Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles


 * For enforcement requests, see Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Thepiper
A British editor once said to me that "Ireland needed a second dose of Cromwell". Was he blocked, no. Was he warned, no. But Vintagekits is editing in the Anglo-American-Centric Wikipedia. So Vk, you couldn't win this one. He was brought down by the pack. I don't agree with Vk on everything he writes, but it only boiled up a few times. Neither would I nobble anyone else under similar circumstances. -- Thepiper 10:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No matter what User:Rockpocket will try and tell you, (I was looking at the charges he is preparing), these troubles started in 1603, in the Plantation of Ulster, and not here on Wikipedia. Irish People, in their own native country, had a very hard time, to put it mildly. Denied jobs, education and opportunity, in the 1960s, when the rest of the world was enjoying freedom, the Roman Catholics of Northern Ireland, started to march, in order to gain civil rights. They were met with rubber bullets, baton-charging police, many were shot dead, and guns planted on their dead bodies. On Bloody Sunday (1972), the British Army shot dead 13 unarmed civil rights marchers at point blank range. Then the IRA grew from strength to strength, until the British Government were forced to negotiate a settlement with the Belfast Agreement. That's a brief synopsis of the long sordid history of the Northern Ireland part of Ulster, under British Rule. My point here is that the troubles are old and Vintagekits is not responsible. The great American jurist Senator George J. Mitchell worked wonders with the Belfast Agreement, that's what Wikipedia needs now, to solve it, and not more of the same. Thanks for reading, I may update this I may deem necessary. -Thepiper 11:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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


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


 * The arbitrators, during their vote, mentioned that they would like to look at the whole picture. If you notice my clerk note, I asked what the scope was going to be on and whether to involve all parties. The Arbitration Committee does maintain a mailing list for conversing off-wiki. (Think of the discussion as behind doors.) It's not secretive (secretive here would actually mean that the arbitrators didn't mention they want to view the whole picture before asking the clerk to re-title). By the way, you may not voluntarily withdraw from an arbitration case (to be removed from involved party, a motion must pass). - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 12:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But I am not "involved" in the "The Troubles" of Ulster at all or in any way. That was not the original arbitration which I voluntarily made a statement for. Something voluntarily submitted to a particular case, which has then had a dramatic shift of parameters, should be able to be withdrawn otherwise it is essentially being misused. I failed to notice that you were the clerk, so please put this matter before the arbitrators for an authorisiation of my statement withdrawal. regards, David Lauder 12:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be up to the judgment of arbitrators to decide; I could only ask them to consider. Generally speaking, though, most people that submit any kind of evidence for the situation ends up staying listed as an involved party because they also would get notified at the end of the case. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As one who has been keen for this whole affair to be sorted fairly. I disagree completely with David Lauder. I think it is brilliant that the whole of this problem is to be fully explored. It seems to me that at times, a small clique of editors which included David Lauder have exacerbated the problems, rather than try to find a reasonable solution and compromise with those of differing views. David Lauder may indeed choose to withdraw as he wishes but he should note that his withdrawal will not prevent his conduct in this affair from being closely scrutinised.  If the Arbcom decide that the permanent ban of Vintagekits is justified then so be it, but it is very unlikely they the findings will be that Vintagekits orchestrated and 100%  personally caused the feuding which has been a feature of "The Troubles" pages for so long. Giano 13:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just don't know how you can say that, honestly I don't. Would you say that post falls with the realms of WP:CIVIL? I have not attacked anyone elses work on WP the way VK has. Show me someone I have bullied into submission? Lead me to one AfD I have proposed? Show me where I had some involvement in the last two indefinite blocks of Vintagekits. We may have crossed swords at points but are we not adults? In all courts/arbitration matters there is a fundamental root cause. Originally this case was brought to ArbCom to consider Vintagekits, under that heading. The parameters have been substantially altered covering Northern irish matters, where my input over the past 8 months has been utterly meaningless.David Lauder 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, surely you've nothing to be concerned about and the arb case can proceed with the incidental evidence you have provided? - Alis o n  ☺ 13:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from case page: ''*Later thought. This seems now to be turned into a discussion about "The Troubles" in which I have very little interest. I edited Bobby Sands a while ago and later contributed to a few afds on various terrorists / freedom fighters (depending on one's perspective). The consequence was that User:Vintagekits and User:Giano_II started attacking articles to which I had contributed. Bad game. Not interested. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)'' -- - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Query for clerk
Could a clerk comment on whether the committee is planning to consider the circumstances around and leading up to Vk's block, specifically, in this case? I ask because at least one committee member stated "I have no interest in examining the block of Vintagekits" in accepting the case. I have plenty of evidence to submit regarding Vk's behaviour, but if this is not being considered then there is little point me adding to what will be an already extremely evidence heavy case. In addition, much of the poor behaviour spanned not only articles relating to the Troubles, but migrated across to articles on baronetcies. Will the committee consider evidence from this subject area too? I ask because some of the most damaging sockpuppetry and meat-puppetry involving some of the major protagonists occurred on Afd's relating to these articles rather than those directly related to the Troubles. And while we are at it, there was some pretty poor behaviour on, for example, Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville. Will evidence from these tangentially related subjects be considered also? Rockpock e  t  17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My best bet is to submit the evidence; what arbitrators choose to do with it is their jurisdiction. Without speculating, I would submit all evidence you can (but please be concise with them). With the tangentially related subjects, I would compile it and then see which ones show the behaviors the most and not submit all of it. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do. Thanks. Rockpock  e  t  18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Request from Vintagekits
On his talk page, Vintagekits has made a proposal:


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

-- Rockpock e  t  20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I have just lifted the email block on Vintagekits' account here. It was originally applied due to email abuse after he was blocked but seeing as he still persists in emailing me, it's a bit moot anyway. - Alis o n  ☺ 20:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He emails me too. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I email a lot of people!--Vintagekits 08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding User:Biofoundationsoflanguage as involved party
Gave notice here that he was being added. SirFozzie 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Aatomic1
Domers evidence (a) relates to this; I agreed to mediation before this Arbcon surfaced. I suspect his reasoning is all animals are equal at mediation but some animals are more equal than others at Arbcom.

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

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

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

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

Previously, myself and Tyrenius (who were both parties to the ArbCom) have used this remedy to try to keep folks calm, with no peep of protest. Now, three weeks after User:Aatomic1 was placed on a one-month probation by administrator User:Alison, User:Aatomic1 has attempted to remove himself from the terms of probation, because Alison was one of the parties who provided evidence and discussion for the case. This came after Aatomic1 attempted to incite an admin who WAS in an edit war with User:Domer48 to place "That troll" (ie Domer) on its terms. Could the ArbCom please clarify this remedy, as to whom may place it, and if my definition is correct? SirFozzie (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The probation should remain in place. For purposes of this case, Alison was not an involved admin and she remains uninvolved as far as I can tell. Meaning that she has not been involved in edits disputes with the user or about these articles. We need admin to become "involved" as Alison did. Meaning that they learn about conflicts, bring them to ArbCom for rulings, and apply sanctions as needed when cases close. I think that is what Alison did and so the probation should remain. FloNight (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


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


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


 * That was my understanding too, however our-soon-to-be-newest Arb appeared to have a different opinion. Note that "heavily involved in the earlier disputes" equates to being one of the admins who attempted to deal with earlier disputes.  Rockpock  e  t  01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's always a judgment call, and a balancing: We don't want editors to believe they are being treated unfairly, but neither do we want to multiply the opportunities for forum shopping. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


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


 * As a clerk I always find that "uninvolved" in this case means that you have a neutral opinion on the subject. (Like, I would not touch anything related to Chinese politics with a 10' pole.) You cannot pass judgment on anyone without learning why, and if we become "involved", we'd never get anything done. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Yes, of course. And I don't mean to give the impression that any admin should reserve an absolute right to be the one to take action (sometimes its better to step back to avoid even the appearance of a COI). My concern is simply that this does leave open an avenue in which editors who are under ArbCom remedies could take out of the equation the very admins that are most familiar with their MO in an effort to further a disruptive agenda. It is a balance, but as we saw from the reversing of Ty's block, the community has in place mechanisms that provides it without asking those with previous experience to recuse themselves on principle. This is especially important in complex and long running cases, where entirely "uninvolved" admins would not have a clue what was going on.
 * On a personal note, I felt particularly aggrieved by this suggestion, because I was the one who volunteered to provide the evidence about a particular editor in this case, and as a result I was the one targeted (by an entire lobby) as the person with the vendetta. I could easily have stood back and let someone else provide the evidence, but didn't consider it an issue at the time. As it stood, I was not planning to provide any more evidence to future cases, lest the same accusations be leveled against me. I'd feel much more confidence in contributing to the arbitration process if I felt that my evidence as an admin who tried to enforce our policies was not codified as being an involved in the problem. Rockpock  e  t  03:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would a neutral observer think, by your actions or the way you presented evidence, that you had taken sides? Or are you presenting yourself as a neutral party trying to resolve ongoing conflicts?  If so, you probably should not take enforcement action.  If not, then there should not be a problem.  Complaints from the people you have sanctioned is routine.  Try the Armenia-Azerbaijani dispute.  I respond to a large majority of the reports and I'm pretty sure neither side has much liked my responses. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware no neutral observer has ever suggested any of the admins involved have taken sides, though plenty have said that its best of avoid it looking that way. Well, when the lobbies (on both sides) are doing their damnedest to make it look that way, then we have a problem. So what happens is one editor complains loudly when an admin takes action, within (literally) minutes the other members of the lobby pile on with the same complaint. The neutral observer sees a number of editors in agreement and suggests you should probably not make the enforcement action if only to avoid the perception of bias. QED, the lobby has got exactly what they want. So the "involved" admins probably do inflame the situation, but thats because its in the interests of those people who are under remedy to cause the inflammation. I see this as a real and ongoing problem. The obvious answer is to have other admins take over, but quite frankly, requests for outside eyes in this sort of lengthy, simmering and bitter dispute come to nothing, no-one wants to touch it - and you can hardly blame them. Rockpock  e  t  05:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't intended to be obtuse or confusing. If you are part of the problem, you should not be the one to impose the remedy. I think this is clear from the current Matthew Hoffman case where Adam is under review for blocking editors whose edits he opposed for content reasons, even though he did not edit the exact article in dispute but did edit other articles in the broad topic. However, if you step into a situation to try and resolve it peacefully, and maintain your objectivity, and find that one party or both needs to be sanctioned, you probably can do it. Editors should not feel that they are being taken advantage of by their opponents who happen to have a sysop bit, but at the same time, disruptive editors should not be able to game the system and forum shop by claiming that every admin who tries to resolve a situation in a neutral way is now too tainted by involvement to make a fair judgement call on sanctions. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need administrator to become knowledgeable about the situation in order to make clueful decisions. There should be no problem with monitoring a situation over time to make sure is properly resolved. Keeping articles on a watchlist and stepping in to calm down edit wars is a good use of admin time. FloNight (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * Usual nonsense from you. THose AfD were overturned because the delete votes and the nominator was a bigotted banned user!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you direct me to that discussion/decision, please? (Rockpocket unsigned)


 * No I couldnt!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can find no evidence provided that an Afd was "overturned", as you say, and you are unwilling to direct me to the evidence then I am left with no choice to revert back to the AfD decision. I'll give you a few more minutes. Rockpocket 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seek and you shall find - nothing shall be handed to those to eager to follow my edits!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So, just to be absolutely clear - you have reverted my good faith edits which I fully explained in the edit summary - based on some evidence that you refuse to divulge to make some sort of WP:POINT. Again, I'll give you another chance to please provide evidence that this AfD was "overturned" before I re-revert. Please stop playing games. Rockpocket 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gerry O'Callaghan‎ on yer watch list as well? lol!!! Ask ONiH about those AfD's if your soooooooooo wooried about it. --Vintagekits (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PLAYING GAMES!!! You are the one following me around like a fuckin stink! Your the one playing games! --Vintagekits (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Have a look at Talk:Patrick Joseph Kelly, all the AfDs involved substantial sockpuppetry, see Requests for checkuser/Case/O'Donoghue. Granted it's slightly out of process unmerging the other articles without asking, but we don't want to get bogged down in red tape and I don't believe it's unreasonable to give VK a short amount of time to improve the articles to where they are capable of being standalone articles. One Night In Hackney303 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ONiH. Seems like a good call from Quarl. I have no issue with Vk being bold and improving those articles based on Quarl's statement. However, The lack of informative edit summaries and purposely obtuse responses to perfectly valid requests simply result in more drama, and draw Vk ever closer to a return to ArbCom. Its like watching a moth to a flame. Rockpocket 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


