen a lot of POV pushing. So... I'd still strongly recommend trying your hand in other areas. Awareness of how things get resolved effectively when you don't have much skin in the game... Getting to know people you are not in contention with (or allied with either!) and working with them... these are good things and rewarding in their own right. At least for me. Hope that is helpful in clarifying my own views. ++Lar: t/c 04:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that. In fact, I have actually had many positive experiences dealing with both personal and content disputes even on the WTC articles. For example, one unfortunate blowup (I'll leave out names) occured when an editor rudely dismissed my attempt, first to correct a factual error, and then to preserve the passage in question (the editor proposed to delete the whole article as conspiracy cruft and start over). The editor was blocked (after I used AE to ask an uninvolved adminstrator to step in). The rest of us reached a perfectly good solution, and, as a compromise over weight, moved the passage to the history section. I notice that the passage has now been moved back to the top of the article, where I had argued it should be in the first place. I think my DR and consensus building skills have been tested to the utmost. I have always been civil and never edit warred. Before the ban, no administrative action (not even a warning) had ever been taken against me. The only evidence that I am not good at these things is that I have been topic banned. And that's why I am here.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I gather my request will not be granted. I will stay in retirement. It is okay with me to archive this thread. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Crossthets
, a Macedonia-related POV warrior, has developed an unhealthy fixation on following me around with spurious accusations and vexatious complaints. This has crossed the line into wikistalking. He was warned against this behaviour several times, for instance by an uninvolved admin here. All the while, his constructive contributions to the encyclopedia have been close to zero; almost all his article contributions were off-topic POV pushing, talkpage contributions have been filled with reams upon reams of repetitive political rants, always conflating perceived POV issues in Wikipedia with complaints against the character of fellow contributors and with general lamentations about oh-so-evil anti-Greek hostility out in the real world.

Crossthets' career in Wikipedia began when he conducted a harassment campaign against a Macedonian contributor on the basis of spurious complaints (AN report) Other reports here). He has three blocks for harassment, tendentious editing, trolling and edit warring.

To illustrate the level of absurdity his personal complaints have gone recently, here's a timeline of our most recent interaction: In all this, over these two days alone, Crossthets has filled a total of 5600 words (33KB) of talkpage postings only with rants about me (plus of course parallel ranting about the evil FYROMians on Talk:Macedonia naming dispute, User talk:Moreschi and elsewhere.) And this has gone on and on for weeks now.
 * (1) 27 Oct, 23:06-01:34: Crossthets violates 3RR on Macedonia naming dispute, edit-warring against User:Cukiger and others on several issues, , , . I'm involved but neutral, as I disagree with Crossthets on one issue but with Cukiger on another.
 * (2) 28 Oct, 02:35: Crossthets posts to User talk:Enric Naval with his usual set of confused accusations against me, asking Enric for support in the edit war.
 * (3) 28 Oct, 07:26: I report Crossthets at WP:AN3
 * (4) 28 Oct, 14:14: Cukiger makes another revert, now crossing 3RR too.
 * (5) 28 Oct, 14:24: I add Cukiger to the AN3 report
 * (6) 28 Oct, 15:50 and 18:22: Crossthets adds more complaints to Enric's talk page, complaining among other things that I had ignored Cukiger's reverts ,
 * (7) 28 Oct, 19:47: Crossthets notices that I have in fact dealt with Cukiger in the meantime. Now he complains that I only did so after he (Crossthets) complained about me, to cover up my tracks and put up a semblance of neutrality.
 * (8) 28 Oct, 20:09: I point out that he seems confused about the timing, as my action was before his complaint
 * (9) 28 Oct, 22:53: Crossthets now attempts to cover his tracks by claiming he meant his first post (#2) (but both my AN3 reports, that against himself and that against Cukiger, came after that, and #2 contained no issue of biased AN3 reporting), or that he began to write his #6 post before I did my #5 report (But of course, it was #7, not #6, where he made this false accusation.)

I have no expectation this will ever become a halfway useful contributor. He's a hopeless case. Since his contributions are focussed entirely on a single issue besides the personal harassment, a topic ban will be meaningless. Only full blocks/bans will help here.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At the risk of giving Crossthets the "anti-Greeks are ganging up on me" excuse, these links may help give a fuller picture:


 * the original harassment
 * rants at another admin's talk page
 * part 1 and part 2 at admin Toddst1's talk page.


 * Crossthets also has a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with him or makes a point "biased" or "unfamiliar with the case" or something else (see the response to Hans Adler on user talk:Enric Naval), so I would suggest to the admin taking this up to read through (almost) everything (unfortunately it is tl;dr to the max) provided.


 * A lot of his ranting isn't even about wiki (as FP mentioned), it's about real word situations and politics. For example, he seems to be insinuating that some US Congress resolution about "FYROM propaganda and hostility" is somehow tied to contributors on this project, and so on (it's all in the links).


 * Anyway, expect this section to be much longer when Crossthets replies; he will rant about FP being biased against him (and maybe all Greeks), he will complain about my apparent harassment of him and reference to my previous blocks (irrelevant), ranting about "propaganda" in the real world and a lot more.


 * As such, this is all I will say here.  Balkan Fever  09:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I havn't looked into this deeply, but why is this on Arbitration Enforcement? This looks like a straightforward request for a community ban based on universally disruptive behavior, not in relation to failure to abide by arbitration--Tznkai (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's within the scope of WP:ARBMAC, such cases have often been handled here. If I was uninvolved I would have handled it invoking that ruling in some way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please bear with me as I gather up my diffs. I will respond to FP's charges and our ongoing dispute in far greater detail but it will take me a day to do so (I have other obligations and had no idea FP would once again take another shot at me on the noticeboard in such a short amount of time). In the meantime, here is a summary of my position (sans diffs till tomorrow).

FP's complaint about me is his third to the noticeboard in less than 48 hours. The first incident he posted to noticeboard... was hours after I have complained to admin (Enric) about FP and FYRoM national tag teaming me with reverts (whom the next day FP decided to block for 3RR.. IMO to cover his tracks and appear balanced to the noticeboard). The second time he name dropped me in an incident involving an offending barnstar on my talkpage... placed there by another Greek contributer upset with FP (whom I don't recall ever having talked to). I had absolutely nothing to do with the incident. In addition I have been previously blocked twice... by FP.

I have never been blocked without FP's prior involvement and would note if this time I am blocked (or banned) it will once again be because of FP's involvement.

As I mentioned to another admin (Enric), FP is an established admin, who is one of the chief pushers of discretionary powers on Macedonia related issues (in support of FYRoM nationals)... that is a major contributer to those articles... and that I feel has a decidedly anti-Greek POV. Consider for a moment that Balkanfever... who rushed to his defense... is a FYRoM national and POV-pusher. For example... he once referred to Greeks on WP as "assfuckers", was blocked for it, and never apologizing for it. Balkanfever characterizes me pointing this out above as "ranting". I call it a fair example that he himself is not neutral with regards to the issues... while he pretends otherwise to the noticeboard in an attempt to character assassinate me.

I am someone of Greek background edited politically sensitive articles that relate to my heritage. I openly admit there may exist a potential COI with me (and that I have made WP etiquette mistakes as I continue to learn WP rules). FP on the other hand continues to casually dismiss the possibility he might be in COI... or acknowledge he may have made some mistakes himself. (and note just because he is an admin doesn't make him all-wise on all the complex and sensitive ethnic issues at hand)

I realize the instinct is to run the "nationalist" newb out of dodge in favor of the established admin here. I noted this "effect" to Enric when Hans (whom I've never spoken to before) came to Enric's page and started throwing accusations around without politely hearing my own POV out first. (and I had this exact same issue when I made an anon query to noticeboard when I first joined) This is exactly why I have not opened an RFC or made a complaint to the noticeboard on FP thus far (which I've outlined to Enric, discussed with Todd, and several other admins).

Balkanfever and FP are correct to suggest I will bring up hostility and propaganda is being promoted against Greeks on Wikipedia. How can I get my verifiable edits in when they are constantly reverted by FP and FYRoM nationals? FP, BK, and many FYRoM nationals on WP will give their personal assurances this is not the case and I am the one who is the real POV-pusher.

I on the other hand will ask any impartial admin involved with the issues...


 * to indicate if I'm wrong to suggest FYRoM nationals aren't constantly trying to rewrite articles related to ancient Macedon? (specifically to suggest ancient Macedonians didn't see themselves as Greeks)
 * to take a quick poll of other Greek WP contributers about how neutral they feel FP and BK are.
 * to note I bring to the table 120 US Congressmen (including Obama... likely the next US President) that introduced a bill condemning the FYRoM government for specifically hostility and propaganda towards Greeks. (a "minor" point that FP himself removed from the Macedonia Naming dispute article)