 * That is a very generous offer, Fozzie. Its essentially making you the conduit for Vk and the community. As you know, I will happily come to you with any admin concerns. There is no way in hell that I would use my tools against Vk now (that in itself I find concerning in principle because it essentially means that if you accuse an admin of abuse/bias persistently enough, you can generate that perception. A good admin is duty bound not to give the perception that there can be a COI, so you neutralise any admin you have a problem with by making them part of the problem. Nevertheless, I trust in the admin community to be fair, so I am willing to voluntarily recuse myself from that.)
 * However, what I am not willing to do is go to you before making any content edit that Vk might find problematic enough to lose his temper. I have earned the trust of the community, have written two FAs, I understand policy and believe myself to be extremely calm and polite, and have nary a warning never mind a block in over 14,000 edits. All of the edits that Vk has protested over the last week have been good edits (yes, even the AfD reverts were the absolutely correct thing to do under the circumstances). There is nothing that warrants me (or for that matter, John) running edits past you just because Vk happened to edit that page earlier. I'm not sure if that was what you were suggesting or whether you were simply suggesting Vk comes to you before responding to one of our edits. Could you clarify? Rockpock  e  t  04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Thats alright, mate. I just was looking for an opportunity to blow my own trumpet ;) Struck Rockpock  e  t  04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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

Since your work on the Cat's, would you say you have developed an intrest in Republican related Articles? There are enough Admin's to review what you consider to be "problematic edits." If Vin is such a good editor on articles unrelated to the Troubles, how is it his edits suddenly become "problematic." Do you think that if Vin makes an edit which you considered problematic, you would be the only one to notice it? The problem is that this has all become personal, in my opinion. Review your own contrabutions to the ArbCom, and seriously say that this is not personal. Now it is also true that you have ended up on articles that Vin had just edited, and on which you had no edit history? No matter what way you look at it, a certain preception under the circumstances become obvious? Weather it's true or not, that is just the way it is. So what do you see as your role on Republican Articles, are you an editor with an intrest in the subject? Is it to make sure policies are followed? Now might I make another suggestion? On the Great Hunger article, any edits which may become "problematic" are first put forward on the talk page. For example, Vin makes an edit you consider "problematic" you mention it on the talk page first, allow some time for a responce, before any revert. This would obviously work both ways. This could reduce the tension in a number of ways. It would allow editors with an intrest in the subject the oppertunity to become involved and help prevent the one to one on the reverts? It's just my comment / opinion / suggestion? --Domer48 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is obvious to everyone who edits article related to the Troubles that both these editors dont get on, so must Rocketpocket go around asking other to get involved Kite and Alison and also Brown Haired Girl Vin has been blocked and this seems to me to be an attempt to whip up a storm frankly over a content dispute. Which is more important to wikipedia content or incivility? BigDunc (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Err, what content is under dispute? Rockpock  e  t  19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's actually something I'm working on compiling right now but I've got various things on the go. Plenty of content related transgressions from editors involved in the case are most definitely either not being spotted, or not being acted upon in a consistent manner. I don't want to go into too much detail right now, but should be able to within 48 hours.  One Night In Hackney 303  19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Donnelly article maybe content is not the right word. BigDunc (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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


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

END OF COPIED TALK

The problem with the instant blocks is.. well, with a block of a half-hour or an hour, all that what could happen is the person saves up a half-hour or hour worth of anger, bile, and frustration, and lets it all out at once. Becoming a revolving door, in/out/in/out/in/out... (note: I'm not saying that WILL happen with VK, just that it could). The think that makes a longer block better is that it forces the person to get up, get away from the computer, sleep on it, and then come back to it. By then, it's not so angry-makin ;) SirFozzie (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe they've saved up 24 hours' worth instead... Perhaps we should ask Vk. My limited experience of short blocks is that the editor is glad they don't have to wait a whole day or longer before they can return.  Tyrenius (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Update
After seeing VK's response on his talk page... I withdraw my offer for a solution. I really hate to say it but he just can't get along with certain editors. SirFozzie (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed  and I don't blame you. Does anyone have any more ideas? Tyr, would you be willing to police Vk for civility per your suggestion above (bearing in mind it will probably put you in the firing line)? Unless we can come up with some sort of solution here, and find some admins that are willing to police it, I am resigned to either taking the whole thing to AN/I or going back to the Arbs and seeing if they will consider an extension to the remedy. I'll also ask a few other admins who are familiar with Vk to comment.  Rockpock  e  t  18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'am not a admin, but I think it would help things alot if Rockpocket could back off and give VK some space, because evening if not intentional you do seem to be on his case all the time. VK is no angel but you do seem to bring out the worse in him, if you think he is causing problems let another admin deal with it, hes on probation and has done alot of good work on articles lately.--Padraig (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "back off"? Do you mean I shouldn't make these edits   to articles on my watch list because Vk happened to edit the article earlier? Sorry, I refuse to alter my perfectly acceptable editing and leave articles in poor conditions simply because Vk can't be civil. How does your suggestion address the problem: Vk's persistent incivility?  Rockpock  e  t  18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rockpocket here. As suggested above, I have consciously backed off from editing articles on my watchlist for a while now to give Vintagekits all the "space" he apparently needs. However, this cannot continue indefinitely, and why should it? I was editing these articles a long time before he was, and he cannot "own" them long term; that would be a disaster for Wikipedia. It would be helpful if we could focus here on how we move forwards as the means employed so far seem only to have given him a feeling of power; he has essentially gone back to the edit-warring, tendentious editing and personal attacks he was first blocked for. If Tyrenius was willing to police Vintagekits' parole (obviously with Vk's agreement), that would be great, but it would depend on any future blocks he makes not being overturned by other admins; that unfortunate event seems also to have given Vk the impression that his poor behaviour is condoned here. If that is not deemed as acceptable by all parties, and no other solution can be found, then I think we have to consider that as Vk has broken the terms of his unblock, he should be blocked again pending a proper resolution of this. I am sure we all have better things to do than support yet another last-last-last chance for this problematic user. --John (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made another suggestion here which I consider reasonable? As Pádraig has mentioned, and I have also, you do seem to be on his case? Now the civility is an issue, but Rock you seem to be the only one at the minute who provokes this responce? Could the two things be related? Now there has been a period of relative calm, and now all of a sudden this happens. I have also noticed Rock that you have been contacting other editors looking for input, why? Lets not try blow this out of all proportion, and let me just suggest, if your not part of the problem, be part of the solution. --Domer48 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I contacted all editors I mentioned as a courtesy, and as I noted above, I asked three admins who have experience with Vk if they could offer any ideas. If you think there is anyone else that I should ask, feel free to let me know. Your proposal makes a number of suppositions which are incorrect, but ultimately it amounts to the same as Padraig's. Its proposing that I, like John, sanction the articles I chose to make perfectly good edits to because another editor is incapable of being civil in response to them. This appears to be based on the premise that Vk has a preferential right to edit Republican related Articles. I'll ask you the same as Padraig: why are you suggesting unproblematic editors be restricted, and do nothing to address the real the problem: Vk's persistent incivility. (By the way, if you consider my edits that have caused Vk to be incivil to be problematic, then RfC is that way.)  Rockpock  e  t  20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I suggested? The incivility is directed at you. You have been asked before to allow other Admin's to look after any problems, by Admin's. You following Vin around, and be honest you are, just adds fuel to the fire. Now read my constructive suggestion again, and lets move on. Because what you are not going to get is more sanctions. --Domer48 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If VK keeps it up, there will be "more sanctions", and Rock won't even have to do it. I will. Domer, I like VK. I've run the gauntlet for him. But there's a point where he's gone beyond what I can do for him. What you're suggesting is that every other editor restrict where they edit so as to not piss VK off. WP doesn't work that way. You want John and Rockpocket to restrict where they edit, in favor of VK. Remind me again.... who has the long block log? Whose actions were the cause of a six-week long ArbCom case that locked the project down? If VK cannot or will not behave civilly, he cannot or will not edit WP. It's that plain and simple. SirFozzie (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fozz did you even read what I suggested? --Domer48 (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's never nice to be asked to swallow our pride – our pride is very important to us. But let's look at how this began: (1) Rockpocket made a good and reasonable edit; (2) Vintagekits made what turned out to be a reasonable revert; (3) in reverting a second time (which he should not have done) Vintagekits left an abusive edit summary and (4) it escalated very quickly from there.  Now let me say up front that there is no excuse for Vk's incivility, but having said that, what if Rockpocket had not reverted, but had asked SirFozzie or Tyrenius to do it instead? Now, maybe the answer is, nothing would have been any different and we would still be back here at ArbCom; but maybe, as Padraig and Domer are suggesting, it's simply the name "Rockpocket" that makes Vk lose it.  In that case, what would Rockpocket actually be giving up?  Rockpocket, you've said that there is no content dispute, as far as you know, so is the possibility of Vk's bad behaviour actually stopping you from editing articles that you would normally be editing?  You are right to say that the real problem is Vk's persistent incivility, but if it could be prevented by "backing off", even if that involves losing face, but if WP itself doesn't suffer, is that not worth considering?  Scolaire (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if Rockpocket chose to give said editor "some space" things might not have escalated, and if Rockpocket chooses to do so in the future, fine. But I don't like the implication here that a good content editor is being asked to "back off" from improving content just because it might set off another editor's allergic reaction. I've seen this happen before, and I don't like it. Editors are expected to be able to collaborate with each other. This Article Ain't Big Enough for Both of Us is not a workable option at Wikipedia. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't just Rockpocket though, I'm fairly sure it's me as well. Why should Vintagekits be allowed to dictate that (to take the example I linked) I may not revert vandalism on an article on my watchlist, or to remove a category that there is no proper evidence for? This has been going on since August 2007. Should Vk be able to add to the list of people who he finds it impossible to assume good faith of? Eventually, if enough of us "back off", there will be nobody left to protect the integrity of the articles from POV-pushing. Here's my suggestion; Vintagekits should be restricted to boxing articles. It is the only time I have seen him stay out of trouble for any length of time. --John (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