I wish to make crystal clear here. I have no issue with any others admins. In the end I am a big fan of WP and believe the vast majority of WP admins are impartial on issues and like to think its possible admins are willing to entertain the thought that rare cases do exist that a newb "nationalist" might actually have a point that an established admin can be in a potential COI given his contribution patterns. Thanks for listening to my concerns. I will provide diffs and further details tomorrow.--Crossthets (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've banned Crossthets. Exactly what for, see his block log and talk. My patience was exhausted by this one. Moreschi (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment
I believe there is gaming on this page at the moment. Domer and BigDunc are again trying to introduce a false concensus to introduce political material. In addition BigDunc has just removed information which I included with reference to a notable member of the regiment who has published a book. This was not discussed on the talk page. I have already reverted once on the page today and am unable to take further action however with two editors against me it looks as if I am again being gamed. I request admin support and decisions please. Thunderer (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (sighs). As soon as I can, I'll go drop the hammer down on all of this. If someone can get to it sooner, please do. SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed infromation regarding a non notable member who wrote a book that is not even listed in the British Library I dont see anything being said about the major moves made by The Thunderer all without any discussion and as regard false concensus if four editors are involved in whether something should be added and three say yes then that is consensus is it not? BigDunc  Talk 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunc, I'm typing something up on the UDR page right now. Patience, padawan, please? SirFozzie (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no two ways about this. The old team is up and running.  I am being bullied and every attempt is being made to ensure this article is flooded with anti-crown sentiment and the neutrality is being compromised.Thunderer (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, STOP. All of you. Right now. Back to your corners. I have attempted to try to start discussion on the UDR page. Let's end this right now. I have replied on the talk page, and will try some dispute resolution there. SirFozzie (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is all of you the only one making accusations again is the Thunderer it is his usual well poisoning. BigDunc  Talk 20:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the AE every single edit I’ve made has been reverted. There has been no dispute. Rather than revert, I’ve gone to the talk page and initiated a discussion. Currently there is a discussion titled “Proposal, History section.” Editors, bar one, have agreed that the information is relevant and should be included. Despite an open discussion, and no feed back, the information was reverted, and only then was the discussion resumed. In an attempt to avoid the editor again breeching the WP:1RR I’ve opened a discussion titled “Options for Change and amalgamation” rather than simply putting the information back in the article. The flip side of this has seen major edits, with the removal of whole sections, without any prior discussion on sections to be removed. This is despite being asked to slow down. The article is now blocked with the rational “Edit warring.” Only to be then informed that there is no actual edit war? I have again been reverted, suggesting that their was no prior discussion, however, no discussion was considered necessary for its removal. No discussion for example on what sections should be moved? I being informed that this discussion was held on a completely different talk page? I’d welcome some advice and opinions, because I’m at a lose to understand what is happening? -- Domer48  'fenian'  20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's this much hassle at that article? move on to other articles. I've had to do this at European born NHL player biographies with diacritics in their names. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What a superb suggestion. Leave the military history to us amateur military historians in other words?Thunderer (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming to be a military historian now, if so what are your credentials for such a claim? Or maybe your buddy Ronnie is a military historian is he the same historian that wrote this tome for door men. BigDunc  Talk 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Military historian or not, all editors are equal on each article. Wikipedia is for the layman, not the professionals. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now now Dunc. Keep yer wig on.  Life's too short to get so annoyed about these things. Thunderer (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)Two notes. One, the relevant article page is protected. Two, the involved editors managed to escape personal sanctions last time because they implied they had found a way to move forward, work together, fairness issues, etc. It would probably be a good idea to start showing a commitment to working together (perhaps using dispute resolution) instead of continuing the comment about each other on here. --Tznkai (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that all sanctioned editors avoid the articles that got them sanctioned. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tzankai may I respectfully suggest you have a look at what I have contributed to the article since then. The advice I've sought, the opposition I've faced and the constant attempts to introduce more controversial elements to the article by my learned friends despite me posting the guildines for raising the article to A Class, which is my ambition.   Have a look at the gaming of today and other days and how it has affected me.  After you've done that, if you've not fallen asleep, I'd be very grateful for your opinion. Thunderer (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very tempted to agree here. I encourage all interested administrators to review the events of today. I'm trying to encourage all folks to talk to me on the article, instead of at each other (there's a difference between talking TO folks and talking AT folks). Not much luck so far at least with at least some folks, but hope springs eternal. SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And the Thunderers comments are all very helpful Fozz are they he has admited above that he is trying to drive editors from the article as they are not military historians like him. BigDunc  Talk 21:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I told him via email to back off on those comments, to not let tempers flare up.. SirFozzie (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And therein lies a major problem IMO a lot of stuff appears to be happening off wiki I didn't receive a response to the email I sent you all I seem to get from you is assumptions of bad faith on my behalf. BigDunc  Talk 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone listen to SirFozzie here. He is making the most sense to me on this one. I was going to full protect the article and found SF had already done so. Editors need to chill out and think of what brought these sanctions into being in the first place. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Topic Bans
'''For continued disruption and arguments on articles related to The Troubles, the above three editors are hereby topic banned from any article relating to The Troubles, broadly construed, for one month. They are allowed to contribute to talk pages, but must relate any and all edits to the topic at hand.'''

Quite frankly.. everyone here has had enough of all sides here. Thunderer has let his temper slip. He's admitted such to me via email. He says, and I agree with it (to a point), that he's being provoked and stonewalled at every turn. Therefore, I'm removing the disruption at the source. At ALL sources. This is a mininum, not a maximum. The two sides will either get along with each other, or the temporary topic bans will become permanent. SirFozzie (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems like a very good idea, although it may be extraprocedural. In the meantime, I'd suggest that Domer48, The Thunderer and BigDunc immediately seek informal mediation from MedCab or an agreed upon neutral party, with an eye towards formal mediation if that doesn't work. Other editors working in area should also considering working within the agreed upon mediation as well.--Tznkai (talk)
 * No arguments from this quarter. Although frankly I doubt it will be sufficient. This entire topic area has become so poisonous I'm starting to think that a mass bonfire alone will solve the problems. There's no particular reason for this: UK-Irish relations are perfectly fine at the moment; there's no pressing geopolitical crisis, and while The Troubles will always be a contentious area this should get better over time, not worse. What has happened here is simply that a whole bunch of tendentious POV-warriors on both sides have allowed to become entrenched. This set of topic-bans is long overdue. We do the encyclopedia no favours by mollycoddling those with severe WP:TIGERS problems. Moreschi (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is inadequate where Domer48 is concerned. Neither of the others has his track-record of problematic behaviour: Troubles arbcom, Famine arbcom, Famine topic ban. Assuming the worst, Domer48 simply switched from disrupting the Famine article, where now no work is being undertaken, to disrupting another instead. There could be a conspiracy to make Domer48 look bad by having trouble follow him around, but there is a simpler explanation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rechecking my plague archives I see that Angus is correct. Moreschi (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to propose further actions against any/all editors involved, please, be my guest. I've stopped the disruption (or at least confined it to talk pages for now) at what I consider its source, but am willing to listen here. SirFozzie (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest increasing the ban to three months in Domer48's case. One month on all Troubles-related articles, two months more on UDR-related editing. And can we please get rid of "broadly construed"? This matter falls within a narrow construction of "The Troubles". There's no reason why Domer48 should be banned from Thomas Francis Meagher or Irish National Invincibles. That'd be punitive I feel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I endorse SirFozzie's action here and would consider further specific remedies.  MBisanz  talk 22:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I also feel that allowing this lot to comment on talk pages is far too generous. Half the problem is that WP:TALK is not properly adhered to (or, for that matter, enforced). A disruptive editor who sticks to the talk page can be almost as annoying as one who edits the article as well. Moreschi (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What I was afraid of, broadly speaking was that Domer would just get himself stuck in on another article straight away (as you've noted, he's had trouble on the GIF article (although I would note that one of the reasons behind is GIF topic ban wasn't him at all, but was a banned user via IP address), the Troubles arbcom and this). Any suggestions on how to keep it useful without being overly broad? (edit:Add to reply to Moreschi) Moreschi, my thoughts were to try to provide a carrot to go with the sharp pointy stick.. to give us a chance to show that they CAN get along during that month's time. If they simply continue sniping at each other, instead of showing the community that they can work with each other, it's very simply remedied to A) Extend the topic ban long term, and B) remove the talk page exemption. SirFozzie (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC) SirFozzie (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. That's smart. Be wary of too many carrots, though. Ultimately it seems as though they don't just stop at the carrot: your arm usually gets bitten as well. Moreschi (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can safely say my urge to supply carrots is sharply limited at the moment ;) SirFozzie (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stayed out of this for a few hours to allow you admins to get to the bottom of things. I have to say I'm disappointed in the respect that I have to endure sanctions too.  My input on the UDR article has not been contentious.   Where I'm having trouble is keeping un-necessary and controversial opinion off the article.  If you examine the material I've been editing in, information about strcuture, adminsitration, formation, training, equipment etc but at the same time having to try and reduce the amount of cruft about Unionists or (in particular) Catholics out of it.   I am the editor who managed to get the article raised from C Class to B Class.  I am/was working to get it raised to A Class at Milhist.   To do so there are a set of guidelines which all of us must follow.  I believe I have followed those guidelines properly although it has been difficult with the sanctions and particularly with the bullying by Domer and BigDunc.  Even today Fozzie will have noted that I posted on his talk page with concerns at 10.12am.   My request for assistance was posted on this board at 1.52pm.  No action was taken until after 8pm GMT.   I think I did very well to fend off the abuse and gaming I had to put up with and at the same time enter into civil dialogue with another editor from Milhist who was helping out.   Nor did I lose my temper.  My reference to Fozzie in my e-mail was that I had been a little sarcastic in my final comments on the talk page, and that was it.   No hot head, no childish tantrums.


 * I realise this isn't a democracy but if there's any sense of fair play amongst the admins here then I should be allowed to continue to edit the article along with others from Milhist in order to bring it up to A Class.  I would certainly accept that any admin who was entrusted with looking in from time to time would expect my edits to be along the lines I have laid out and not pushing POV in any way, shape or form.   That isn't my track record however so I have no fears there whatsoever.  When Milhist have approved the article to A Class then it can be semi-protected or protected to ensure its integrity for the future and I will move on my next (hopefully much less controversial) project on Wikipedia which at the moment I intend to be a study of the Irish Militias from the 17th Century to their demise.  You'll note I haven't included the Irish groups in my hope of appraisal.  With such a controversial article I doubt I could get two people to agree on it for long enough to give it a class rating.Thunderer (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thunderer you accuse me of bullying and abusing you where did this happen? BigDunc  Talk 08:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thunderer has asked me to reconsider the sanctions put on him. He IS new to this conflict, but I'd really like IF we did lower the sanction on him (and I'm not going to be the one who does it, I'd much rather get other views on it.. that we assign him a mentor to help him navigate the rocks and shoals of these conflicts. I can't do that, not only am I at work for his prime editing hours, I don't have the knowledge to be an effective mentor here (and maybe my experience with Vintagekits is also praying on my mind). I'll leave it up to the community. SirFozzie (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * New to this conflict check his block log and check mine if you are going to reduce his sanctions then why am I not getting a mention. What exactly have I done that is disrupting this article? Would someone please let me know? I will except sanctions as long as they are the same as The Thunderers. BigDunc  Talk 07:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone show me were I’ve been disruptive on this article? Can someone explain to me how you can have an edit war on an article with a WP:1RR restriction? Why is it all Troubles articles included in sanctions? This only affects two editors, as one is a SPA, and no disputes on any other Troubles articles? -- Domer48  'fenian'  07:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be very willing to accept a mentor but I have the feeling that I wouldn't be a lot of trouble to whoever was assigned to me as my style of editing isn't contentious.  My issue all along, just on this one article, has been to try and convince others not to make the article too controversial.  The guidelines for A Class are pretty specific but some of the guys at Milhist have worked on A Class and Featured articles before and they can advise me too in fact several of them had been helping me over the past couple of days before this kicked off again.  If the article could be raised to A Class I would possibly recommend the article then be placed permanently on the Protected list so that future editing could only be done with the supervision of an admin so that it no longer becomes the subject of the type of bickering we're seeing over Irish articles.