Rock what about the articles which were not on your watch list? Are you saying you just happened by them? All anyone has to do is review your contributions to the ArbCom to see you and Vin are in conflict with each other. Now that is a fact, let’s be honest about it. Those changes you made, is wiki going to collapse if you don’t jump in and change them right away, of course not. As Fozz says, you don’t have to be right, right now. It’s like you know it’s going to freeze tonight, so you hose down the pavement outside your nasty neighbours house. What you’re saying is you can’t control the weather. What I saying is, in view of your history with Vin, if you see something you think needs fixing, let someone else do it. That goes for Vin to by the way. As to the civility, I’ve learned my lesson on that one, Vin should learn to keep it shut, because the only time you make a mistake is when you learn nothing from it. --Domer48 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am in conflict with Vk in as much as I am in conflict with you or Sarah. You seem to be operating under the assumption that I feel about Vk the same way he feels about me. I don't. I am perfectly happy to work with him assuming he can abide by community norms. Just because Vk says I don't like him, I am out to get him, I am stalking him does not make it true. Rather listen to what he says about me, why don't you look at the evidence: Have I ever personally abused him? Have I ever been incivil to him, have I ever sent him threatening emails? I don't believe so. Have I blocked him? Yes, once  and that was universally supported. So what makes you say we are "in conflict with each other". We are not.
 * Regarding "the articles which were not on your watch list", which ones do you mean exactly? If you give me an example, I will try and explain to you how I came to be aware if it. Rockpock  e  t  23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Support for Rockpocket's actions
Tyrenius (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rockpocket has explained how and why he is editing some articles that Vintagekits edits.
 * Rockpocket does not need to go into any further explanation about this.
 * To continue to press him is becoming a form of harassment.
 * Rockpocket is not stalking Vintagekits, because stalking only occurs when there is disruptive intent.
 * Rockpocket's intent is to benefit the encyclopedia. This is particularly the case with cleaning up Vintagekits' habitual grammatical and spelling errors.
 * It is quite common if an editor spots another editor making mistakes to then check out further edits by that editor in order to remedy those mistakes, and, if necessary, to watchlist the articles that editor is working on.
 * Rockpocket is entitled to check all of Vintagekits' edits.
 * No editor is entitled to intimidate another from working on an article.
 * Vintagekits is totally out of order with his excessive reactions.
 * Rockpocket is no more in conflict with Vintagekits than any other of the 7 admins involved in the ArbCom Troubles case.
 * I suggest that the editors so keen to steer Rockpocket away from articles that Vintagekits is working on, desist from posting here any more and watch those articles themselves in order to remedy mistakes. It is obvious Rockpocket is doing it because no one else is.
 * What a bloody slanted view! Well thats carte blanche for Rocket to walk all over me, provoke me and do what the hell hell he wants! If you think that that attitude is going going to get this sortsed then you are living on another planet. We there a problem with me editing before the Rocket started following me? No! Was I disruptively editing articles? No! This whole situtation is created by the Rocket - he knows that - he wants this trouble so that he can lead me into being banned - if you arnt going to treat me fairly with respect to this then dont expect my cooperation.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with these points, particularly the last one. We all need to exercise patience on this matter; those editors who think they are supporting Vk by arguing here need to ask what they want from this. Personally, I want troubles-related articles to be NPOV and for all editors to follow our core policies like NPA and CIVIL. I want to see an end to edits like this. If editors are unable or unwilling to edit in conformance with policy, they will have to be (nicely and politely) shown the door. --John (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tyr and John. This is essentially how I see it too. That all said, I am human. For example, in retrospect, it would have been to everyone's benefit if, after requesting the info about the AfD from Vk three times and being rebuffed, I had simply referred this to someone else and moved on. I appreciate that with the benefit of hindsight. But at the same time, I was the one being polite, following policy and justifying my actions, so I think its amazing that I am being criticized in some quarters for not diffusing the situation. Nevertheless, I understand that if it is in my powers to minimize disruption (even someone else's) then it is to the benefit of the project to do so. I'll learn from that.
 * So I guess this thread may have caused more problems that it has solved. My aim was to demonstrate, like Tyr has done much more succisnctly, how Vk's actions were not an acceptable response to another editor's valid edits. If, when he unblock ends soon, he undergoes some sort of temper transplant and can edit civilly for ever more then I'm content. Does anyone really think that is going to happen for more than a week or two? So, the more likely scenario, that the personal attacks, incivility and name calling continue before too long, what then? Do we start all over again, of do we finally start doing something to stop this pattern?
 * I see a few options.
 * If my editing is the problem then lets discuss it at WP:RfC. I will abide any findings that has consensus from the community in good standing and, additionally, would resign as an admin if the community considered my editing a problem. I don't believe we should have admins who can't edit harmoniously.
 * We could get consensus among admins for a topic ban for Vk,
 * We could start enforcing the civility parole with lengthening blocks for every breach of civility (and don't overturn them),
 * Or - if there is no support for either of these - I will go to AN with a lengthy dossier of all the breaches of his parole and request a fresh pair of eyes.
 * In the latter case all bets are off what the outcome will be. Does anyone support or oppose these options. Rockpock  e  t  01:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is becoming embrassing - you stir trouble and John comes around and agrees with you - I'm minded of the time that John said that I was in the right on the Baronet issue but once he thought there was a chance of a ban then he switched positions to agree with the ban.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate 36 hours before any further action is taken, as the information I intend to post may have a direct bearing on this.  One Night In Hackney 303  02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your said you have "content related transgressions from editors involved in the case are most definitely either not being spotted, or not being acted upon in a consistent manner". Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm not entirely sure how this relates to Vk being persistently incivil. We have already established, I thought, that content is not the problem here, civility is. Are these alleged "content related transgressions" mine? If so, then please bring them to the RfC I have requested. If not, then how is it relevant? If Vk continues his attacks in the meantime, then I don't intend to wait any longer. Perhaps you could have influence where no-one else does and stop that from happening. Rockpock  e  t  02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but given we are discussing VK in terms of the case, I consider the information I have wholly relevant. As you are clearly aware, there were various principles established which should be upheld without prejudice across the articles in question. My concern is that the "big picture" is currently being ignored while the focus is on one editor. While not condoning incivility by any editor, the information I shall be posting asks a simple question: Should protecting the integrity of content not be the primary focus of administrators? In terms of blocks I see many for incivility or edit warring, yet I see editors who are constantly adding unsourced content or misrepresenting sources that persistently damage the encyclopedia by adding information designed to suit their particular POV, and yet not a single word is said to them. Which is really more damaging to the encyclopedia - people who deliberately set out to push their own point of view, or someone who uses the odd bit of colourful language? Yes the latter is problematic and needs to be dealt with, but surely content must come first? Hopefully 36 hours will be an absolute limit, but I've heading out shortly and I'll be slightly worse for wear tomorrow. Even so, I'm aiming to have it ready sooner rather than later...  One Night In Hackney 303  02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 3) An RfC on you (Rockpocket) would be a complete waste of time as you are not the problem. Vk's response to your AfD enquiry was deliberately obstructive and blatantly provocative: in the circumstances it merited a block. I back enforcement of civility per earlier suggestions I made. Going to AN is a good way to get a difficult user banned indefinitely, so I vote keeping "in house" unless that proves unworkable. There is no reason why it should. I have started a page to centralise action at: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. If this seems viable, we should ask as many admins as possible to watchlist it. Re. ONIH's point - good one. The new page can be used for any violation. Tyrenius (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good move, Tyr. Of course, I will not take any action requested against Vk at all (unless drastic action is needed in case of a meltdown) and will log every example of incivility from any participant that I come across.
 * ONiH, I welcome your contributions but still don't see how it is directly relevant to this specific problem. For my own part, virtually no major issues have been brought to my attention of appeared in my sphere of view. Kittybrewster brought a concern about VK editing his brother's page to me and, with the support of some other admins, a middle ground was proposed and both asked to stick to it (Kb was perfectly civil and Vk responded with insults and abuse, of course, but go figure). I tried to help out Sarah, and latterly and yourself, on the massacres issue (I'm still on that btw, and haven't forgotten) and I tried to mediate a rather lame edit war over the notability of Bobby Sands eating a chicken supper and, I believe, we sorted that out and the article is in better shape for it. Domer got a little testy over that but, to his credit, he was on the wrong side of some poor admin decisions and later expressed regret when that got sorted. No harm done. There has been nothing else that I have seen on my watch list and no-one has brought anything to me. So if there is POV pushing going unnoticed (or worse, seen but ignored), then this is a problem that we need to address also, but I don't see how it directly impacts the ongoing civility issue. Lets sort both out, but unless there is anything there that justifies Vk's antics over the last few days, I see no reason to wait. But ultimately that is in Vk's hands.
 * One last comment, when admins who do try to sort stuff out get accused of bias by both sides, get abused for doing their best and are insulted almost constantly, is it any surprise that there are never enough around to look at these things? Moreover, a number of admins have been accused of being "involved" by named participants in an attempt to get them out of the equation when they have transgressed. Then the same editors complain when the admin doesn't act when someone else transgresses and they want action. They claim you are "involved" only when it suits them.
 * Your question is pertinent, but the fact is that the incivility and attacks lead to a situation where the content is affected. If we can cut that out, then we'll go along way to putting ourselves in a position where content disputes are solvable. Its no co-incidence that the category naming problems was sorted out when the divisive, abusive editors were marginalized and problem was thrashed out in a civil manner by editors such as yourself, Scolaire and I. The ultimate goal is protecting the content, but to do that we need to cut out those lost causes then deal with those who can be reasonable. Finally, I don't believe any of the admins here are biased, but plenty of them are utterly fatigued by this. It would be wrong to confuse the two. Rockpock  e  t  03:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's any admin in particular that's biased, but the entire system. I'm not just talking about just this case, it's across the board. Excluding your everyday vandals, can you really deny that most blocks tend to be for attacks/incivility or 3RR violations? It just seems like content is an afterthought, people can get away with adding all sorts of dubious content for months on end before someone picks up on it. Bad content is far more damaging to the encylopedia than incivility, yet it takes far longer for anything to be done about it, if at all. My information involves people in this very case who are still flouting the principles that resulted from it.  One Night In Hackney 303  03:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins traditionally don't/didn't deal with content matters, which were seen as the province of editors, as opposed to conduct matters. Tyrenius (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying principle #2 is essentially redundant then? Should admins not be enforcing it? If not, what's it for exactly?  One Night In Hackney 303  04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone transgresses it to the point of obvious "edit-warring or disruptive editing" then the remedy can be applied. If you have a request for enforcement, it can be made on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Enforcement_requests. Tyrenius (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What does transgresses it to the point of obvious "edit-warring or disruptive editing" mean exactly? Is it to do with volume? For example if one out of every ten edits is unsourced POV it's disruptive? One out of fifty? One out of a hundred? Where do you draw the line? I'd have thought the best place to draw it (especially with people who were involved in this case) is to say every addition you make to Troubles related articles has to be sourced. Otherwise you're just giving a green light for the exact same problems that led to all this is the first place to continue. I don't mean to sound draconian, but people involved in this case shouldn't even be misrepresenting what a source says once, never mind transgressing it to the extent you seem to be suggesting.  One Night In Hackney 303  04:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * As for the last part, I'm not here for much longer. Four articles I'm writing left to go, and I'm done.  One Night In Hackney 303  04:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think you make a fair point, ONiH. You are right, just as we have let clear transgressions of civility parole slip by without action, we have probably been even worse about refereeing the low-grade POV-warring. You are also right, that if we are going to start cracking down on that to try and stop incivility, so should we be cracking down on that too. I think the reasons admins in general have avoided this is numerous. You mention that editors don't have much respect from the other side. True, but lets be honest, neither do they have much respect for a good number of admins either, and when we do leave polite messages with some editors, more often than not it draws abuse. Also, I am very wary of commenting on any content dispute because it is readily used as ammunition by editors as evidence of "involvement" and "bias". Furthermore, the sides circle the wagons and descend en masse to back each other up. As others have noted here, there is a level of intimidation aimed at admins who try and deal with complex issues around this. I was bold in my actions previously, but I felt that the ArbCom essentially undermined all the efforts of the admins in their rather toothless remedies, and all it did was serve to embolden the problem editors. What message are we supposed to take from that, especially when combined with the incessant accusations of bias and abuse? It wears you down. I know that it basically made me unwilling to use my tools in any significant way. Have a look at my log  and compare my admin actions post ArbCom (November to now) to that before ArbCom.
 * In contrast, dealing with incivility and 3RR is easy, everyone can agree on it. That doesn't make it right that we admins tend to focus our attentions on one at the expense of others, but surely you can see why it happens. Now, if we were to see some active support for admins taking actions from other participants, rather than tepid statements that "I don't condone his actions, but...." along party lines, then perhaps admins would be more willing to be bold. It works both ways. If you editors wish us to be bold, then start being bold yourselves. Speak out against problem edits from your friends as well as your foes, stop making excuses for each other and start policing yourselves. Rockpock  e  t  07:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * If you've no interest in enforcing ArbCom principles and preventing the lunatics taking over the asylum, you might want to re-consider your admin role?  One Night In Hackney 303  05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Guys? Considering the fight on AN I just went through, I'm the LAST person who should be saying this, but um.. can we AGF with each other? Please? SirFozzie (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. ONIH is welcome to post the incidents that concern him on the page I started at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests for just such matters. Tyrenius (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just some comments folks: 1)Love thy neighbour, 2)Give Peace a chance, 3)Put your Troubles behind you & 4)We're of the same world. Peace. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh really? Why don't you englighten us then? See the above conversation:
 * Me - "As you are clearly aware, there were various principles established which should be upheld without prejudice across the articles in question."
 * You - "Re. ONIH's point - good one."
 * It's crystal clear by your own admission that you have no interest in upholding the principles without prejudice across the articles in question, therefore you should recuse yourself from any administrative involvement with them.  One Night In Hackney 303  15:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are off at a bit of a tangent there. I suggest you get on with something useful. Tyrenius (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Requests for checkuser/Case/W. Frank - that useful enough for you?  One Night In Hackney 303  18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are the master. Tyrenius (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice request, ONiH. I would certainly be interested in the result of that, though I'm not sure what policy would say about the legitimacy of revealing that information, when neither editor is under direct sanction. I guess Ali could tell us more. Is this the information that you felt might impact this discussion? Rockpock  e  t  19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Actually it isn't. What I was going to do was present evidence to prove what I was saying was true. However considering the vast majority of the edits are over a week old, none of it would be actionable anyway. So rather than waste time simply proving something that we've already established is true (to whatever extent), I'm probably going to finish the new article I've been finishing for the last few days.  One Night In Hackney 303  19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. But as I'm sure you are aware, that status quo rarely changes without some dramatic impetus around here (thats what makes Giano so effective). While i'm with you on this, I don't see things changing for the better unless they are forced. I think we are stuck at this impasse and I don't know how to move forward. If one admin, i.e. me, decides enough is enough and starts to rigidly enforce persistent POV problems, what do you think would happen? Let me tell you, the campaign managers would begin to co-ordinate their troops from the side that was being sanctioned would start their attacks, accusations of bias etc. That is what is happening to me now and what has always happened when an admin made a bold attempt to do something about this. Its clearly in your interest to push this forward since you play by the rules, but the fact is that most if the other participants are as bad as each other. If people want change they have to stop the partisan hypocrisy and start supporting policy decisions, irrespective of whether it is their buddies who transgressed or one of their opponents. Rockpock  e  t  19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just going back to what you said about POV pushing being more difficult to pick up than incivility, I'm not sure. Assuming the source is online (and not a book that can't be viewed using Amazon Online or Google books), it's very easy for any editor to make sure that the text being added matches the source. I'd say that's easier to judge than incivility which is a matter of degrees, whereas it's generally more obvious than it's being misrepresented. I've challenged POV pushing by both sides on this, for example this edit had to be repeatedly reverted by me. Then there's this edit to an article which seems to have slipped off your watchlist ;) I'll actually post a few examples on your talk page rather than waste what I've found already.  One Night In Hackney 303  19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Well that's kind of my point. Yes, VK can be (and recently has been) problematic, but while he's under the microscope (and I'm talking about before the latest flare-up really) there's all sorts of other things going on unnoticed. Wouldn't it be better for admins to keep an eye on the articles rather than the editor? <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303  20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whole heartedly agree with your comments here ONiH.BigDunc (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. We should be doing both. Vk is a problem. Period. His antics have probably eaten up hundreds of hours of admins time that could be spent on other issues. Yet, again, it is somehow the admin's fault that this has happened, and not Vk's? Thats some pretty good spin! The best way to ensure that admin attention remains on articles is to stop being incivil and stop making personal attacks. Its simple really, and if you wish to assist in that then stop encouraging editors who make personal attacks and tell them to stop it when they do. In other words, apply the same standards you hold opposition editors to, to your friends. Nothing makes people change than pressure from their peers.
 * Nevertheless, its true that we should not be ignoring other problems to focus on just one. To that end, Tyr seems to have Vk's attacks under his eye at the moment, so I'm happy to address the concerns you brought up on my page. I would also encourage these sorts of things be posted to the page Tyr created. This is the best way to cut this out, report everything and admins can, and I hope will, act on everything. I believe we have reached a point where zero tolerance is the only way forward, and if that is being applied to Vk, it should be applied to the other editors who are part of this problem. Rockpock  e  t  20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You assume I haven't said anything to VK. In fact the opposite is true, I've been trying to advise him for several days. Let me try and put this another way. If VK saw you tackling other editors with regard to their policy violations rather than just him (well, that's the way he sees it) would he feel less persecuted? <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303  22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased to hear that, perhaps the four editors that emailed him to support his allegations would do likewise. Regarding "tackling" other editors to the same extent I have been Vk. Well, I do. The vast majority of edits that has got Vk het up have been minor copy edit fixes, cats, MOS fixes and the like. I made this edit having noticed the article mentioned on Domer's page. I made a whole bunch of similar edits to The Troubles itself, and countless others like it when I see something on my watchlist or a talk page or find a link from another article. There is nothing special about the fact that I have made similar edits to pages Vk has edited except the fact his grammar and spelling are worst than most, so its more likely articles need a copy edit after he works on them.  Rockpock  e  t  00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Who said anything about block logs? <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303  23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You said to Rockpocket, "If VK saw you tackling other editors with regard to their policy violations rather than just him...", so I checked his block logs as one area to see whether he had been tackling other editors' policy violations, and he has. It is quite apparent that the problem is not Rockpocket, but Vintagekits, so it would be appropriate to concentrate your attentions on the latter. Tyrenius (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly my point. Is the only way to tackle an editor with regards to policy violations to block them? For example I've see Rockpocket leave quite a few notes on VK's talk page with regard to transgressions, yet I've not seen him do the same with other editors. But as discussed above, it isn't Rockpocket that's at fault but the whole admin culture. Take a look at this whole case again, if became quite apparent during the case that it was much more than one editor, but quite a lot of warring editors across a wide variety of articles. So I'm asking for admins to focus their attention on the group of editors as a whole across the wide variety of articles, and for some bizarre reason I'm being shot down for it. I'm lost..... <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303  00:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From a man of your undoubted research skills, I find that a remarkable allegation, ONiH. I'm not going to dignify it with specific difs in my defense, but even the most cursory review of my User talk contributions would reveal literally hundreds of notes on other editors talk pages with regard to transgressions, both behavioural and content related. Three in the last few days alone. I guess if you don't look, then you don't see.
 * I'll repeat what I have said to numerous other editors, if you believe I have edited in a manner that bullies, harasses, targets or stalks Vk in any way whatsoever, then please put it in an RfC. Although I try to critically review my contributions, I am as blind to my flaws as any other editor. While it has certainly not be my intention, if the wider community thinks my editing is a problem, then I want to know about it. Since that would show extremely poor judgment on my part. That said, I'm not interested in further disseminating my edits here, especially when the unsubstantiated allegations appear to be informed directly by Vk's misinformation. Rockpock  e  t  18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, I thought it was clear this was Troubles-specific? <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303  23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are accept that I leave notices for most problematic editing I see, but allege that I do not do so not for anyone associated with he Troubles except Vk? Why, exactly, would I do that? If you had surveyed my contributions, you would have appreciated that I left notes for Padraig, Domer and an anon IP regarding the Bobby Sand page a few weeks back, I left a note for Sarah yesterday and left notes for Kittybrewster last time him and Vk has a scuffle over his brother's article. The sole reason I have left a few notes for Vk recently is simply because recently Vk is the one who has made the good faith but problematic edits policy-wise that appeared on my watch list, specifically a horribly malformed move and a implausible and redundant redirect. Are you suggesting that there is another reason I left those messages? If you are, I would very much prefer you would spell it out, rather than hinting at it. Rockpock  e  t  01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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