 * This has been a very difficult and steep learning curve for me but, despite the problems and possibly because of them, I have enjoyed my time on Wikipedia and I hope to be a useful and productive editor in the future.  The one thing I'm sure about is guidance.  There are a lot of good helpful people here and I am and have been grateful for their input since day one. Thunderer (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sections such as this suggest to me that User:Domer48 is a tendentious editor. I regret to say, I cannot make sense of the diffs he's used to defend his conduct here, the first links I've tried have expired. At the same section page, it appears to me that User:BigDunc has signally failed to explain why he opposes the majority ( though without being he's not being seriously unreasonable but he could easily be wasting the time of likely more productive editors). Sections such as this suggest to me that User:The Thunderer is a thoughtful editor striving for better articles and a better editing environment, whereas Domer48 is disruptive of both efforts. Exchanges like this suggest to me that Domer48 will never be a cooperative editor seeking consensus.
 * Hence: Domer48 - needs long term restrictions, BigDunc - needs may well need a warning and Thunderer - not sure, quick sample doesn't find objectionable edits. I'm seeking to be scrupulously fair, I am quite prepared have been back (twice) to re-examine conclusions I've drawn, based on feedback. Please note, I did not cherry-pick anything, these are just the first exchanges I found by going to their contribution records. I don't recall ever editing alongside any of these guys/gals either as myself or on this account. PRtalk 10:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm very grateful for your comments PR.Thunderer (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still bewildered. Why would ya'll (those who are temporary banned) want to hang around an article that ya'll got temp banned from? GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm hanging round. The talk pages are on my watchlist and I'm still interested in the outcome of the discussions and still have useful input (I think).Thunderer (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)PR you again say that I opposes the majority on the Sinn Féin article, did you even read the post I made. An editor implied that 11 editors had given consensus for a move I pointed out that in fact that was not the case. So please tell me what you are refering too because I can not see my opposition to any majority on that article. BigDunc Talk 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on this section it's very hard to see how you conclude that it is not the case that people support a split. In fact your argument was that the views of people who haven't contributed recently don't matter, which is a highly dubious one. In any event, out of editors who have contributed recently four support a split with only you and Domer opposed, so yes you are opposed to the majority. Valenciano (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No you are wrong on the date I posted that comment, were was the majority? Also I used Mooretwins argument against himself when he claimed that 2 editors were holding up the split out of 11 have you even read my post? As it stod when I made the post one definitly was for it 2 definetly against and as I stated I didn't know what your stance was at the time. I do now and the other editors who comment after I made my post. So again what majority was I opposing at the time I made the post? BigDunc  Talk 19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposals
I've read various messages by the belligerents and in the case of BigDunc and The Thunderer specifically, I think the application of Hanlon's razor is illuminating. It really seems at the moment, no matter what the restriction, they can't seem to help themselves but fight, as a result of differencing perspectives an emotionally charged subject. That having been said, I believe both of them really are doing their best to improve Wikipedia, but the lack of assumptions good faith, spirit of cooperation and so on has made this impossible. I think its past time the two of them were put into a structured mediation process, because attempts at discouraging poor behavior have not produced harmonious editing. I argue that we have essentially two choices: to ban or severely restrict them from those sections of the project (their areas of major contribution, a difficult area needing editors), or to put some sort of structured guidance in place. Domer48 on the other hand, seems to have exhausted any trust or faith the community put into him. So, I have the following proposals, others feel free to offer suggestions:


 * A1. Special structured mediation between Thunderer and Big Dunc: Keeping in mind the contentious and emotionally charged nature of the topic at hand, I recommenced a two editor mediation. One editor (agreed upon by Thunderer and BigDunc) will be on hand to help guide content disputes. Filtering sources, explaining the application of policies and so on, but will not enforce 3RR, blocks, protections, or the like, but can recommend the same. A second editor will be an administrator, (I would be willing, and have a few names in mind for those better qualified) who will keep the editor hat off, and adjudicate only along the lines of conduct: dealing with civility, 3RR breaches, protecting pages and so on. This is designed to keep any sort of possible appearance of, or actual conflict of interest from the administrator doing blocking and the like from interfering with mediation. This is my preferred proposal
 * A2. Informal mediation between Thunderer and Big Dunc and perhaps others: An intrepid volunteer can arrange some sort of terms with whoever they feel is needed for mediation to work, and go from there.
 * A3. Formal mediation between Thunderer and Big Dunc: A third option, is to simply pass the buck to the Mediation Committee and wash our hands clean of this entirely.
 * B1. Article probation for Thunderer and Big Dunc under The Troubles discretionary sanctions: We can try this again, but I don't think that will solve the problem at hand.
 * B2. Topic ban for Thunderer and Big Dunc: I also don't think this will work, but it is an option, although I'd strongly recommend asking for a larger community discussion than just those frequenting AE.
 * C1. Placement of Domer48 under indefinite probation under under The Troubles discretionary sanctions: I think there is growing consensus that Domer48's value to that part of the project is outweighed by his disruptive behavior.
 * D1. Domer48 recommended to community for an indefinite topic ban: see above.
 * E1. Issue recommended to Arbitration Committee: An option that exists, but a poor one.
 * F1. Current temporary topic bans are cleared
 * In case it needed to be made clear, I am recommending A1, C1, D1, and would be ok with A2 or A3 instead.--Tznkai (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't mind supervision until this article is considered complete (brought up to A Class). My issues aren't really with BigDunc although he does appear to get swept along when Domer gets belligerent.  The main issue on the article is content which dwells on the religious divide of Northern Ireland. Someone who could ajudicate on that would be useful because I would like to keep it to a minimum and concentrate on the missing aspects of the article, the actual workings and structure of this military unit.  I'm not attempting to make the article devoid of controversial information.  There are some controversial aspects which need to be there if it's going to be used as an accurate reference piece.  I have felt, rightly or wrongly, that Domer has been using the article as an advertisement for the woes of the "Nationalist people of Northern Ireland", (real or imagined) and it's that which I feel is POV content.  I'm happy to agree to a solution because it's a shame that this article isn't being edited because of disagreement.Thunderer (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My observation is that the combination of you, BigDunc and Domer48 is one that inevitably leads to unacceptable disruption. Furthermore the combination of Domer48 and you also leads to unacceptable disruption. The combination of BigDunc and you does not. Without pointing fingers as which of you or BigDunc is more problematic or responsible, Domer48 seems to be a sufficient cause of disruption, but not a necessary one.--Tznkai (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's time to allow others to try and improve the article-in-question. Ownership can sneak up on the best of us. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Theres a problem with that GoodDay... no one else is really stepping up to edit those articles.--Tznkai (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they're scared to. I certainly would be. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tzankai I think it's been evident for a while that Domer is the catalyst for the issues which arise. BigDunc and I can disagree but discuss and resolve issues and he doesn't seem to want to introduce contentious material.   GoodDay, it isn't about ownership, that much I can promise you.  It's about wanting to do the job right before moving on.  I have in-depth, hands on experience of the subject and have the necessary ability to be neutral (I believe)in my approach to the controversial aspects of the regiment.   Where I'm running into difficulty is persuading Domer to try and tone it down.  He seems to want the article to reflect the controversy more than I believe is compatible with providing a neutral, factual reference piece.  I firmly believe that, when I finish with the article, it will continue to be a source of problems unless it is protected.  I think the same could be said of many articles related to the Northern Ireland "Troubles" and indeed articles on other ethnic conflicts throughout the world.   I realise it's an unenviable task to administer these and only hope I can be of assistance in some way to resolve this current problem on Ulster Defence Regiment but backing off isn't going to solve it.  All that would achive is an incomplete article which will be subject to more POV from editors with various sympathies - not just Domer. Thunderer (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Added an additional action: clearing the topic bans as F1, which I support if and only if any of the above proposals are done instead.--Tznkai (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Domer48 on the other hand, seems to have exhausted any trust or faith the community put into him." Now Tznkai since the AE, please provide me with a supporting diff for your remark above. Show me a diff which shows incivility, disruption of any actions contrary to the agreed sanctions. -- Domer48  'fenian'  17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a brief glance at this thread alone shows how little faith the community has in you.--Tznkai (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, you have not answered the question, please support your accusation with diff's. -- Domer48  'fenian'  17:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I regret to say, this is the kind of conduct I found all over the 4 pages I visited where you and the others had been interacting. I might still be wrong, but it looks increasingly as if my sample size was adequate. (I've indented your comment to try and make it easier for people to follow in a regular fashion). PRtalk 18:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for that. -- Domer48  'fenian'  20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, lets flip this around for a second before I start cataloging every negative action you've made or comment someone has made about you. Find me someone who will defend you. Find me someone else willing to show me how much not a problem you are, how much benefit you bring to the project.--Tznkai (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should Domer48 find someone to defend him. I would have thought it was your job to show him the diffs where you say he has been incivil or distruptive, then maybe he will have the chance to defend himself. You have had enough time to do so and he has asked you often enough. As for the diffs PalestineRemembered showed to point out his bad behaviour, nonsense. Is it bad behaviour to ask a question? I have never interacted with Domer48, but looking at his recent history I can't see anything that would bring all this negativity down on him. Jack forbes (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well here are some editors who considered placing personal sanctions on me alone wrong the last time you suggested them. Names familiar to this topic, and who I in no way endear my self with in the previous discussion (apologies). I do not feel I let any of them down since, however I can't speek for them. I can only find two Admin at the moment who have suggested I'm a benefit to the project and have some confidence in me, one is Alison and possibly the other is Rockpocket. I don't believe I have let either of them down on this occasion, but again I can’t speak on their behalf. Now I notice you have again put forward proposels to have sanctions placed on me, despite the fact you have still not catalogued every negative action I've made or comment someone has made about me. So I will ask again, with all due respect, please provide me with diff's which support the accusations you have made against me on this occasion, and warrent sanctions. -- Domer48  'fenian'  12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Domer, I'd like to interject here and I hope you don't mind? I don't think you're doing yourself any favours just now by challenging admins.  You are coming across as confrontational again.  That's not a criticism of you - everyone has a right to their own nature and style.  My considered and respectful assessment of the current situation is that you need to show you're contrite.  None of us can get it right all the time that's for sure but with the amount of people commenting on this surely you can see there's a problem which you need to address? Thunderer (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thunderer, admins are editors like everyone else, and can be challenged like anyone else. I do think Domer48 has the right to ask for evidence of his misdemeanors, which doesn't seem to be forthcoming any time soon. I think the both of you are excellent editors and I'm sure you and Domer can work together, but where is the benefit in punishing one more than the other? It could in my opinion make the situation worse by making Domer feel hard done by. I think this thread has dragged on too long and a decision should be made as soon as possibe. Jack forbes (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack I appreciate your input. I'll reserve comment on most of what you've said because I don't want to appear opinionated.  Suffice to say I have no grudge against Domer. Thunderer (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we blocked
Could someone clarify if myself, Thunderer and Domer are banned from Troubles releated articles as of yesterday. BigDunc Talk 16:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As it stands, yes. Which reminds me.--Tznkai (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why is Thunderer making edits to articles here in breach of sanctions imposed on the 3 of us. BigDunc  Talk 16:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was just the UDR article I was banned from. If I can get in to edit surely I can't be banned? Thunderer (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No Fozz told you here that they were part of the sanctions too. BigDunc  Talk 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The ban is a behavioral constraint as article-blocking is not yet enabled. It relies on the parties to understand the ban and know which articles they may and may not edit. Of course if the parties refuse to abide by the behavioral constraint, the only other option is a technical constraint of a block from all editing.  MBisanz  talk 17:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If these are the offending edits, then yes they do fall within the topic bans, and the best thing for The Thunderer to do right now is to undo those edits until the topic bans are lifted.--Tznkai (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do apologise. I've never come across this before.  I thought if the article was open for editing then I could.  I am so sorry and will revert straight away. Thunderer (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comments
Domer has asked me to clarify a bit.