 * I'll try and simplify this. I'll use a hypothetical example, but we'll assume for the sake of argument we're talking about editors who were involved parties in this case.
 * Editor 1 makes a personal attack on another editor, we'll say on a user talk page that let's face it not that many people see compared to mainspace. Get's blocked for 24 hours.
 * Editor 2 makes a POV edit that clearly misrepresents a source. It might be hours, day or weeks or longer before someone picks up on it, and for all that time the infomation is sitting in mainspace. Even assuming it's picked up right away, can you really say the likely outcome would be a 24 hour block?
 * So there you have it, the whole system seems horrendously flawed. In order for a content report to be acted upon I'd probably have to provide a large number of diffs which might take weeks to accumulate, so for all that time the editor is free to POV push. But make a personal attack and you're blocked right away, do you really not see the point I'm trying to make here? <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303  03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * "editors don't usually get blocked straightaway for one personal attack" - true, they normally get warned first. However, would you agree that principle #2 is an adequate warning to every party in this case that information they add to articles must be sourced? <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303  04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

Probation for Vk?
To the resident Administrators. Is it possible to upgrade Vk's status to 'protection' if he promises to stick to Boxing articles? Or does his Wiki behaviour history (including he continued creation of sockpuppets), damage that posibility? GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The previous two times vk was indef blocked he was eventually unblocked on the understanding he would avoid controversy ostensibly by sticking to boxing articles. Look where that led. Moreover, the fact that he is sockpuppeting to avoid the block shows no regret and no indication that he intends to stick to our policies in future. Finally, since his block vk has found another outlet for his attacks on wikipedians where he has shown his true colours. Just today, for example, he has indicated he would "abuse" me "all day long" (but, in his opinion, that does not constitute "harassment"). I strongly protest moves to precipitate that. Rockpock  e  t  18:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for responding. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm confused here, while I know this whole area here is beset with socks, we now seem to have a whole drawer full, so for the sake of the ignorant, is GoodDay actually Rockpocket and vice versa, and is Vinny Feeny Vintagekits? I have noticed, like many others, recently some new editors editing VK's boxers (the fighting variety), and they have all been good edits. Is there any huge harm, or indeed any harm at all being done? Sometimes one can see too much. Surely so long as these edits are purely to boxers, rather than to politicians, or indeed anything to do with Ireland, its Troubles, the British Empire or whatever there is nothing to worry about. It's a big encyclopedia. I made this suggestion 5 months ago, I still stand by it and feel, a lot of problems would be solved if the matter were revisited and this motion passed. I would rather have the VK, we all know and love, right where we can see him! Giano (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not Rockpocket. The only socks I've got with me, are those on my feet. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, well go and find an Arbitrator to sorth this matter out then, Newyorkbrad will do, one does not discuss the merits with agitated and involved admins like Rockpocket. Giano (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your sabbatical from Arb-baiting seems to have dulled your normally sharp instincts, Giano. Maybe its the company you are keeping these days. GoodDay is far too reasonable to be my sock. Besides your new friends seem to think I am a sock myself, of either FeloniousMonk or, get this, Durova. Wouldn't that be something? Rockpock  e  t  02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be something indeed Rocky, some how I never pictured you wearing either a habbit or moccasins - more sort of Fred Flintstone attire. Giano (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that any socks sticking strictly to boxing should be ignored. Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I agree with Rockpocket and BrownHairedGirl. This editor had too many last chances already. No, no, a thousand times no. --John (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you are not able to get rid of him, so you can either have him where you can see him, under strict control, or runing arownd where you can't. I think you will find he will agree to most conditions, in order to be able to edit as VK. If he violates those conditions then find his Achilles heel, which is in a very obvious place. Giano (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, of course, Giano. Though there is a third option, we could have him where we think we can see him while he is also running around and up to no good where we can't. He has done that twice before and I have no reason to believe he would not do so again in the future.
 * But lets be honest here, what eventually happens is that while the sock-puppeteer continues to be disruptive and/or abusive, their socks continue to get blocked. He can make a new sock every day if he wants, they are very easy to spot when you know how, and it takes two clicks of the mouse to block them. I and others have revert, blocked and ignored literally hundreds of socks of in this manner. Trust me, it is more of a hassle for them to create new accounts after a block than is to block them. Eventually they get bored. Even LC, who makes Vk look like an amateur in the sock-puppet stakes, lost interest in time. And if they really want to edit constructively they learn that if they behave themselves then a uneasy truce forms. Their socks are known, but tolerated, so long as they keep their nose clean. However, the moment they step out of line, the blocks start up again. This way he has no wiggle room. He plays clean and fair and he can edit away in his little corner, he causes any trouble whatsoever and he starts getting blocked again.  Rockpock  e  t  17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what I mean by seeing too much, which of these most recent socks have been disruptive? I have not checked them all out, but I have not seem any bad edits, but then I have not really been looking. My personal view is that he should be allowed to openly edit in a very restricted forum, but with a terrible threat hanging over his head. Giano (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But what terrible threat? Unless you are suggesting you will head over to his house and give him the hair-dryer treatment personally, what more can we do but threaten to block him again, but this time for good. That now offers little incentive to behave because A) every other time we have used that threat we have capitulated and B) he would just create more socks again until someone would suggest we unblock him. Without a suitably large stick, there is no merit in offering a carrot. Rockpock  e  t  17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Vk's recent behaviour (sockpuppets & colorful language), is creating an impression (to me) of egotism. A pattern of I'm correct, they're all wrong impression. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you had these super human powers of observation for long? Giano (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just my opinon (it's not written in stone). Just like ..superhuman observations... is your opinons. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's one thing we must all remember folks; editing Wikipedia? is not a right; it's a privillage. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your solution then. Giano (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain
Moved to TER. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303  23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Better to include a link if a thread is moved: WP:TER. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment
Can someone please look at this article Ulster Defence Regiment. I believe I and my attempts to rewrite this article sensibly have been embroiled in edit warring since day one because this article is linked to the northern ireland troubles. I'm trying everything in my power to come to a concensus but now I realise this has all happened before and I don't think I'm going to get anywhere. I haven't been getting anywhere anyway!GDD1000 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * GDD1000 is no longer active. There has been no edit-warring since his (regrettable because unnecessary) departure.  Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

GDD1000 is active as this report clearly shows. They even admit the IP's they were using were them. There has been edit-warring since their return. They are a self confessed ex member of the UDR and therefore have a WP:COI, illustrated by the edit-warring edits. They are now using a source from another ex member on the article, and going around crying and forum shopping like their last account when challanged. The last time their copy vio's were removed by two admins, they throw the rattle out of the cot and claim to leave the project. How many other sock accounts have been active now? Have any of the banned editors been allowed back under new accounts? --<font face="Celtic"> Domer48 'fenian'  20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


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


 * no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry. Don't play me for a fool. They are the same editor, a sock, end of. --<font face="Celtic"> Domer48 'fenian'  20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


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


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

Great to see you back, now are you going to answer the questions left on your talk page or just ignore them? "ridiculous accusations" they admitted they were the same user! So don't tell me I'm being ridiculous! "baseless comments" "wanton reverts" and you tell me to leave out the accusations? Please! You may accept this crap, even though I've not edited the article since 24 July, but I don't. --<font face="Celtic"> Domer48 'fenian'  21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


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

Request to amend prior case The Troubles
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * Notified

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

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


 * All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
 * All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
 * Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
 * Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
 * As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, I leave it to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here:

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

,, , , , , , , , , , , and the two latest ones on AE. If the Committee would look at the history of AE from archive 30 or so on, usually 2 or 3 or 4 sections per archive will have to do with this series of articles,

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

Statement by Domer48
Having opposed the sanctions, or I should say how they came about I must concede that they have had a positive effect. They have reduced the edit warring and encouraged discussion. POV warriors have been marginalised with disruptive editing being quickly closed down most of the time. Some Admin’s with a particular bias (admin’s can and do have biased opinions) have been reluctant to address the actions of some editors but the 1RR has proved itself despite this. We all know what the sanctions entail, and have clarified through experience what 1RR is and how it operates. For example, a number of reverts without intermediate edits in between is considered to be 1 revert.

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


 * All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
 * All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
 * Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
 * Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
 * As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, it is up to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here:
 * These final remedies have been linked to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles.

It should also include what we mean by 1RR, so there is no ambiguity. If it is felt that criteria no.1 is not clear enough expand it. The template be changed to direct editors to the appropriate page, including a link on Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles in case any templates are missed during the page change. That’s my 2 cents worth, as to simply remove the sanctions would be counter productive.--<font face="Celtic"> Domer48 'fenian'  09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Request Could we have links to the 10? related AE threads since Rlevse augmented the case. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like this community-based remedy is doing the trick. I am happy to leave it as Stephen Bain suggests, or write it into the decision as Sandstein suggests.  Could someone please notify the regulars who have been affected by this remedy. e.g. Sarah777, Manticore126, Domer48, BigDunc, and Mooretwin.  They may have valuable views to share on how this remedy plays out. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Commment I'm flattered something I wrote that I thought was basic has been so useful. I'm willing to make a motion if it looks like enough arbs will support it. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sandstein is correct that the 1RR restriction is not part of the decision, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy, established by consensus during this discussion. There is nothing wrong with this. There are a couple of issues though:
 * the notice of the 1RR restriction on the case page (and on article talk pages) should be altered to describe it as a community-based remedy, or removed to some other appropriate page, to avoid confusion;
 * there is unfortunately no convenient venue for enforcement requests on such community-based sanctions, personally I have no problem with arbitration enforcement being used just as a matter of convenience, but otherwise ANI would make do.
 * --bainer (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for ArbCom to intervene with a community-imposed sanction. (Indeed, I would encourage administrators and the community to impose sanctions as necessary without the intervention of ArbCom.) Additionally, an administrator could simply warn someone who is edit-warring or otherwise disruptive that the topic area has seen a lot of problems and that disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (It would be advisable to be polite and clear about the problem, directing the editor to any relevant policy pages and giving a bit of guidance about how to better work with others on Wikipedia.) Upon a repeat performance of disruption, the person can be sanctioned or blocked, without bureaucratic hurdles or reliance upon the particulars of an ArbCom decision. I have no particular objection to issues being raised at AE for areas subject to arbitration enforcement, but ANI would be appropriate if the AE regulars find this undesirable. --Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting Carcharoth's comments, I have no objection to logging on the case page, for the sake of a unified log location. However, community based general sanctions can be referenced at WP:SANCTION and community imposed individual sanctions can be referenced at WP:RESTRICT. --Vassyana (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing much further to add. Will vote on a motion to write the sanctions into the case if needed, pending feedback from those John asked to be contacted. But leaving as a community-based sanction (per bainer's description) would also work. Carcharoth (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One concern with a community-based sanction is the lack of anywhere to log sanctions. It is not acceptable for such restrictive sanctions not to be logged. Future admins or arbitrators trying to review the situation need an accurate log of actions taken and sanctions issued, whether following arbitration cases or using community-based sanctions. Strongly suggest logging (or continuing to log) at the case pages for now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No admin is required to enforce any Wikipedia policy or any sanction (be it an ArbCom or Community Sanction) but that does not stop the sanction from being enforced my other admins. Unless there is a problem with the Community sanction that can not be worked out by the Community, I see no need for action by the Committee. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Concur with Stephen Bain and FloNight (and kudos to rlevse).  Roger Davies  talk 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment; I think that the tenor here is that this community sanction has ArbCom's imprimatur, and that AE is a logical place to bring enforcement (even if strictly out of scope). &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, agree with Flonight, since it's a community sanction then there's nothing we really need to do. Wizardman  20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit War
Maybe if Elonka was as quick to admit her mistake and clarify the log then we wouldn't have an edit war on this page. My edit was not comment it was a clarification of the block. As it stands it is ambiguous as to what happened. When it was an admin making a mistake and not the editor. <font style="color:orange;background:green;font-family:Verdana;">BigDunc 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions amendment
There is an ongoing discussion at ANI about whether or not this case's remedies should be modified, to additionally authorize discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. Anyone with an opinion on the matter is invited to comment at: ANI. --Elonka 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This has now been moved to be a formal request for amendment, at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. --Elonka 05:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
Initiated by  Natet/c at 11:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * all editors on British National Party and Talk:British National Party
 * all editors on British National Party and Talk:British National Party

Statement by Nate1481
Several and I believe a large majority of users have stated views that the BNP is not particularly linked to The Troubles and not more so than any British or Irish political party, so adding the Troubles restriction banner seems highly inappropriate. The article is currently being edited 'aggressively' by several editors, but also discussed, reasonably productively, on the talk page and while some editing restirction might be appropriate, but these should be brought though the normal methods, not by expanding another controversial area. --Natet/c 11:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Having read more of the other discussions in an attempt to understand the reasoning for adding this tag. it seems to be that it is due to the article being edited by editors who have had disputes elsewhere. This seems again to be expanding the intent of the original ruling; if the Arbitrators wanted restrictions should be placed on specific editors then it would have been in the ruling, but it seems that as that was not the case, so the troubles template and rules was added to this article so as to enforce rules on them when editing in other areas; with the collateral effect on a large number of other editors who where not involved (or even aware) or the original dispute until the template was added. In the is case the creep seems to have been the use of rules aimed at a specific set of articles being used to control all edits by those editors in the original dispute. If an admin feels that the editors are expanding into to disrupting other articles then going back and asking for sanctions against those editors would be the sensible course of action. In this case I had not seen any significant disruptive behaviour, (I have not reviewed all edits by the contributors only looked at the history of the article) there were strong opinions, and possibly ill-judged comments and edits, but nothing that came across as Bad Faith edits and there was constructive progress on the talk page. --Natet/c 17:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC) How are we ment to resolve it "at community level"? There is a consensus on the talk page to remove the banner & a debate as to if the restrictions are helpful (in my view they are not), I came here as was suggested on the admin notice board and wanted to know if this was how to request a review of admin assigning the rules to an article. --Natet/c 09:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Addition
 * Reply to Vassyana

Statement by BritishWatcher
There is no reason at all for the BNP article to be listed as "troubles related". The British National Party is a right wing political party in the United Kingdom, they are not a loyalist paramilitary group in Northern Ireland. The article mentions the BNPs policy towards Ireland, but all political parties in the UK have policies towards Ireland Conservative party (UK), Liberal Democrats. Labour party (UK) all mention Ireland yet they would never be classed as troubles related. The edit wars that were taking place on that article had nothing to do with Ireland matters, it was about the fact the BNP is a right wing racist whites only political party.

If the BNP article can be considered troubles related then its clearly not what arbcom originally agreed to. The sanctions have been in place for about two years and only now has the BNP became a "troubles related article"? Its important to remember how this all came about.

The first mentions of the troubles on the BNP talk page from what i can see was on the 16th of November 2009 by User:Off2riorob. He was moaning about people being anti BNP and he said..


 * "what is it about the irish troubles editors editing this article, I don't get it? why is that? Is it an IRA thing?"

The suggestion that anyones position on that page was an "IRA thing" was rather offensive, i am certainly no supporter of a terrorist organisation and i do not think others involved on the article at the time were either. The vast majority of the British people hate the BNP, the idea that article is being influenced by IRA supporters was rather stange and this has nothing to do with "British nationalism towards Ireland". Anyway he went on to mention troubles related editors again, and then he said..


 * "you good day are also involved in the troubles editing, please comment as to the reason the editors involed in those articles are involved here, should I ask Elonka to add this article as troubled related conditions as so many of the editors involved in those disputes are editing here?"

Is it really acceptable to claim an article is troubles related just because several editors are also involved in the troubles articles? If that is possible then any article we go to could have such sanctions imposed, even things that are nothing to do with Britain and Ireland. He made a couple more comments about The troubles editors and then Elonka came along and said the article was troubles related, with NO debate. The only reason Elonka did that was because of Off2riorob.

This matter needs clearing up. I am concerned at this very moment Elonka is seeking to have admin powers expanded in relations to the troubles yet the current powers are being misused. Arbitration/Requests/Amendment Also some of Elonkas comments about the action taken concern me and i think the justification is clearly not in line with the current arbcom ruling.


 * "My attention was drawn to the article because of the recent edit-warring, which appeared to be an overflow dispute with involved editors who routinely edit Troubles-related articles. The article also falls within the proper scope. Per Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, and the subsequent community amendment in October 2008, the scope of the case is defined as, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." The article British National Party is clearly within that scope. Just search for the term "Ireland" in the article and read about the Party's policies. "

That basically says if it mentions Ireland it can be considered related.

and


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

Which basically says The troubles sanctions can be imposed on articles that have nothing to do with The Troubles.

Anyway clarification on this matter would be very useful. In particular the BNP article needs to be correctly removed from "troubles related" articles, but a more general clarification about what is and is not reasonably connected to the troubles would be useful. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by slatersteven
The link between this page and "the troubles" is tenuous at best. Moreover the dispute (and indead the complaint) that led to this had nothing to do with the rather limited amount the articel has to say about the troubles. It was in reaction to the appearance of some edds who had a history on "troubles" realted pages (the actual dispute was over mebership). This seems to me just to beplaying the systemSlatersteven (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nickhh
Agree with the above two comments, as well as with the many others who have commented in two separate threads on Elonka's talk page. It is pretty hard to argue that the BNP page (which I have never edited btw) is a "Troubles-related" article, and the dispute in question there is most certainly not. Nor is it related to the broader question of "British nationalism in relation to Ireland". If this is how wide the net is going to be drawn, pretty much every article on Wikipedia can probably be brought under an existing ArbCom decision. In this case for example, there's a stronger argument for having the Conservative Party and Glasgow Rangers Football Club subjected to the Troubles regime, since the connections there are much stronger than for the BNP. Sure you have to have flexibility, and someone arguing for example that the Easter Rising or the Border Campaign, or even some parts of the Oliver Cromwell article, are not connected to The Troubles, is indeed probably Wikilawyering - but that's a very different situation.

On the wider point, I would also express concern that an admin has suddenly descended on the page to make a unilateral declaration of this sort and to start imposing special restrictions on the article, and potentially the editors there, without any sort of consensus from ArbCom or the wider community for them to start doing that. Furthermore, repeated observations to them from multiple editors that they might have made an error of fact are repeatedly stonewalled or even ignored with a repeated pro-forma response, eg here. If there are problems on that article - which there are fairly likely to be, after all - address them of course, possibly even with severe action, but don't do it under a regime designed explicitly for something else altogether.

The admin in question also appears to be deploying the argument that the terms of the Troubles ruling say "when in doubt, assume [the article] is related". Well, as has been pointed out, there isn't much doubt that the BNP is not a related article. I and others have provided examples of cases where there might be a genuine debate, and hence doubt, about the relevance of an article or parts of one, where one could perhaps invoke that principle and err on the side of inclusion. Ultimately though these decisions are actually fairly simple - eg the Bill Clinton page is not "Troubles-related", but that small part of the page which discusses his involvement in Northern Ireland is. To argue that because one editor/admin has asserted that the entire BNP page is related, the doubt as to whether it is or isn't therefore does now exist and consequently they are right to apply the template, is a rather classic example of self-serving sophistry, to be blunt. Any claims as well that their action has helped sort out problems on the article are also somewhat irrelevant as i) it is simply the wrong template to apply, regardless; and ii) it is simply an assertion of causality, without evidence. I think we need clarification of the issue in question, as well as some sort of comment on whether this sort of unilateral action, based on a pretty fundamental misjudgement and/or an overzealous interpretation of prior rulings, is appropriate in future. --Nickhh (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to MastCell
Up to a point - but I think this is sufficiently different, in that people here are asking for clarification of the current decision as it stands, and whether Elonka's unilateral and highly contentious action was appropriate, and whether it should stand (in my opinion, it should not and it should be struck immediately - this really is about whether ArbCom decisions mean what they say, or whether individual editors can come along and appropriate them seemingly for their own enforcement purposes, against reason and consensus. I don't see that it's a tough decision). Whether her proposed amendment to the Troubles decision - which includes as one part of it a request to extend the scope of the topic area - is subsequently accepted at some point, and therefore whether Elonka might effectively be granted retrospective approval for her action, is another matter. --Nickhh (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka
My attention was drawn to the British National Party article because I'd been monitoring some other Troubles-related articles, and noticed that some of the editors had overflowed the dispute to the BNP article. I'll freely admit that I'm not intimately familiar with the nuances of the content dispute (which is probably as it should be, since I'm supposed to be uninvolved). I did scan the BNP article though, and saw that it included clear references to Ireland. That, combined with the facts that the article was the location of established editors repeatedly reverting each other, and that some of those editors were known edit-warriors from the Troubles topic area, suggested that it would be reasonable to try and stabilize the article by reminding everyone that it was within the scope of the Troubles case restrictions. That scope was defined by community consensus in October 2008, as "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland . . . When in doubt, assume it is related." The last sentence, "When in doubt, assume it is related," was the clincher for me. It's also worth pointing out that since I placed the tag on November 16, the edit-warring has pretty much ceased, and the editors are instead continuing with more constructive editing. I have engaged several of the parties in discussion about what the restrictions mean, and how they can learn to edit in a more collaborative manner. Other than talkpage discussion and a couple cautions though, I have not had to implement any blocks or bans in relation to that article. I've also informed the parties that if the article remains stable (meaning no edit-wars among established editors) for a period of time (30 days?), I believe it would be reasonable to remove the tag entirely. As for what ArbCom should do here, it would be helpful either to clearly decline this clarification as unneeded, or simply confirm that it is reasonable for an administrator to have applied the Troubles restriction template to the BNP article, as it seems to be within the case's scope. --Elonka 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Verbal
Elonka's statement is faulty, this is undoubtedly an article unrelated to "the troubles". The dispute at this article was minor and in no way invoved the troubles, and once again Elonka's actions have increased the heat and drawn drama where there was none before. This could have been dealt with by an admin quite easily without wikilawyering an unrelated arbcom probation to give absolute power and carte blanch to avoid oversight by other admins. This is disproportionate and disruptive, and against the spirt and intention, and in my view the letter, of the troubles case. Nothing more than usual admin tools and community norms were required. I fear by Elonka's actions "the troubles" may spread to other articles. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RTG
The BNP topic is not "British Nationalism in relation to Ireland". Perhaps a special clause could be added for such articles but as linking Irish Nationalism to British Nationalism could be misleading in many critical ideological ways, declaring such articles to be "Troubles related" or even Nationalist in relation to Irish Nationalism without a direct connection is bound to produce dissaproval. The list of diffs shown by Elonika appears to be an edit war started and largely continued by me. The issue, if it is of any consequence here, is wether to rely upon the disparity between third party sources and the primary source rather than providing information about the disparity, with barely even speculative relation to Ireland let alone The Troubles. Apologies... perhaps there is a model whereby these sanctions could be introduced to "Troubled Article"s without labelling them with any particular politic or ArbCom case?