 * I find Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment to be a moderately disruptive thread. His trying to interpret consensus of a debate he is partaking in, is generally a bad thing, a neutral party should be interpreting it.  They need different looking signatures!
 * His comments here and here appear to be either trying to harass an IP for being an IP or trying to say the IP is another editor and reverting them for being that other editor.
 * this would be him reverting to his version of an article, also without discussing the change.

After reviewing Domer's contributions, I think a topic ban from Irish articles may be the best thing for both him and the articles and would support sanctions to that end.  MBisanz  talk 12:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Im afraid your wrong on the Kevin Barry diffs if you read Alisons edit summary Protected Kevin Barry: Edit-warring against establised consensus by IP-hopping anon editor / totally refuses to dialog when she PP the article and also her comment here you will see that it is far from harrasement of an IP who has added the same content now for months using different ips without discussion and against consensus. BigDunc  Talk 21:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, and in reply could I point you to my comment here and Alison’s comments here. As to this diff here I would point you to my comments here. Now after reviewing my contributions, you will agree that every one of my edits on the UDR were reverted, without discussion. Just to clarify, could you possibly point me to were I said anything about consensus on the UDR talk page or this discussion? Since I know I haven’t could you possibly strike out your first point? In light of the comments of both myself and Alison could you possibly strike your comments on the second point, since they are without foundation. I did not revert to my version, I reverted to the consensus version, I’m not happy with this version but I accept it. -- Domer48  'fenian'  14:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(delurking for a second) - MBisanz, the Kevin Barry article is a bit of a special case, IMO, where the usual edit-warriors are working in relative peace. However, there's a persistent IP editor who's been warring on there for months now, inserting the same stuff again and again, switching IPs and repeating the process. The other editors are driven to distraction at this stage. While I appreciate that the article is under 1RR, I would consider Domer's reverts above to be under the clause of 'simple vandalism' for this one case only. It's not so much a content dispute (all the other editors dealt with that months ago on the talk page), but a disruptive, IP-socking editor - A l is o n  ❤ 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alison, thank you very much for that clarification it is very, very much appreciated. -- Domer48  'fenian'  21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand Alison, but it would be helpful if he would ping you or AIV for appearances sake. Also, pinging an admin would result in a block.  MBisanz  talk 03:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked but they keep changing llok at the article history. BigDunc  Talk 13:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fragmented discussion
Discussion of this issue appears to have stalled with only one set of proposals to resolve this on the table. This is a fragment of a longstanding highly intractable dispute and we need to make sure that whatever we do this time sticks. I'm wondering whether we should simply delete the article and start over with swinging penalties for any user who does not play nice on the new article. Alternatively we need targetted topic/article bans and a new set of eyes to work on the article untainted by the dispute. I'm also extremely disappointed that the attempt to broker discussion leading to a comprehensive RFC has been completely ignored by one side of the dispute - this is extremely unwiki and does not show any evidence of these editors wanting to work colaboratively. I'm only juts back from a business trip and have a lot to catch up on. I'll comment more soon with more concrete proposals but I'm putting some first thoughts out for discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know that deleting the article would solve anything. It would have to be rewrtitten and that would just reawake the controversy.  I do have some new eyes going over it at the moment from Milhist.  People who aren't interested in the subject matter from the Troubles point of view.  Perhaps their involvement will help? Thunderer (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully. That's my belief anyway. Stubbing and restarting articles can sometimes be useful to cut to Gordian knot of intractable disputes about content. Spartaz Humbug! 10:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't in this case in my honest opinion because this is a regiment which was raised in a controversial way in controversial circumstances and was the subject of controversy throughout its history. The trick in this article as far as I can see is noting the controversy but not allowing it to become the actual meat of the piece.  My efforts have been largely in that direction.Thunderer (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion - the best solution is action against the source of disruption. However, if that's too difficult, another possibility is to ask both parties to re-write the article "Ulster Defence Regiment" from top to bottom on a Sand-box page. It would be relatively easy for the uninvolved to look at the different versions and judge which one was "more encyclopaedic". We might also discover useful things about the writing ability of different editors. PRtalk 14:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is the policy that says there has to be a competition to see who is the best editor? Who would judge it, and would we all get to vote on it? Jack forbes (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the policy that says we have to allow editors to behave in a way that fosters disharmony and discourages uninvolved editors from contributing to an article. I have made detailed proposals below to suggest a way of imporving the atmosphere around the UDR article. Spartaz Humbug! 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Could you possibly show through diff's were I have behaved "in a way that fosters disharmony and discourages uninvolved editors from contributing to an article?" I can provide just one, but the uninvolved editor is not talking about me? -- Domer48  'fenian'  15:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * @Spartaz - I heartily agree - and almost deleted my suggestion after seeing your proposal.
 * @Jack - there is no policy or ground-rules or previous experience of this as a solution. But my experience is that articles have often take a "shape" which drives conflict. A fresh start not only gets over these real or imaginary road-blocks, it sorts out who are the serious editors, capable of seeing the whole picture. In many cases, such a solution might even cause the problem to resolve itself. Otherwise, the rest of us (either all, or just the uninvolved) could discuss or reach consensus on the resultant product. Product is more important that process, as we know. PRtalk 15:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Further Proposals to sort this out
From my limited experience of this article I suggest the following solutions to solve the ongoing arguments at UDR. The proposals are not designed to be fair and are simply there to ensure that an environment exists to allow progress to be made on the article. My limited experience is that The Thunderer is mostly trying to edit towards wiki-norms and is striving to produce an NPOV product. Occasionally their temper gets the better of them and they are also liable to make newbie mistakes but appear to quickly acknowledge and learn from them. There is no reason why direct mentoring will not ensure that they edit appropriately from now on and I am willing, so far as my time allows, to keep an eye on them. Neither BigDunc nor Domer48 made any attempt to engage in my proposal to document the differences in the article to allow for a comprehensive RFC to settle this dispute. I was very disappointed that BigDunc chose to use my posting as an excuse to undo all of The Thunderer's recent edits and this seems to have lead to the current impasse. On the other hand they also shosed a great deal of patience and a willingness to give The Thunderer time to work on disputed sources that was above and beyond the call of duty. I strongly feel that progress will only be made while discussion takes place. We desparately need unaligned editors to work on the article but this will not happen while a poisonous atmosphere exists over the article. My experience is that of the two Domer48 is responsible for the majority of the agression in the article and their editing to add long laundry lists of opinion and commentry is effectively using the article to further a particular POV. This view is supported by their failure to properly adress reasonable concerns raised about this on the talk page by The Thunderer. I therefore have the following proposals to sort out this mess: The article Ulster Defense Regiment should remain locked for a period of 1 week to force the editors working on the page to agree the scope of the dispute and map out how the article should be improved. The article may be relocked at any time by any uninvolved admin if, in the opinion of that admin, the article is being edited in a combative or uncollaborative manner by any editor.
 * Domer48 is indefinitely prohibited from editing the article page for Ulster Defense Regiment. They are prohibited from editing the article talk page for 6 months.
 * The Thunderer is to be subject to compulsary mentorship for a period of 6 months and should be subject to a 0RR restriction for this period to prevent further revert warring.
 * BigDunc to be subject to a 0RR restriction for this article for the same period.
 * By 0RR I mean that neither editor may revert another' edits unless there is unanimous another editors on the talk page to do so. Where there is a dispute over a proposed revert no action should take place for a minimum of 24 hours to allow time for calm discussion. The exception to this is that obvious vandalism may be reverted without penalty at any time. Unsourced material may be removed after 24 hours without penalty if sources have been requested on the talk page and are not provided.

If, in the opinion of the involved editors, having a neutral admin appointed to adjudicate on content disputes would help, then this should also be supported. I'm certainly not the person for this for reasons I elaborated to BigDunc off-wiki and I will happily expand on this privately to anyone who wants to know what I'm on about.

Please feel free to flame, oppose or improve any of these suggestions. Spartaz Humbug! 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly wouldn't oppose anything you've mooted because I am so concerned that all of the admins who have worked on this for so long have had to give up so much of their own time to sort out an issue I'm involved in.  Whatever the concensus is with the admins I'll go along with it.  I don't believe I will have any problems working with other editors or with a supervising mentor.  I thank you Spartaz and everyone else for giving their time free of charge on this.Thunderer (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered proposal. The only thing it lacks is the supporting diff’s for your views on my conduct. Could you please provide the diff’s to support you opinion. In the absence of diff’s your proposed ban on me is unsupportable. However, I would be perfectly willing to accept the same sanction of WP:ORR, like everyone else as it would possibly help. I would support any admin involvement, such as both your and Rockpockets intervention to clarify policy and to insure that WP:TPG is adhered to at all times. While I'm under no obligation too, I would voluntarily agree to not place any edits on the article until it had been agreed to on the talk page. -- Domer48  'fenian'  15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm tired as hell (a 2-10 PM shift became a 2 PM-6 AM shift due to unforseeable circumstances), and I just really want to go back to sleep, but I said I'd chime in.. so.. here I am. I'm good with what Spartaz is proposing. Right now, the amount of insular heel dragging is not good. Thunderer did a good thing and got an outside project's help in looking at the article from a different angle. Domer (and to a lesser extent Dunc), seemed to me to stonewall this, because they wanted the main UDR article to have all the criticism they could get in there (this is just my opinion). I'm not saying that it's not notable, or not sourced, but with the amount of information in the article, it really would be best served by summarizing it in the main article, and having a link to a Criticism of the Ulster Defence Regiment" article where it could be fully explored there.