Self-explanitory note: for any unassuming of the fact that political partys may be in no way connected to The Troubles in the manner that Monster Raving Looney Party is not, for instance.

As suggested by User:Nickhh above, there is much more direct scope for insertion of British political parties which have been in government during the Troubles period. Can't think of anything else. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 23:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

View of uninvolved editor: Sarah777
As someone who has pointed out the considerable problems with Elonka's (and other) Admins proposals for a "troubles-creep" policy, I nonetheless see this as a clear example of a "troubles-related" article. The BNP is a racist virulently anti-Irish Party and were active during the period of the troubles. Their inclusion is much more appropriate than Irish articles about events that occurred dozens or even hundreds of years before the troubles. The sudden outcry by editors (who in many cases are themselves troubles-warriors) is risible. Just because Elonka, uninformed though she admits she is, can see the obvious fact that 'articles related to the British-Irish' dispute does not mean only Irish articles. And yes, of course this potentially extends to articles on US political parties as well - which is why I oppose Elonka's extensification proposal. But in the context of her and other Admins proposals "BNP" is definitely a legitimate target for the Arbcom scatter-gun. Sarah777 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Logistical comment by MastCell
Please combine this with Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, as essentially the same issues are now under discussion in 2 different places, with quite a bit of repetition. MastCell Talk 00:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana
Hi, not sure I quite understand the point being made here. Are you agreeing there was no need to invoke the ArbCom Troubles decision in dealing with any problems on the BNP page? Or are you saying that because it now has been, but by an individual admin rather than by ArbCom, any review should be at AN/ANI or using some form of DR rather than here? We tried reasoning with Elonka on her talkpage but were brushed off. We tried going to ANI and were told to ask for formal clarification here, which is what has been done, but no one seems willing to give it. A mixture of one editor/admin's astonishing stubborness and refusal to admit a mistake, combined with the usual bureaucratic "oh no mate, you want Dept 4B, other building", seem to be conspiring to make this all rather complicated when it's all rather simple really. Correcting a rather obvious mistake really shouldn't take this much time and effort. It is all quite surreal


 * Clarification of the Troubles decision - does it cover the BNP page, as 99% of involved and uninvolved editors have said it doesn't?
 * Clarification re Elonka's action - should she have just unilaterally imposed the tag and associated restrictions on the page?

Thanks, --Nickhh (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And, further to this - the issue has already been discussed at length on Elonka's talk page, and on the BNP article page. Consensus from a mix of involved and uninvolved editors is about 15-2 that the page is not a Troubles-related article, but Elonka for some reason is standing her ground. One editor also went to ANI, and they were told to come here, which another editor then did. I'm not sure why we would go to AE - the point is not that we need enforcement of a decision, but rather "unenforcement", or, simply a clarification that the page is not related, confirming the rather clear decision that the "community" has already come to. If we have to go to yet another venue, spend hours collecting diffs and post all the same arguments for the fifth time, well fine. On the other hand, either ArbCom simply clarifying - on the Arbitration clarification page, after all - "no, that page has nothing to do with our decision on the Troubles" or Elonka having the good grace to admit an error and hit a single button to reverse a totally bizarre decision, would seem to be a much more obvious route to sorting this rather silly problem out. Cheers. --Nickhh (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to clarification provided
Please could the provided clarification to this problem be clarified.

Does an Admin have the right to label any article Troubles related because several editors from the troubles are involved at the article?

If an article mentions a sentence or two about a policy on Ireland and there is an edit war over something totally unreleated, can the fact there is one sentence on Ireland be used to justify placing that article under troubles related restrictions?

Yes or no to these two questions would be most helpful, its a pretty simple question that has been very well avoided in the extensive response below. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Response by RTG to clarification provided
The clarification does not actually clarify the matter of the BNP article which is certainly the purpose of this request. Although not in the title, it does specifically say British National Party under the request. Can you clarify using the name "BNP article" or "British National Party article"? Cosensus seems to suggest, if I may, that BNP relation to The Troubles is only abstract and that even though the BNP have sought some public support on one occasion from a Troubles-related group, in issues not concerning The Troubles, support (if any) garnered appears to have little notability. The issue of white people being overrun isn't really valid in Ireland north or south where all the slaves were white, and even largely protestant in northern areas, anyway. We are too busy fighting amongst ourselves to be fighting the blacks over in England. ! <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 16:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
In response to Nate's question (and a number of others doubts), you resolve it at community level by first discussing it with the admin who imposed the action. Should that not work out, you use dispute resolution as necessary (such as RfC'ing the matter, which is most ideal in this case) or you make a community discussion at the appropriate admin noticeboard. That would usually be AE (though AN may also work). Of course, whichever venue or step in DR you choose, it would be a good idea to send neutral notices to notable venues (like AN/ANI/AE - i.e. not canvassing or specific users) so that you guys maximise the possibility of more uninvolved input being given. Only if there is difficulty interpreting or coming to a community consensus on the issue during these steps, should you escalate to ArbCom after which they can intervene. That is what is meant by Vassyana's comment: "only intervene when it is clear that the available options have exhausted and/or a dispute cannot be resolved at the community level". ArbCom are unlikely to (and are practically bound not to) provide any confirmation, reversal, or opinion in the absence of those community steps being proactively taken (and exhausted) in good faith. Some of the steps I've mentioned must've been missed, or I would've at least been aware of what venue was chosen - maximising the possibility of more uninvolved input being given is a must here. I hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * tl:dr version: My initial thoughts are that this should be resolved at the community level. Hash it out there, without the involved editors overwhelming the discussion. I do not see why this cannot be reviewed normally like other disputes about administrator actions. Vassyana (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Full rationale: The Arbitration Committee has generally recognized community-based clarifications, implementations, and expansions of area-targeted remedies and sanctions. The results of arbitration cases do not preclude additional community imposed warnings, conditions, or sanctions on any individual area or editor. The additional clarifications and conditions related to the Troubles case are noted in the arbitration enforcement log. Similarly, the presence of an ongoing arbitration case or arbitration remedies does not impede or prohibit administrators from acting normally using existing policies, norms, tools, and processes. Normal administrative actions and actions otherwise taken under the scope of community level decisions should be resolved normally at the community level. The Arbitration Committee should only intervene when it is clear that the available options have exhausted and/or a dispute cannot be resolved at the community level. If any action taken under community conditions is disputed, the regular avenues for resolving disputed administrator actions should be utilized. That means such disputes should use normal dispute resolution options and seek community input, as recommended in the administrator policy. Vassyana (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not intervene as an arbitrator nor encourage the Committee to intervene on a community imposed or expanded sanction unless it is clear the question cannot be resolved by the community. Even if it were purely a matter of an arbitration remedy, which it is distinctly not in this instance, things should still be resolved at the community level whenever possible. Some confrontational discussion and a derailed ANI thread does not comprise much of an attempt to resolve this at the community level. If people are saying "hands off this has to go to ArbCom", or any analogue thereof, they are mistaken. I should also note that if attempts at community discussion are derailed, overwhelmed, or otherwise disrupted by involved parties that when this returns to our doorstep, I will be looking at least as much at that as the administrator actions. Vassyana (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The BNP article no more falls under the scope of "The Troubles" case than our articles on mainstream British political parties, especially as, as far as I know, the BNP don't even field candidates in Northern Ireland. However, the BNP article clearly has severe behavioural issues and I can sympathise with an administrator thinking that editing restrictions would be helpful in resolving them. Best may be to sound the community on article probation, either at WP:AN/I or via an RfC. I do not think this requires a full case of its own though an ArbCom motion/injunction, with similar terms to Troubles restriction, coming into more or less immediate effect might be another route.  Roger Davies  talk 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that the name "The Troubles" can cause confusion, however the case is as much to do with the editors involved as it is to do with the topics involved. Prior to Elonka noticing this, Off2riorob had been suggesting that the problem was related to the involvement of editors from The Troubles, and GoodDay said that he was considering asking for full page protection. As a result, I don't see a problem with an admin bring British National Party under this case for a short time. Also, as Sarah777 points out, BNP is a controversial political party, and one that is attempting a face lift on a few fronts, and there were recent protests in Northern Ireland. If the problematic editing continues for more than a month, a longer term solution is needed and the community should decide whether whether The Troubles editing restrictions are helpful, or seek other solution. user:Nickhh, I think you should steer clear of both that article and this issue for a while - your involvement thus far has been to stir without bringing any positive contributions to the article or the discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC) (edit conflicting with Roger)
 * I generally agree with all three preceding comments. Hopefully this dispute can be worked out on that basis without requiring further arbitration proceedings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with above as well. Wizardman  06:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree largely with Roger Davies above, and Mathsci in the amendment discussion. The BNP does not have much if anything to do with Irish nationalism. I disagree with the practice of slapping a "Troubles" tag on an article if a well-recognised group turn up at an unrelated article to argue over "Troubles" related material. That is allowing the dispute to spread, and disrupts editing of the article on other matters (there is much more to the BNP that the article editors should be talking about, not this). The correct response, in my view, is to topic ban (from the new article in question) the editors who spread a dispute to that article, or to ban said editors from interacting with each other. This may, of course, require discretionary sanctions or requests for ArbCom action, rather than using existing sanctions, but that is for the editors and admins helping out in this area to decide. Carcharoth (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for amendment (December 2009)
Initiated by  Elonka at 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Case affected :

Amendment 1: New remedy: Discretionary Sanctions

 * Requests for arbitration/The Troubles


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


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


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


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

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

I have personally used discretionary sanctions to good effect in multiple other topic areas, and can vouch for their effectiveness. A complete list of every formal warning or sanction I have placed is at User:Elonka/ArbCom log, but a few examples of creative sanctions include:
 * Banning one editor from one article and its talkpage for one week.
 * Banning one editor from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days.
 * Banning one editor from editing the lead section of one article for one month.

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

To see examples of sanctions which other administrators have used, see:
 * Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
 * Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
 * Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2

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

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

Elonka's reply to Vassyana
The articles within the topic area of Irish and British nationalism are subject to large quantities of tag team edit-warring. The articles are technically under 1RR (one revert per editor per article per day), but when teams of editors on each side engage in the battle, 1RR means very little, since we'll just get a stream of different editors coming through, all reverting each other. For example at Sinn Féin, there has been a longterm edit war about whether the infobox should state that the founding date of the organization was 1905 or 1970. Other disputes overflow to articles that have a more tenuous connection to the topic area, but are still clearly the same editors battling over issues of nationalism. For example, created articles about soccer players from Northern Ireland, such as Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer) and Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer), and move wars erupted as to whether the articles should be disambiguated as "(Northern Irish footballer)" or "(Northern Ireland footballer)". The dispute has also overflowed to the Scotland article, with an edit war over Scotland's national anthem. Another overflow article is at British National Party, about an extremist political group which has policies related to Northern Ireland. Though not directly related to "The Troubles", it is still an article in the British/Irish nationalism topic area, and is a location where established editors continue to revert each other.