 * Also, there is a base thought, held by some that Domer and Dunc are acting in tandem on these articles, to arbitrarily win these battles because it's 2 on 1. That is, one of them posts, gets reverted, and the other one re-reverts, and it sticks because everyone's at their Revert limits. I don't 100% agree with that, but I do think it's prudent to remind Dunc and Domer that even the PERCEPTION of "excessively coordinated editing" (see the recent Cla68/JzG/FM Arbcom that just ended, where this was a finding) is a bad thing. Thunderer needs to make sure that he continues to avoid being provoked into comments that he shouldn't make (there was at least two that come to mind, one he self-reverted, and one or two others I can think of that sounded condescending). Dunc and Domer need to be more open to changes on articles they work on (especially keeping in mind WP:OWN) in both format and content. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get another hour or so of shuteye before I go in to work. SirFozzie (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I can be a sarcastic bugger. It's mostly intended as humour but can be used as a barb sometime. I am guilty as charged sir.Thunderer (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been away for a week (visiting the lovely state of Tennessee, as it happens) and missed all the fun again. I've not yet had time to piece together the events that led here, so I'm not going to comment specifically on who did what. I will state again, though, that I believe all the editors involved do have good intentions in improving the article and simply have trouble working together. Strictly respected third party mediation combined with restrictions on unilateral editing would largely solve the problem, I think. I worked with all parties on the article before with some success, but the problem was I could not (and still cannot) spend as much time on the article as the other editors do. I don't really see the value in sanctioning one above the others and would propose across-the-board 0RR, rather than an additional, indefinite article ban on Domer. Those are my thoughts. Rockpock  e  t  19:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that these proposals are not going to work out. Previously, UDR was already under a 1RR restriction, and users reverted anyway. Inter editor communication and goodwill got worse, not better, so increasing the reversion restriction is only going to encourage system gaming, the appearance of system gaming, tag teaming and/or the appearance of tag teaming, accusations of the above, and a general loss of good will. While UDR is the current locus of the dispute, I feel that it is reasonable to think that the dispute will move with the editors. These new proposals still do not produce the thing most needed: cooperation between users. While removing Domer48 from the situation I think would be helpful as it he seems to be prone inflammatory edits (reinserting a section that Thunderer had spun off into another article was certainly ill advised), it does not create any sort of mediation between BigDunc and The Thunderer, the proposals seem to hope that such cooperation will become produced by restrictions. Instead I submit, that someone will trip the 0RR, and that the other editor will continue editing, and this will harm any trust and good will between the two.--Tznkai (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rock for the constructive positive and productive proposals, they have move this discussion towards a more constructive approach which can only reduce some of the current tension. However, in light of Fozzie’s comments above, supplemented by Tznkai, I would respectfully like to withdraw my support for any and all proposals put forward in this discussion. That Fozzie made a conscious decision to continue to put forward allegations with no supporting diff’s, and Tznkai's being very selective, is in no way conducive to a productive resolution. I would however like to put forward a proposal of my own for consideration.


 * That a neutral outside opinion conduct a review on the conduct and contributions of Admin’s and Editors on the UDR Article since the close of the last AE discussion, and the imposing of page protection. Since the time frame outlined is not very long, this process should not take to long.
 * That the sanctions agreed on the previous AE form part of the review, considering it effects and application.
 * That all conclusions be supported by diff’s, and concerned editors / admin's be afforded the opportunity to respond on their respective actions i.e. conduct and contributions.
 * That remedial proposals be put forward based on both the conclusions and responses of the neutral outside opinion and concerned editors/admin’s.

This is just a proposal, based on common sense and logical sequence. That the current system, as it stands is based on comment, opinion and assumptions and attempts to apply solutions without first having identified the problems makes no sense. AE applied sanctions, lets find out why they did not work before devising new ones.-- Domer48  'fenian'  21:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a conclusion?
Just wondering if everyone's made their minds up yet what's to happen? Thunderer (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Just wondering


 * According to Domer, no. The topic bans are still in force, until and unless something is agreed to replace them. SirFozzie (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am putty in your hands sir. Whatever is decided is fine by me. Thunderer (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lack of consensus to do anything at the moment. Might I suggest there is an opportunity for someone, say you or BigDunc to take some initiative and suggest something.--Tznkai (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have invited another editor to be my mentor for the UDR page hopefully he will accept and that would be a move forward.Thunderer (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to the editors in this discussion, I like to make a couple of points here. First, I did not start this tread, I made no accusations, and I did not propose or breech any AE sanctions. I was subjected to a number of accusations however, and have yet to see any supporting diff’s which would result in me being placed under any sanctions. To suggest then, that I am holding up concluding this discussion is quite bizarre. In fact I’m at a loss to know what this whole thing is about now.

To be told that I’m still to be subjected to a topic ban on all Troubles articles, can only prompt one question, why? I have asked a number of editors to address a number of questions I had and the answers have been few and far between.

Now I will agree there is a problem with the UDR article, and that it resulted in an AE. That the AE proposed a number of remedial measures, and despite this were all back here. For my part I made a proposal above to identify what the problem was and to date there has been no response. I see fellow editors propose and suggest alternative measures in the absence of any review since the date of implementation of AE sanctions and page protection. What I suggest now is that if editors wish, I can compile a review of the conduct and contributions of the edits in this narrow time frame, though it would be wholly inappropriate as an involved party.

So the question to be asked now is, who initiated this AE and why? Why was the UDR article page protected? Why are three editors currently under a topic ban on all Troubles articles when this is confined to just one? Who is going to review the UDR article since the AE to identify what the problem is? Thanks, -- Domer48  'fenian'  17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Will somebody answer Domer's questions? GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't initiate the sanctions, or accuse Domer of holding up progress, but as to the rest, but from my review of the most recent UDR issues, and my considerably more extensive review of the previous debacle, Domer48 is a participant and likely a cause of the disruption. He has made inflammatory edits, implied talk page consensus where the is none, applied policy as a bludgeon, and has in no way shown he has at all learned how not to edit war, which a brief glance at the history of UDR, for example, will show. Furthermore this is not an isolated incident, but the latest in a series of conflicts ranging across the Troubles related articles (involving the same editors) which has included hounding Thunderer through requests checkuser and accusations of sock puppetry despite being told repeatedly to let it go. To Domer's credit, that issue has not come up again since the previous issue, but it does go to explain why no one seems to be willing to give Domer the time of day, and why a seemingly isolated incident is being treated as a larger problem, because it is.
 * I have answered some of Domer's questions at various times, (see his talk page) but it is an exhausting process, it will likely take me an entire weekend to go through all of it and with no real obvious gain to be had from it. By comparison I seen great attempts at reconciliation and progress from both The Thunderer and from Big Dunc.
 * As for his proposals, they are patently ridiculous: a paper thin invitation for a witch hunt which has a place in the real world politics, but no place on an encyclopedia, they will produce nothing but more finger pointing and more protestations of innocence.
 * Oh, and the number of times he has spent accusing me of abusing power or being selective or otherwise disingenuous is a poor way for him to get me to humor him, but I will continue to do so anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to your now redacted section, Tznkai, I can tell you this, you were right the first time. SirFozzie (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are quite inflammatory which can only increase tensions and are therefore in my opinion disruptive. You should consider rescuing yourself from this discussion, as your continuous accusations relying only as they are on your opinions have no place here. The time frame in which we are dealing is quite narrow, from AE till page protection. That you are still unable to provide any diff’s to support your opinion or proposed sanctions is quite informative. Your comment “no one seems to be willing to give Domer the time of day” I find to be quite offensive, and grossly uncivil, and so far removed from reality as to raise questions as to your competence to hold the position you now enjoy. Therefore, in an effort to remove your opportunity to continue to insult me, I will decline to respond to your taunts and hope that someone with more experience can address your unacceptable behaviour. That you have chosen to personalise this to such a degree as to become personally offensive should in my opinion raise concerns among the wider community, who you continually suggest to speak for. -- Domer48  'fenian'  19:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * People interested in diffs of examples of Domer's disruptive behavior can look the ones I provided at Domer's talk page, and at an unfinished report in my user space, but I'd say his behavior in this thread, the talk pages, and his edit summaries as seen on in the Ulster Defence Regiment page especially speak for themselves.--Tznkai (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Announcement
I have now accepted mentorship for the UDR page from User:PalestineRemembered. Thunderer (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're even considering mentorship, I can tell you now that PR is not one bit suitable. He's probably one of the most unsuitable people of the project! We want you guys to learn how to approach disputes better, not edit war, POV push and soapbox! I strongly advise you to look for someone else.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I accepted him because he doesn't edit the UDR page and I have had no previous contact with him, therefore he can be neutral from both perspectives.Thunderer (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, quite a lot of view his editing as disruptive. He really is a massive POV pusher and just about all his talk edits are soapboxing. You can find someone a lot better, trust me. If you want, I'll take you under my wing.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the offer but can I see the opinions from the other admins first please?Thunderer (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to speak the benefits of mentorship itself, but if you do decide to go down that road, I would urge the selection of a mentor who has not been involved in disputes over ethnic/cultural articles.  MBisanz  talk 14:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I think the Thunderer can take any sort of informal mentorship from anyone he wants, it does not seem that PR enjoys enough support from the community to resolve the issue at hand. I personally am still holding out hope for the parties to go ahead for mediation, and have received some indication that might work out.--Tznkai (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a little unsure now. I have taken PR at face value and see no reason to turn his offer down.Thunderer (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd be very grateful if somebody could make the decision for me here please.Thunderer (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that you can accept advice from anyone you choose. But consider this: the goal of mentorship is to assist you in avoiding POV editing and help you edit harmoniously with others on a controversial subject. Is PR's record consistent with this (and I say that with zero personal knowledge of PR's contributions)? My suggestion would be to accept Ryan Postlethwaite's kind offer. Rockpock  e  t  18:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thunderer, with no offense meant toward PalestineRemembered.... I'd be a LOT happier if you accepted Ryan's offer, with or without further mentoring from PR. SirFozzie (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PR speaks - it seems strange that people who've had content disputes with me would suggest that Thunderer would somehow suffer harm. Whether I'd be a good mentor for another editor is of course not for me to say - but people who examine my edits (you'll find 5 of them on this page) will know I'm either pretty careful or very, very, very careful indeed. PRtalk 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I've followed the trail correctly, User:Ryan Postlethwaite used to be your own mentor, and he resigned this position with a recommendation that you be banned by the community, since your behavior did not improve under mentorship. . The fact that there was no consensus for your banning does not lessen the strong disapproval of your actions as an editor, voiced by the community at that discussion. In fact, in closing that discussion the closing admin had this to say about you:"PalestineRemembered has gained for himself over the years a 'cloud over his head', whereby he is clearly not regarded well by substantial volumes of the community. Indeed, that may be for good reason -- PR's past conduct has not been exemplary, to say the least, and the fact he has recently ran through 4 mentors (one of whom has actually filed for a community ban) is not exactly heartening.". As someone being mentored, you do not seem well suited to the role of a mentor yourself. NoCal100 (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Separating out the participants
It seems that we're in fairly broad agreement on what to do with BigDunc and The Thunderer, that they are at least TRYING to work together in a collegial manner. It's what to do with Domer that's the bone in everyone's throat at the moment. Here's some thoughts on what to do here.

A) Remove the Topic Bans on Thunderer/BigDunc (replaced with some combo of 0RR/mentorship), leave 1 month topic ban on Domer. I know polling is evil, but other then the participants, does anyone think that we WOULDN'T be back here in one month once it ends?

B)Remove the Topic Bans on Thunderer/BigDunc (replaced with some combo of 0RR/mentorship),extend topic ban on Domer. The ban can be extended for a set length of time or made indefinite, and we can see if Thunderer and Dunc can work together with out worrying that the balance would be upset in a matter of weeks.

C)Remove all sanctions applied in this thread Which is what Domer seems to be asking for here, but I don't see much, if any, support outside of his arguments.

D)Apply to have Ulster Defence Regiment and Criticisms of the Ulster Defence Regiment placed under flagged/sighted revisions. Sounds like this could be a good first test case for using flagged/sighted revisions. Not sure the developers would be sanguine about bringing a new wikipedia feature on EN-WP for use only on a single article, but it's an idea to consider with any of the other options.

E)Status Quo I'm not sure this would be a way to solve the situation, it seems like more all it would be doing is postpoining the situation. It seems more like punishing Thunderer/Dunc for others actions.

I welcome other options, and thoughts to this. But my general thoughts on this is that at least with Domer, the general consensus of the community is that he's exhausted community patience with regards to these articles. Wikipedia's editors (both administrators and content editors alike) as a whole has had to deal with Troubles articles being made a Battleground for over a year now, (at least I've been trying for at least 18 months to get these sides to fully work within Wikipedia's rules and policies).

If Domer thinks he is harshly done by in whatever suggestion is finally followed, he is free to bring it to the attention of the Arbitration Committee, of course. I wouldn't recommend it, as we all remember the drain on all editors from the first Troubles ArbCom case. Also, ArbCom would be just as free to ADD to the sanctions as to soften the sanctions as they see fit... but it wouldn't seem fair not to remind him he does have that option. SirFozzie (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add F) Remove the Topic Bans on Thunderer/BigDunc (upon agreement for formal mediation), maintain topic ban on Domer and G) Remove the Topic Bans on Thunderer/BigDunc (replaced with formal mediation), extend topic ban on Domer. I've spoken peripherally to various people involved, but it would be up to Thunderer and BigDunc to take the initiative to find a mutually acceptable mediator from the Mediation Committee. I'd support G, F, B, A in that order--Tznkai (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't want to insult PR by refusing his mentorship now but I will gladly accept Ryan's offer too. Two mentors is better than one.  As I've said before, I'll accept whatever deal is going because the admins have been doing their best and they need some support from the participants.   I'd really just like to get back to productive editing at this point. Thunderer (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I support retaining the topic ban on Domer48. Their aggressive and combative approach to this AE shows that they are not well suited to editing collaboratively in a disputed area of this type. The longer the better as far as I am concerned because its obvious that the problems will resume as soon as any ban ends. I also support releasing Dunc and The Thunderer from their topic bans. I suggest that 0RR restrictions and absolute requirements to seek agreement on disputed edits on talk pages be the minimum condition for their continued participation. I agree with Tznkai that mediation between them would be useful but since mediation is supposed to be a voluntary process I would not agree with it being made a condition - that said I do strongly urge both to consider mediation. Finally, I continue to feel that a referee is required. If both parties agree on the ref I don't see that I needs to be an admin. Are there any editors that both parties feel they could agree on? Spartaz Humbug! 12:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You, Tzankai, Fozzie, Ryan & a host more.Thunderer (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't support a topic ban for Domer, Thunderer nor Dunc, because I feel 0RR across the topic, mentorship and a few willing third party referees that the participants respect would better serve the encyclopaedia. Domer can be caustic in some circumstances, no doubt, but he is also extremely knowledgeable about this subject, it would be sad to lose his input completely. If that is not agreeable, then at least permit him to contribute to talk pages, where he can share his expertise. I would be willing to volunteer to act as a third party referee on UDR and related pages, but I'm in a very different timezone and would recommend that at least one additional person share the position (preferrably someone in Europe).  Rockpock  e  t  16:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Rock, I feel I must interject here. Domer is NOT knowledgeble about this subject.  The only thing he appears to have any passion for is finding material which is critical of this regiment.   He has contributed nothing to the actual article itself other than multiple opinions of thew critical points and that's why we are having difficulties.  He cannot accept that there's a point whereby the criticism is addressed and that further examples are repetitious and are slanting the synthesis.Thunderer (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was meaning knowledgeable in the wider context of the Troubles, rather than the UDR itself, which a topic bad would restrict. And yes, there is an issue with ensuring critical content is not given undue weight in that article. Rockpock  e  t  17:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To what end however? From what I've seen Domer's main goal on all the Troubles related articles he participates in is to write the history in a way that is only sypmathetic to the "Nationalist" cause.Thunderer (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen Domer's main goal is to improve the Troubles related articles as he sees it. His personal views obviously influence his contributions, as do all of ours. With respect, you're probably not the most independent reviewer of Domer's motives on the UDR article, because you have a pro-UDR conflict of interest (one which you have been quite open about). It isn't a problem having one editor provide content from one POV while another provides content from another if they can work together, in good faith, to ensure both are balanced to create a nuanced final product. It happens all the time on other controversial subjects without the need for external policing. Its not happening here. I believe the best solution for a balanced article is assisting all contributors in working together, not removing one of them. Rockpock  e  t  18:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Domer has much to contribute to this particular interaction but disruption myself. I think a month of time off from the topic for Domer48 will be good for the article, Big Dunc, Thunderer, and for that matter, probably Domer as well. And Spartaz's point about mediation being voluntary is well taken, but I think that if they had a mediator, they could work out reversion rules with that mediator--Tznkai (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you are right but the problem is that The Thunderer seems to be the only partly willing to consider mediation and neither BigDunc nor Domer48 have shown any willingness to give ground to The Thunderer. These proposals are really nothing more than an enforced outcome because of the absence of meaningful mediation and, were the parties all willing to follow mediation we would never have reached this point. Spartaz Humbug! 17:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had some contact with BigDunc, and have reason to hope that will move forward towards mediation. Also fixed some apparent typos in your reply.--Tznkai (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec & rethreaded for clarity)I'm afraid that I'm not seeing any evidence of movement on their part. Their long list of diffs clearly designed to blame The Thunderer for the trouble is a case in point. I'd say that we should enforce but can consider relaxing enforcement if the parties subsequently enter voluntarily into mediation and progress is made. No need to fix my typos by the way. :) I doubt anyone would seriously believe a typoless post from me hadn't been edited by someone else anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 18:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean the long list of diffs down there, thats Domer, not BigDunc, their sigs are just similar at a glance.--Tznkai (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops. yes I misread that and yes you are right BigDunc is not the main obstacle to progress here and with mediation or appropriate sanctions would be able to edit without problems. I see no reason why sanctions against them and the thunderer would not be relaxed if meaningful mediation took place or, at the very least, they showed that they can be trusted to edit collaboratively given their different points of view. Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support the comments of Spartaz earlier today.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to be a bit more specific?--Tznkai (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I support retaining the topic ban on Domer48. Their aggressive and combative approach to this AE shows that they are not well suited to editing collaboratively in a disputed area of this type. The longer the better as far as I am concerned because its obvious that the problems will resume as soon as any ban ends. I also support releasing Dunc and The Thunderer from their topic bans. I suggest that 0RR restrictions and absolute requirements to seek agreement on disputed edits on talk pages be the minimum condition for their continued participation. That's what I endorse.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to speak up for BigDunc here and say that his attitude is very different to Domer's and BigDunc has definitely interacted with me through discussion and editing over the last several months.Thunderer (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence my view that they should be allowed to continue editing this area. Spartaz Humbug! 18:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Their long list of diffs clearly designed to blame The Thunderer for the trouble is a case in point." Spartaz, that is clearly a conclusion you have drawn, I however have made no such conclusion. That none of you have provided anything to support your opinions is very telling, and still suggesting sanctions? -- Domer48  'fenian'  18:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a good reason why my list of diffs is longer than everyone else's. I have contributed more to the article than other editors - by far.Thunderer (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You have also removed and reverted more than anyone else. -- Domer48  'fenian'  18:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that's the reason we're here - why I removed and reverted edits by you (in particular).Thunderer (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I perfectly amenable to both mediation and mentoring and see it as one possibly solution to the current impasse. 0RR on the UDR article would also help along with a third party referee agreeable to all, would also be another avenue worth exploring. -- Domer48  'fenian'  22:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Review of edits on UDR
Adding this lot to the discussion in this format is unhelpful as the page is already too long. I have collapsed it before the page self destructs. Feel free to put this on a su¨-page or somewhere in user space and link to it. Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Summary of review


 * User:Domer48 Insert: 12       Remove: 1      Reverts: 2      Removing Whole Sections: 0
 * User:BigDunc Insert: 6        Remove: 10     Reverts: 2      Removing Whole Sections: 0
 * User:The Thunderer Insert: 69 Remove: 44     Reverts: 22     Removing Whole Sections: 5


 * The edits of User:BigDunc and User:Domer48 were all subsequently reverted.