Any action taken by an administrator in this topic area, no matter how minor or how clearly supported by policy, is usually immediately challenged by one side or the other of these battling editors. Challenges range from well-coordinated wiki-lawyering and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments, to accusations of bias and incompetence, and sometimes out and out personal attacks.  It takes considerable fortitude for an administrator to deal with this, and the frustration is enhanced by the fact that administrators have very few tools at their disposal in this topic area. We can remind people of 1RR (1 revert per article per day) or put them on probation (1 revert per article per week), but with the coordinated tag team efforts, the edit-warring at the articles continues. If discretionary sanctions were authorized though, uninvolved administrators could implement more specific sanctions. For possible examples: These kinds of sanctions would force the battling parties to cease their coordinated edit wars. This would (hopefully) encourage them to find other methods of dealing with disputes, such as to work through the steps of Dispute resolution, and work on crafting an actual consensus version of each article. --Elonka 21:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Implementing 0RR on an article's infobox
 * Banning an editor from reverting any good faith edits, unless they are already engaged in discussion at the article's talkpage (this in particular would help in eliminating "drive-by" reverts)
 * Banning a particular editor from editing one or more articles, but still allowing them to participate at the talkpages.
 * Banning an editor from creating new articles that use titles not supported by previous consensus
 * Banning editors from removing reliable sources from an article

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

Statement by MickMacNee
Discretionary sanctions are more than needed for ongoing disputes in the area of British - Irish relations, broadly construed, primarily because of the ongoing poor behaviour of the editors involved, rather than any inherent problem with the topic. However, I have extreme concerns over the potential scope of this, and the wording needs to be extremely precise. The committee should read User_talk:Elonka for an example of where the scope of the term "...British nationalism in relation to Ireland" has already been taken way too far, to chilling effect, to impose a Troubles case restriction on an article which has barely anything to do with British - Irish relations, in order to deal with an ongoing dispute that didn't even encompass British-Irish relations in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would actually appereciate it if as part of these new remedies, the numerous instances of unsubstantiated soapboxing commentary were addressed by admins as and when they see it. Highking has been asked time and again to put up or shut up with regards to his pet theories over the result of the Ireland naming poll, and he has been reminded time and again who the authority is to which he needs to appeal if he thinks the result was an abuse or does not reflect the NPOV, so far he has done nothing except continue to make these unsubstantiated allegations, poisoning the atmosphere, presumably on the 'say it enought times and it becomes true' principle. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Addendum:

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the quote by Elonka on her talk page

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

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

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

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

Today in this post Elonka said..
 * "It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View by Snowded
Something does need to be done, although overall the problem is not as bad as it has been at times. A series of wars on a range of Irish articles can be linked to provocative edits by a small number of editors - some of whom have been banned and not received progressive blocks for subsequent failures. Scotland has just got one of its 2/3 times a year debates about national anthems and country status, there is no need to extend this type of sanction to that article. The surge in interest in the BNP and EDL and other far right groups in the UK has put them in the news so they are active, but I wouldn't say that any of them are really out of hand given the contentious nature of the subject matter. The current debate on the "whites-only" membership rule and the related court case has nothing whatsoever to do with the Troubles and there is no case for a 1RR rule there at the moment. So I would suggest: --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Enforce WP:BRD and sanction anyone who reverts a revert, with the admin restoring the prior position. This was used well on British Isles but needed more enforcement.  That is much better than a 1RR restriction which is too easily gamed
 * Ban all IPs from editing any article put under this type of sanction. IPs can edit at will and frustrate established editors tempting them into a failure to follow IRR.  Some of the IPs are socks anyway.
 * Most of these articles really need admins who understand the political context. Its too easy to miss deliberate provocation, or misunderstand what is going on.   I think there is a case for a small number of admins to look after some articles and agree sanctions collectively.  They can also intervene to create a structure to debates.
 * Keep the British National articles under watch, but don't impose on them yet, the connection to the Troubles is remote (ditto Scotland). Keep this to articles linked to the Troubles, or individual attempts to take issues related to the Troubles onto other pages.
 * It is all too easy for a disruptive editor to make multiple small changes to an article, claiming that each is an attempt to improve the article. They don't fail the 1RR rule but place other editors who simply want to restore the prior version while discussion is taking place on the talk page in an invidious position.  Any sanction should therefore clearly state that if an issue is disputed, then the ONLY place for discussion is the talk page, not progressive edits of the main article.


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

Statement by Nickhh
If the upshot of this amendment would be yet more swooping onto pages that have no serious relationship as such with the Troubles (like the BNP) to impose restrictions on editing or editors that would not otherwise be imposed, it is clearly a very bad idea, and is most certainly not a simple amendment to an "existing case". This kind of creeping extension of previous decisions, such that in this case it would now cover "British nationalism" generally, and so that individual admins would have the authority to arbitrarily decide that even where there is doubt about whether specific pages are included within that, their interpretation trumps everything else, is wholly inappropriate. And given that I have seen it suggested that Irish or British editors should be barred from editing such articles, as they have too much invested in them, I might similarly suggest that arbs and admins recuse themselves from proposing and then approving dramatic extensions of this sort to their own powers in specific areas. I also agree with Snowded about the inherent problems with 1RR as a remedy. And, going beyond that point, the proposer's self-certified assertion that they have "personally used discretionary sanctions to good effect", is, well, a little contentious - on many occasions those sanctions have simply allowed very poor content to accumulate on WP, and go unchallenged, even if they may have occasionally helped at the margins in terms of any conduct issues. --Nickhh (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: On the last point, this is a serious matter. The purpose of this project is to write an encyclopedia, it's not social club. "Discretionary" powers emphasises keeping order, not writing/improving content. "Removing" an editor may have a very calming effect on an article but it does nothing to address genuine problems the content may have. It's an answer to a content dispute that relies on "removing" editors that say there is a problem with the content. That's doesn't solve anything, it just makes belief that there is no content dispute. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Statement by Domer48
Vassyana below asks what are the specific behavioral problems being encountered? It is a fact that behavioral problems in this area from the time of the original Troubles Arbcom have dramatically reduced. This is no doubt down to the number of sock abusing accounts that were closed down, (I'm not fully convinced that we got them all) which has resulted in this reduction. The current problems being encountered at the moment in addition to the normal issues is the "New Admin in the area" syndrome. The latest is User:Elonka who was preceded by User:Rd232, User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Tznkai etc etc... In this syndrome it seems to follow a typical pattern. They start by taking their Que from the sitting Admin's, a big mistake since these Admin's are neither uninvolved or without their own bias, they then wave a big stick, throw around a few blocks which get overturned, and then call for additional sanctions.

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

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

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

I agree with 1RR, but it can not be at the discretion of Admin's. If you violate 1RR you get sanctioned! These latest blocks and Bans illustrate why we should not give “discretionary sanctions” to Admin's.--<font face="Celtic"> Domer48 'fenian'  16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One very good reason to reject this attempt to censor wikipedia. That the like of Moreschi could be considered "uninvolved" shows this motion up for the joke that it is. To even suggest this motion illustrated how you and others have have seriously failed to adhere or understand the purpose of Wikipedia.  --<font face="Celtic"> Domer48  'fenian'  10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Explain it to me like I'm stupid. What are the specific behavioral problems being encountered? Are there editors exihibiting such problems who otherwise work productively and uncontroversially in other areas? Are the numbers of disruptive editors too high or too deeply engrained in the editing area to deal with them on a case by case basis? As a side note, the discussion linked demonstrates how the heavy participation of involved editors can derail outside input and make it extremely difficult to decipher the opinion of the broader community (as represented by participating uninvolved editors). I strongly encourage the community to address this issue, as it has deep negative consequences across most controversial areas. Beyond that, I await further statements. (As a note, please keep statements to a reasonable length and do not rehash the ANI discussion here.) Vassyana (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to have a table like this drawn up for all related AE threads over the last six months. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the recent spat of statements, I am more inclined to believe that this amendment is required, because it has been effective when employed in more recent cases of this kind. I don't see careful consideration by the parties who should have the most valuable insight - just lots of FUD.  There is no need to quickly add your statement to make sure your voice is heard; this is not an admin noticeboard.  If you don't think this amendment is right, your statement should offer a better solution. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I would also be very happy to "normalise" this area by annulling the case. That should be a shock to the system, and might mean that a few of the problem editors become saints.  Those that dont will likely end up being brought back to Arbcom in due course. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering SirFozzie's suggestion on a practical level, if this amendment passes in the next week or so, the 30 day review will start when the new arbcom panel is just settling in, and are being inundated with requests from people hoping to obtain the attention of the newly appointed arbcom members who are both enthusiastic and .. umm .. relatively uninformed. ;-) As a result, I think it would be wiser to push the review out to mid- or late-February. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that the discretion Elonka asks us to enshrine already belongs to administrators; strictly speaking, the only thing discretionary sanctions add is provide a formal venue where such interventions are centralized (Arbitration Enforcement) and make it "more bad" for another admin to unilaterally overturn measures placed by one of their colleagues. &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, I do not believe that any "special" statement needs to be made to provide the degree of administrator flexibility being sought here, and I believe that administrators have ample tools now, although I do see a somewhat disappointing reliance on a few and little creativity that is currently within scope. I agree with several of the commenters that there has been progressive "creep" in the scope of this set of sanctions, and it is serving to spread the battle rather than to circumscribe it. This appears to be largely related to following the contributions of editors rather than because the articles involved are related to The Troubles. This creep needs to stop, as it deters uninvolved editors from developing, maintaining and improving the content of the encyclopedia. I suggest that enforcing administrators consider that if the battle is being taken elsewhere, then the issue is the editors and not the article, and the sanctions should be in line with that. For articles, BRD is generally more effective in attracting independent, uninvolved and knowledgeable editors, whereas 1RR will nearly always deter the uninvolved from editing—quality editing will frequently involve multiple "reverts" or removal of coatrack content. I am not seeing much that would make me inclined to support the original proposal or the motions being proposed by my colleagues. Risker (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


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

Motion 1: Discretionary sanctions
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; temporary bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; temporary bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; temporary restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Blocks and/or topic bans may initially be for up to one month in duration, escalating in stages to a maximum of one year if the misbehaviours continue.

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

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


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


 * Oppose:
 * 1) Not seeing value in this; the remedies from the existing case, as supplemented by later community actions, and the existing discretion allowed administrators are quite sufficient. I note, on reviewing logged bans and blocks, that multiple sanctions are included in that log that are routine administrator actions that just happen to relate to editing behaviours on the related articles; for example, blocks for making personal attacks are routine and not specific to the existing remedy or this proposed modification, which actually doesn't modify anything of significance. Risker (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Per comment above, I see little value in this, and think a new case would be more appropriate. --bainer (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I remain unconvinced that any part of this not already covered by the remedies of the existing case already falls well within the discretion afforded uninvolved administrators to prevent disruption anywhere within the project (and not just in one problematic area).  Requiring the committee to craft remedies for every case where there is a dispute before administrators can enforce our policies is not helpful, and this motion would tend to encourage a mindset of "It's not a real sanction unless it was done by ArbCom".  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Per bainer, so we can once again look in depth at this reoccurring issue. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> •  Talk  • 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Discussion
 * I'm very happy to support this though the block and topic ban provisions should probably be more qualified. Perhaps add to paragraph one: "Blocks and/or topic bans may initially be for up to one month in duration, escalating in length in stages to a maximum of one year if the misbehaviour continues misbehaviours continue" .  Roger Davies  talk 08:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This could be interpreted as a second offense earning a year long block. I dont think that is reasonable in any but the most extreme cases, and those extreme cases are likely to be easily solved by the community. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I'm not prepared to support a sanction that s currently drafted allows a year's site ban for a first offence at a single administrator's discretion. I've tweaked the proposed amendment to accommodate your comment.   Roger Davies  talk 11:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposed amendment works for me. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion 2: Scope
The scope of the discretionary sanctions may include any article in conflict that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, or British nationalism. When there is doubt as to whether or not an article falls within the scope of this case, assume it is related.


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


 * Oppose:
 * 1) While I see the reason for this - to prevent wildfires spreading elsewhere - I'm uncomfortable about conflating the BNP with the Troubles. The topics are not really related though they may both offer similar opportunities for jingoism, and worse. I note though that under the "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" provision in Motion 1 is already sufficiently widely drawn to enable administrators to topic ban from editing in other topics/articles where the editor is causing trouble.   Roger Davies  talk 08:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) The mention of British nationalism misses the point (that is more England-Scotland issues). The articles that cover Irish-British politics are more Ulster nationalism, Ulster loyalism, and Unionism in Ireland. Or indeed, Category:Politics of Northern Ireland. Politics in Northern Ireland is incredibly splintered and factional, and it does take a little bit of background reading to become acquainted with it. I would favour remedies focused on editor behaviour, rather than drawing too wide a net over too many articles. Find the editors who consistently push the boundaries, and deal with them. Ensure articles outside the topic area don't get affected and continue to function as normal. Impose stringent restrictions on the editing of articles within the topic area. Ensure that editing on an article remains relevant to that article. Consistently focus editors on improving articles (especially the non-contentious areas of the articles), instead of arguing over the controversial parts (or, indeed, manufacturing controversy where none exists). Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) If there is the sense that the battle is being carried beyond the confines of the original scope, then the problem is more likely the editors than the articles. Involving an ever-increasing number of good editors into this sanction mentality is destructive to the development of the encyclopedia and paints good editors as warriors in a battle in which they are uninvolved. Again, I point to the editors bringing an inappropriate mentality to peripheral articles as being the problem here, not the articles themselves. Risker (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Per vote on #1. --bainer (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Roger Davies, Carcharoth, and Risker. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  Wizardman  16:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> •  Talk  • 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Discussion

Motion 3: Review of community-based restrictions
The community-based restrictions put in place on articles in this area (1RR rule on all editors, etcetera) will be continued for a minimum of 60 days from the conclusion of this motion. 45 days after the conclusion of this motion, the Arbitration Committee will invite comment on whether to continue these restrictions as they stand for a period of time, to modify them, or to let them expire. Involved editors are invited to discuss these restrictions, but the greater uninvolved community's thoughts and desires will take precedence.