-- Domer48  'fenian'  18:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't actually allow for the different editing style where the Thunderer tends to make small incremental changes in sucession so many edits are effectively one revision. Just looking at the numbers is not illuminating of the reality. Spartaz Humbug! 18:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Domer and Bigduncs sections are missing the edit summaries for some reason.--Tznkai (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The edits have now been provided for you all, why not use diff's now to support your opinions? -- Domer48  'fenian'  18:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)-> User:The Thunderer has accepted two mentors - part of the value of this process is that editors with whom they have content disputes have an avenue to discuss conduct issues without personal confrontation. I've had no notification of the difficulties indicated in this listing.
 * @Domer - I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into your listing - but I would like to know what policies of the project you think might have been infringed.
 * At this point, I think I should notify User:The Thunderer that I totally disagree with the injunction "This is a talk page for mentors only. If you have a comment for me and you are not mentoring me then please leave it at My Talk Page." he has placed at his mentorship page here. The whole point of this exercise is that editors such as Domer can challenge your conduct at a place other than article TalkPage or your own UserTalkPage. I would not criticise Domer for ignoring your instruction, removing his evidence from this page and placing it at your Mentorship Page. PRtalk 18:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.Thunderer (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have infringed none what so ever. -- Domer48  'fenian'  18:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

AE case closed on 5 October 2008 at 18.02 by Rlevse. All Troubles Articles placed under 1RR. The template below was posted on the Ulster Defence Regiment on 5 October 2008 at 20.00 by SirFozzie.

>

Editors will note: If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

Article was Page Protected on 14 October 2008, 20:10 by SirFozzie

I have placed the edits on the Ulster Defence Regiment here to be reviewed by Editors. The edits of User:BigDunc and User:Domer48 were all subsequently reverted. I have omitted all format / grammar edits, however were formatting was also reverted I have included them.

'''Edits and contributions since the 5 October 2008, 20.00. - 14 October 2008, 20:10'''

User:Domer48
Inserting text: ,   ,, , , , ,  Removing text:  Reverting text: , 

User:BigDunc
Inserting text:,, , , , Removing text: ,, , , , , , , , Reverting text:,

User: The Thunderer
Inserting text: “Belfast and other urban settings” ,

“Battalions and locations”,

“Politicians (order by rank, where known)”'''

“History”''' , note,

“Criticism”''' , note,, , , , , , ,

“Infiltration by paramilitaries”''' ,, ,

“The Subversion in the UDR report”''' ,, , ,

“Subsequent Catholic recruitment”''',

“Options for Change and amalgamation”''' 

“Rural ambushes and attacks”''', ,

“Mortar attacks”''' 

“Uniform, armament & equipment”''' ,, , ,

“Recruitment”''',

“Duties”'''

“Music”''',

“Attempts to prevent paramilitary infiltration”''' 

“Politicians (order by rank, where known)”''',

“Intro”''',

“Formation”''',, , , , ,

“Annual training camps”''',

“Awards, honours and decorations”'''

“Comparison with the Irish Citzens Militia”''', , “Bibliography”'''

“The Men”'''

“Training”''', ,

“Male personnel”''',

Removing text:

“Criticism”''' edit summary “Rewriting section”,, , , , , , ,

“The role of ex-B-Specials in the UDR and the effect on Catholic recruitment”''' , ,

“Options for Change and amalgamation”''', Max,, , max, ,

“Battalions and locations”''', ,

“Attempts to prevent paramilitary infiltration”''',, ,

“Targeting by the IRA”''',

“Rural ambushes and attacks”''',

“Formation”'''note

“Recruitment”''',

“Intimidation”'''

“Infiltration by paramilitaries”'''

“Subsequent Catholic recruitment”''',, , , , ,

“Uniform, armament & equipment”'''

“Structure”'''note

Reverting text:

“Infiltration by paramilitaries”''', ,

“Options for Change and amalgamation”'''

“Criticism”''', ,

“History”'''

“Rural ambushes and attacks”'''

“Subsequent Catholic recruitment”'''

“Battalions and locations”'''

“Belfast and other urban settings”'''

“Formation”''',

“Loyalist Intimidation”'''

“Uniform, armament & equipment”'''

“The Greenfinches”'''

“Attempts to prevent paramilitary infiltration”''' 

“Aftercare”'''

“The whole article”''', note edit summary

“Male personnel”'''

Removing whole sections

,, , , 2nd revert
 * User:Domer48 Insert: 12       Remove: 1      Reverts: 2      Removing Whole Sections: 0
 * User:BigDunc Insert: 6        Remove: 10     Reverts: 2      Removing Whole Sections: 0
 * User:The Thunderer Insert: 69 Remove: 43     Reverts: 22     Removing Whole Sections: 5

I will put together some diff’s on talk page contributions, on how they relate to main space edits. I have refrained from putting forward any analysis, until this has been reviewed. -- Domer48  'fenian'  17:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Monday update
This looks to have stalled out yet again, so I'm going to do my best to unstick things and move it forward. I'm enthused that Thunderer has accepted Ryan as a mentor as well as PR. That's a good step towards resolving this. I do add to the voices urging Dunc and Thunderer to seek formal mediation on UDR and elsewhere. I am therefore modifying my placing Dunc and Thunderer under the topic ban, to the following:

'''The topic ban placed on both User:BigDunc and User:The Thunderer is now in abeyance. Instead, they are placed on a strict 0 Revert Rule, specifically on Ulster Defence Regiment, but this remedy can also be applied to any other article in which they find themselves in conflict, by any administrator.'''

Domer's topic ban is still in effect.. I don't see any suggestion that lifting it early (if at all) would be a good thing at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time and effort on this Fozzie. Thunderer (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Domer's topic ban is still in effect" yes when you have explained a) Why it was imposed, and b) if you are entitled to impose it? You have been asked often enough now. -- Domer48  'fenian'  13:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go on a limb and say its because you've been disrupting Wikipedia, and I have already given evidence on the same, at the places on wiki I have previously listed..--Tznkai (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No you provided no valid reason, and the question was directed at the editor who imposed this. -- Domer48  'fenian'  14:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No diffs have been provided to show how Domer has caused disruption since the last AE ended. BigDunc  Talk 15:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

When Rockpocket above suggests that I “can be caustic in some circumstances,” I find I can accept this from someone whose advice I have followed and whose opinion I have come to respect. Because while offering this opinion, they also accept that my motivation is to improve Troubles related articles. Since the last AE, I have consistently used the talk page, and followed the advice offered by Rock. To now find myself in a situation were I’m been topic banned on the one hand, and denied the justification for it on the other; it can only lead to frustration, which I believe I have managed to keep in check. So without sounding “caustic” I find this block to be both unjustified and unjustifiable. -- Domer48  'fenian'  17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Domer would you agree to be part of mediation on the UDR article with myself and Thunderer? BigDunc  Talk 20:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, I've never had a problem with mediation. -- Domer48  'fenian'  21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well as I told Tznkai off wiki I would volunteer myself to take part in mediation, but this week is a busy week for me real life issues to contend with. And it looks like Domer and Thunderer will be part of it too. So could someone set the wheels in motion and I will drop in most days for a bit. BigDunc  Talk 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't know you lived for rugby, Dunc ;)
 * I'm afraid I have to agree, again. I know that Domer's editing style can wear observers down to the extent that seems purposely disruptive. The diffs he produced on this page was classic Domer overkill, but they serve a purpose: if one goes through them, there is little in there that sets Domer apart from the other editors, except perhaps a remarkable tenacity. But rather than seeing it as a problem dealt with by a topic ban, this tenacity can be put to constructive use. I'm no sop to Irish editors (have a look up there ^ for example) and am all for topic bans when the aim of the editor is to be disruptive. But when the motivation of all parties is genuinely good, and the issue is not one of intent but instead a problem in working together, then all parties should be given an equal last chance under formal mediation/mentoring. If that doesn't work, and anyone gets involved in incivility or revert warring going forward, then it should be an automatic topic ban. But we should be fair, and considering the number of last chances it took before other editors being discussed on this page were topic banned, giving one to Domer now seems awfully premature to me. Rockpock  e  t  23:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just noting here, that I havn't forgotten about this, and have something in the works, just waiting for a reply.--Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Further Proposals
Sorry to let this situation lay fallow so long, but things needed to be duly taken care of. So, what I'm proposing is these things, in concert: Not part of the proposal per se, but the article specific 1RR restrictions as applied by previous AE thread are continued, but should be revisited later--Tznkai (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BigDunc and Thunderer are under 0RR restriction until a mediator reports BigDunc and Thunderer have entered formal mediation.
 * Domer48 will join mediation, but under a strict indefinite topic ban on Ulster Defence Regiment and subpages thereof, and a broad article topic ban on the Troubles and related articles, in addition to voluntary terms with the mediator.
 * If in the opinion of a 3 editors referee panel, in consultation with the mediator, Domer48 has successfully participated in mediation, Domer48's topic ban is rescinded.
 * The aforementioned referee panel will consist of, ,
 * Well, I'm still not sold on the reason Domer should be treated differently, though I realise that is a minority view. But kudos for coming up with a framework that should enable him to get the ban revoked. My only concern would be how he would be able to successfully participate in mediation on a subject when he is topic banned from it? Does the topic ban only apply to article space? Rockpock  e  t  05:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My current idea is a total ban from UDR article and talk, and an article ban on Troubles broadly speaking, but not talk. I do though, see your point about successful participation. It was my belief that access to the other Troubles related talk pages broadly speaking would allow him to participate successfully though.--Tznkai (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems logical. Rockpock  e  t  17:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Like the previous suggestions, it lacks one crucial ingredient which is justification. What is it I’m supposed to have done? I have gone to the trouble of providing all of the edits of three editors which would facilitate discussion. Now I have breeched none of the AE imposed sanctions, nor have I breeched any of the terms of the Troubles ArbCom, and no one has illustrated otherwise. So until we return to ArbCom, as the only body capable of applying such sanctions, I suggest we deal with what is acceptable, that being mediation, mentorship, or comprehensive RfC. -- Domer48  'fenian'  13:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Domer, the above proposal is a compromise, a compromise that gives you the benefit of the doubt, despite an extensive history of disruption, including recent and less recent warring on the Ulster Defence Regiment article; edit warring on Ulster Special Constabulary; All Troubles related articles by the way, are under Arbitration Committee authorized general sanctions, as we have mentioned before in the previous AE thread on this subject.
 * On top of all of this the application of common sense combined with consensus decision making as community members allows us to take measures to protect the encyclopedia. This isn't a court where we find you guilty of laws, its proactive consensus driven administration to protect encyclopedia from disruption.--Tznkai (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I like this proposal as well, the uninvolved ref panel should end the repeated AE threads.  MBisanz  talk 16:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * MBisanz I find it strange that you support this, considering you could not support your agreeing with the last proposel with diff's. You had to strike your comments above because you were wrong. Now why should sanctions be applied to me alone, and try using diff's to support this? -- Domer48  'fenian'  16:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you've been clearly disruptive going back to your harassment of the thunderer; you need to find another area of WP to edit.  MBisanz  talk 18:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not have an extensive history of disruption. In the last AE all personal sanctions on me were lifted as they were seen as unfair. Being subject to the Troubles ArbCom ruling, like everyone else, likewise the recent AE, any and all sanctions will be applyed equally. Since I have abided by all recomendations outlined on the AE, I have a real problem with the logic "proactive consensus driven administration to protect encyclopedia from disruption." There has been no disruption on my part, and to ignore all rules, and the application of common sense to suggest sanctions I suggest is being very disruptive. -- Domer48  'fenian'  16:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Domer, you are still under topic ban, and I was under the assumption you were obeying it, which hardly explains or  or  or  or . I'm surprised that no one has called you out on it, I am guessing that that everyone else, like myself, simply figured you wouldn't be so foolish as to directly go against a topic ban. I'm astonished and really quite appalled. --User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: there are more, but that would be a bit much.--Tznkai (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tznkai. Domer, you just used up your free pass. Violate your topic ban again, and I WILL block you. SirFozzie (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To blatantly canvass for a moment Fozzie, care to comment on the proposals above?--Tznkai (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it. At this point, I don't doubt that we'll be back again, but it's a good next step to be taken. SirFozzie (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course Fozz will not have a problem; they are the one who started this tread. Fozz are you going to justify this with diff’s or ignore all the Wiki norms. Now Fozz who gave you the authority to issue Topic bans over hundreds of articles. Tznkai raised this and Giano also on your talk page? I asked also on this discussion and you ignored it. Now are you going to justify this Topic ban or is ArbCom the only route? -- Domer48  'fenian'  19:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why any editor would wanna hang around the article which got him/her sanctioned. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed how much little edit-warring is going on now at the article? I wonder why that is?  Could it be because the source of the problems has been removed?   Do you see anyone going in to make loads of POV points given that they have a free hand now that the "guardian" of the article isn't allowed to edit?  I rest my case. Thunderer (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that article has become more stable. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not speaking for Fozzie, but the principle is here:Community ban. No one lifted it, many supported it, thus imposed.--Tznkai (talk)


 * Considering the consensus (with a few dissenters, like Rockpocket) is that the topic ban is valid, I suggest that if you think you are being unfairly treated, you can bring it up with ArbCom. Administrators are granted a range of discretionary ways to deal with disruption. All normal methods had been tried previously, and have been a rather spectacular failure. (At one point, there was FOUR separate Troubles/Irish related issues in front of AE recently!). At some point, we have to say enough is enough. And as a reply to GoodDay, If you look at Domer's contribution list.. 99% of his edits are on Irish/Troubles related articles. He may consider a topic ban to be a defacto site ban. SirFozzie (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And just to clarify: while I have registered my disagreement that a topic ban as the best solution to this particular issue, I don't dispute the authority of a consensus of admins here impose one, especially in the Troubles sphere. Even though I don't concur personally, I can't dispute that there is probably a consensus. At this stage, I think the options are to embrace the restriction with the intention of demonstrating to the panel of editors that it is not required, or else take it to ArbCom. My advice would be to choose the former, rather than the latter, route. I certainly would not advise editing Troubles related articles in the meantime. Rockpock  e  t  19:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So basically you’ve have not got the authority, and are looking to Admin’s like you who could not support such a block to back you up? I don’t think I’m being unfairly treated, that would be too mild a notion. Administrators are granted a range of discretionary ways to deal with disruption, but they also have to show good cause. Now consensus is not good cause, and none of the Admin’s has been able, like you to show any. All normal methods have not been tried previously, as you suggest, and because of a lack of enforcement by Admin’s like you are a rather spectacular failure. Now show “good cause,” why a Topic Ban is justified you have been asked often enough by more than just me. -- Domer48  'fenian'  19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing as you just emailed me to attempt to give evidence to try and out another editor, I continue to support these topic restrictions.  MBisanz  talk 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * MBisanz, can you let me know privately (via email or what have you), of the editor that Domer's attempting to out? If its who I think it is, Domer's time on Wikipedia is about to come to an end. He was told many many times to let that go. SirFozzie (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Now Fozz, I think you are walking on thin ice! -- Domer48  'fenian'  20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, you were walking on thin ice, and by attempting to out that editor again, you just broke through. Blocked indefinitely. SirFozzie (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been privately shown some of the evidence that resulted in this block and I agree that it is proportionate and necessary. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Confirming the above.--Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * After discussion with SirFozzie, I have proposed a conditional lifting of the indefinite block on Domer48's talk page. I expect to be offline for some time now, so if another administrator feels that Domer48 has accepted the proposed conditions, I have no objection for him/her to proceed.  Risker (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good plan, but I'm unconvinced that he's really getting it, and I'm fairly sure I'm incapable of explaining it in a way he'll understand.--Tznkai (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A Troubles topic ban on Domer would in fact be as Fozz stated above a defacto site ban as his area of intrest is Irish history, so why would an editor agree to a defacto ban when they feel they have done nothing wrong. Also I can't understand why his supposed attempt to out another editor should be linked to this AE as they are seperate. It seems like an attempt to impose back door sanctions. I would propose an article ban on the UDR page and a strict 1 or 0RR on all other Troubles releated articles. Also Domer joins myself and Thunderer in mediation and let the mediators and the referee panel decide if he has changed his editing patterns. BigDunc  Talk 11:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason that the outing attempt (I would characterize it additionally as "bullying" and "threatening" another user) is linked to this thread stems from a series of e-mails that Domer initiated, based on contents in this thread. As to your modifications to my proposed modification on the topic ban, I have no objection to them.--Tznkai (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Proposals:


 * Domer48 will join mediation, but under a strict indefinite topic ban on Ulster Defence Regiment and subpages thereof, and a strict *1RR on all other Troubles related articles in addition to voluntary terms with the mediator.
 * If in the opinion of a 3 editors referee panel, in consultation with the mediator, Domer48 has successfully participated in mediation, Domer48's topic ban is rescinded.
 * The aforementioned referee panel will consist of Avruch (talk • contribs), Tiptoety (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), Nishkid64 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
 * Not part of the proposal per se, but the article specific 1RR restrictions as applied by previous AE thread are continued, but should be revisited later--Tznkai (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2008

-- Domer48  'fenian'  09:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment for The Thunderers mentors
I would like to point out that The Thunderer in making edits like this are far from helpful. What he has done is as soon as Domer gets blocked he immediately begins by taking advantage of the block to remove reliably sourced information. And it appears to be a whitewash of the article plus removing Farrell's claims is a breach of NPOV. When sources disagree you cant cherrypick the one you dislike and remove it. BigDunc Talk 14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * seems to me his going after the core facts, and cutting through the POV tape, to make an A class article. refreshing to see.--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've placed Thunderer on 0RR on the PIRA article for the most recent issue, and working with other administrators to determine what other steps need to be taken. SirFozzie (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Rockybiggs is correct. I am removing ANY POV from the USC article as it is not helpful or encyclopedic.   My ultimate aim is to provide a study on these Irish Militias and as a result I am acquiring books on the subject.  Although the official history of this militia police force/gendarmerie is out of print I have managed to acquire a second hand copy and intend to use it to provide more encyclopedic content to the article.   I fully intend to address the issues of religious and sectarian divide but without using POV material.  It's obvious to me that too many people from both Irish persuasions are trying to slant these articles in favour of their own views, conciously or subconciously.  As far as I can see the time has come to address this issue properly and to make these contentious articles the model which the wiki intends them to be.  As for the PIRA issue, I wasn't aware I had been placed on 0RR but was working on the 1RR in any case.   I don't see any benefit in edit-warring on the matter and further to that it's obvious, even to admins, that my obervations are correct.   I am not trying to prevent the information being included, I just want to see it in context and not used to present a false impression to any reader wishing to use the piece as an encyclopedic reference.  Thunderer (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentor response - perhaps BigDunc  needs reminding that he has another channel opened for settling this matter, and it's a lot better than trying to do so at this "Arbitration Enforcement" page. This other avenue was opened specifically for this purpose - indeed for his benefit. Thunderer opened a mentorship page for precisely this kind of discussions. Dunc knows of this arrangement because he's already participated there. It is difficult to understand how Mentors can possibly do their useful work at this location here instead. Naturally, Dunc is free to bypass the arrangements that were set up to avoid disruption to articles if he feels they're not working. But he's given them no chance - worse, his appeal to "the mentors" here (without informing me) seems calculated to discredit a process even while he apparently seeks to undermine it.

I regret to say that, when, previous to me offering (and Thunderer accepting) mentorship, Dunc challenged my analysis of a previous editing (not content) dispute here, he failed to provide me anything to indicate I'd made a mistake. My own re-investigation, at his behest, only confirmed what I thought I'd seen first, a rejection by him of an established consensus. (To anyone reading this, please see here and tell me if I'm wrong). At the current time it would appear that Dunc needs to change his contribution style if wishes to contribute usefully to a collegiate working relationship with other editors. There is no benefit to fomenting more of this drama, least of all on this page. PRtalk 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no faith in you as a mentor and I wasn't sure who else said they were going to take up the task. This is why I posted here. I believe Ryan is also doing it and this is the mentor I will deal with. As regard the mentor page set up by Thunderer you are the one who posted my question to you from your talk page on it. Still unanswered. You say I went against established consensus you obviously can't count, but of course you are only counting the editors before my post and not after. I only commented on it when asked by Thunderer what it was doing there. He too is confused why you pasted it on the page. So twice you have attacked me instead of dealing with the edits I questioned and you expect me to have faith in an editor who has a history of personal attacks POV pushing and edit warring. BigDunc  Talk 14:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly perplexed at this downer you have on one of my mentors Dunc. You are entitled to your own views of course but thus far I can see that PR has done nothing but issue constructive criticism and advice.  I don't believe it is helpful to our discussions or mediation if you prejudge the issue of mentorship.  In other words; give the bloke a chance (I presume it's a bloke). Thunderer (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above I have no faith in him as a mentor and I will not be dealing with him. His only interaction with me is to 1 accuse my of ignoring consensus which is BS and then 2 he comes here and says I am trying to whip up drama more BS. BigDunc  Talk 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He's one of my mentors though - not yours. Furthermore you seem capable of stirring up enough drama yourself.Thunderer (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)