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


 * Oppose:
 * 1) I'm loathe to intervene in community decisions without a strongly compelling reason. I perceive no such need here. Vassyana (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Per vote on #1. --bainer (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I think that increased direct intervention from the Committee is unlikely to be useful in this case.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Vassyana and Coren.  Wizardman  16:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Vassyana and Coren. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> •  Talk  • 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Discussion

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

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

Amendment request: The Troubles
Initiated by  Seraphimblade Talk to me at 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC) N/A
 * Case affected :
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 5
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Information about amendment request
 * It is requested that the discretionary sanctions in the area of British baronets be lifted.

Statement by Seraphimblade
Following a recent appeal to arbitration enforcement from a user who had been sanctioned under the Troubles discretionary sanctions, and objected to the portion of this which forbade editing of British baronets, a closer look was taken at this. Arbitrator Newyorkbrad confirmed that the Committee had not seen any issues arise from this area for at least a year and a half, and taking a check through the AE archives and case enforcement logs, I also can't find any trouble there recently. The administrators involved in the discussion regarding the appeal, including the one who closed the original request and placed the sanctions, agreed there was little purpose in the baronet portion of the ban and it ultimately was lifted for that editor. It's nice to see an area where sanctions have done their job and calmed things down, so I think it's time to give it a go without them. Accordingly, I'd propose something to this effect:
 * "Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows: The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion should a pattern of editing problems reemerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process." Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

All of the troubles-related disputes wrt baronets involved, who is currently indef-blocked (and I think also perma-banned) after a very long series of conflicts. - Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is potentially thorny enough that I would appreciate the clerks notifying various noticeboards/wikiprojects that would be reasonably interested. Might be worth letting AN know as well. Courcelles 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, lets get rid of this clause. Courcelles 20:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Awaiting further statements. PhilKnight (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on everything I am aware of, the disputes that formerly existed on the "baronets" articles were not directly related to "the Troubles"; they are mentioned in the remedy because those disputes, at that time, involved a handful of the same editors who were involved in the "the Troubles" disputes as well. If, as appears, there aren't any ongoing disputes concerning baronets, then editors restricted under "the Troubles" need not be restricted as to "baronets" editing. That being said, I don't believe a formal motion to amend is necessary to narrow the sanctions. Any administrator imposing a discretionary sanction has the authority to tailor the sanction to the specific misconduct warranting it. Thus, if the ArbCom decision says "discretionary sanctions are authorized in areas A, B, and C" and a user has breached policy only re A and B and has never had a problem with C, then it's quite in order for the admin to impose the sanction as to A and B and leave C out. So, a formal amendment isn't necessary, but I'm willing to propose an amendment motion anyway if there's a consensus of the AE administrators that it would be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the comments, unless anything else comes up, I'll make a motion in the next day or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removing "and British baronets" to avoid the unnecessary paperwork as witnessed in the FergusM1970 incident. As there has been no recent evidence of problems, and problems were mainly caused by one (currently indefinitely blocked) editor, I see no value in keeping this wide sanction. If there are problems in this topic area in future, it may be more appropriate to focus sanctions on those editors causing the problems rather than referring the topic back to The Troubles. <font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with both removing the no-longer-necessary sanctions, as well as with the option for administrators to NOT impose discretionary sanctions in irrelevant areas. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Motion (The Troubles)

 * "Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows: The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion, should a pattern of editing problems re-emerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect (and unmodified) until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process."
 * Enacted - <font color="#0b0080">Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of this motions, there are 14 active arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.


 * Support
 * Courcelles 16:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Kirill [talk] 00:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Troubles restriction sets out a scope for this dispute of "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". If conduct while editing British baronets becomes problematic in future, item three of the scope ("British nationalism in relation to Ireland") will enable enforcement. (Fixed punctuation in this motion; feel free to revert.) AGK  [•] 12:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * <font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  21:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 14:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Discretionary sanctions appeal: The Troubles
Initiated by  <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  at 12:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * notified

Statement by One Night In Hackney
I wish to appeal against a frankly bizarre decision where a "consensus of uninvolved administrators" in this discussion has topic banned me while providing virtually no evidence to support the decision.

The 3 month topic ban was proposed here detailing a series of edits to Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997. See User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal for analysis of that series:

The ban was proposed at the end of that series. So FergusM1970 made some bold changes, was reverted, then Portugalpete and SonofSetanta edit war to try and force those changes through without any attempt at discussion. And that's my fault how exactly? If I make one revert and other editors edit war after that, is that somehow my fault? Can I be held responsible for the actions of other editors? I asked for an explanation as to how making one edit to an article is somehow worthy of a 3 month topic ban, I never got a direct reply to that question. Make one revert to enforce content policy and get topic banned, makes no sense to me.

The history of 7 July 2005 London bombings is mentioned as evidence here. I'll be the first to admit my behaviour can be seen as less than stellar on that article, but there's others who are far worse. See User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal for analysis of that article.

Somewhat bizarrely, Flexdream's attempts to edit war OR into an article with unproductive talk page discussion get him just a final warning yet I get a topic ban. I can't really understand the logic of banning the person attempting to enforce content policy while giving the person attempting to violate it a slap on the wrist, anyone?

There's various comments falsely alleging I refused to take part in dispute resolution. The case was filed at 22:24, 3 August 2012 (that's a Friday night for the record). It was archived at 22:44, 4 August 2012, just over 24 hours later. My removal of the notice from my talk page has been falsely interpreted as a refusal to take part. I know where the page is without a link since I've posted there before (and I don't remove noticeboards from my watchlist), and me removing all comments from my talk page is something done repeatedly prior to that. It was a Saturday. During the Olympics. I was too busy to respond straight away since it required a bit of thought. Maybe I should have posted something to that effect, but the DRN volunteer could easily have asked if I was planning to respond, but he chose not to and just closed it assuming bad faith.

Rather than actually deal with the editors persistently violating policy, the admins have decided "sod it, we'll just ban everyone" without taking into account that some editors are simply trying to enforce content policy in the face of disruptive editors adding transparent violations of policy, and that removing the disruptive editors from the situation is all that's needed. I can't see how this topic ban is remotely justified by the "evidence" unless attempting to enforce content policy is now topic ban worthy? <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  12:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Cailil, the analysis of the evidence at User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal practically demolishes any "tag teaming" accusations (since the majority of the changes I reverted were new changes that had not been reverted by any other editor), and in fact that has never been mentioned before. The only mentions of tag-teaming in the "Result concerning FergusM1970" subsection are "While bright-line violations of restrictions like 1RR are easy to address, they are generally a symptom rather than a root cause, and we will in due course address patterns of misbehavior like stonewalling discussions, tag team reverting, or chronic incivility/sniping" (which doesn't refer to anyone, and in fact was made 3 days *before* you proposed a topic ban) and "Warn Flexdream that further "tag team" edit warring or any misconduct in the areas covered by WP:TROUBLES will result in sanction." (which doesn't refer to me). "perhaps ONiH doesn't see his edit was tag teaming 4 sysops disagreed", where? Where do 4 sysops say that edit was tag teaming in the discussion? You don't even say that when proposing a ban! That's an after the fact attempt to justify an unfair ban with equally poor (and I would argue non-existent) evidence, since your reasoning was "Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators" and the consensus makes no mention of "tag teaming" and neither does the discussion mention it once post-proposal except in relation to Flexdream. In addition your notification was in contravention of Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions which states "Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed". Rather than invoke the cabal, it would be more sensible to see that more than one editor reverted the changes because they were wrong and violations of policy.


 * Finally "The crux of the sanction was due to the tag teaming at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 while the case was open. It is not acceptable for a party to bring a case to AE for stated misconduct and then engage in such misconduct themselves - that is the definition of unclean hands." sums up the whole problem here. Reverting once to enforce policy is not "misconduct" <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  14:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I never called AE a cabal. What I said was that you're invoking the cabal by saying editors are tag-teaming, when it's more obvious that they are reverting because the edits were violations of policy. I didn't involve myself in any edit war. As the article history and the evidence page shows, a series of *brand new* edits were made by FergusM1970 on 7 August 2012‎. I reverted the changes I disagreed with, and for most of those changes I was the first person to revert them. What happens after that is nothing to do with me. What you appear to be saying is that FergusM1970 could make any changes he wants to (no matter if they violated policy or not), and that anyone who had the cheek to revert him gets topic banned. I hope everyone else can see how bizarre that is. <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  15:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "in concert", there you go again invoking the cabal. Since you intend to keep mentioning the edits to Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 that have already been refuted at at User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal let's just examine them here?
 * 7 August.
 * The use of insurgency is inappropriate, read the rest of the lead. "The British Army characterised this period as the 'insurgency phase' of the IRA's campaign" and "The British Army called this the 'terrorist phase' of the IRA's campaign". Two different distinct phases in the British Army's assessment, so why use one of those labels for the entire campaign?
 * Use of 2009 opinion poll about a tangentially releated subject to try and show lack of support for a campaign that was from 1969 to 1997 - self evident WP:NOR violation but explained at User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal in even more depth.
 * Removal of "specifically" - commentary added by FergusM1970 not in the source
 * Change of "IEDs" back to "bombs" - WP:ACRONYM. And if you want an anecdote about the use of [I]EDs versus bombs "At a press conference, he explained that the Cole blast was the result of 'an explosive device on a water-borne delivery vehicle.' One of the assembled hacks shouted out: 'You mean - a bomb on a boat,' to general hilarity."
 * 14 August are repeating the same previously disputed changes for the same reasons. The fact SonofSetanta had chosen to edit war those disputed changes (including the blatant OR, which was removed several days before my second edit while only "contributing" this to the talk page discussion is the root of the problem here. I'm the poor sod who's vainly attempting to enforce policy in the face of this....


 * You bring up 7 July 2005 London bombings again, if I'm not being "singled out" then you might want to try and explain how my edits (to remove OR) are worthy of a topic ban yet Flexdream's edits (to add OR) are worthy of a slap on the wrist not a topic ban? If you deal with the real problem (the editors who add OR claiming a "Wikipedia link" justifies the inclusion) then everything else disappears, there is no edit warring without them. You're thinking a symptom is the problem, it isn't. <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  16:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @BHG, there's also the fact that 4 out of the 7 articles at Category:GA-Class Irish Republicanism articles were taken there by me, and in fact 3 of those were created at pretty much GA status by me. I don't have as much time to write as I'd like right now due to ongoing difficulties in my family hence my lack of recent substantial content edits, since various involved editors made the accusation I contribute nothing. <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  14:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @NYB, I'd second that request. I'm sure it shouldn't be too difficult for someone to provide the exact diffs in a short, concise post. <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  16:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Slp1. You do realise by introducing evidence not mentioned at the AE you're making the result more like one you'd get from a Star Chamber right? Nonetheless, I'll refute it:


 * You bring up the history of Bloody Friday (1972). Simple one that, an editor was attempting to use an unverifiable TV show as a source. Unverifiable since there's no evidence there's an archive copy that's accessible to the public, and copyright violating YouTube copies can't be used. Funny how once again that's being used as evidence of problems caused by me, yet Flexdream reverts twice to restore unverifiable material while not contributing to ongoing talk page discussion for another 4 hours. Remind me again why I got a 3 month topic ban yet Flexdream got a slap on the wrist could you?


 * "Another concern is the combative nature of many talkpage comments".
 * The first diff is indeed in reply to an irrelevant question. "A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime" was Flexdream's reason for editing the article (and for the record they were, Peter Taylor Brits pages 294-295 "In a statement that evening, the IRA claimed responsibility for the 'execution' of 'two SAS members who launched an attack on the funeral cortège of our comrade". Whether the accusation was correct isn't relevant, except in pointing out that's why summary executions are a bad idea). However Flexdream then asks a totally different question on the talk page, "And the crime they were charged with was what?". There's a substantial difference between "accused" and "charged", thus making the question irrelevant. You don't need to be *charged* with a crime to be summarily executed
 * The second diff is in reply to "An execution is a JUDICIAL KILLING". Is it really unreasonable for people failing to understand what a summary execution is to bother to read the article? Even if you just read the first sentence of the article "A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime and then immediately killed without benefit of a full and fair trial", does that sound like a judicial killing to you? Someone killed without benefit of a full and fair trial is not a judicial killing by any stretch of the imagination, it's the exact opposite in fact. Of course that's backed up by reliable sources too, including "The summary execution of unarmed persons who are under the power of their adversary (including collaborators) is punishable under domestic criminal law (murder) and international law (war crime)"
 * The third diff is in reply to "An execution is a legal process carried out by a state. PIRA were not agents of a state, what with being an illegal organisation in both the UK and the Irish Republic. A summary execution is simply an execution carried out without a full trial, and if carried out by a state against captured soldiers it's a war crime. The use of "summary execution" in this article is blatantly POV" - that's the closest he ever got to using a correct definition of summary execution. However he went and spoiled it by ignoring he'd said that in almost every future post where he kept saying things like "An execution is a JUDICIAL KILLING". FergusM1970's idea that only agents of a state can carry out a summary execution is his own invention (he's never produced any sources to support the claim), and it's a simple enough task to provide an example that it isn't correct.


 * "related to this a lack of clear interest in the proposed dispute resolution". Already explained, your refusal to accept my reasonable explanation as valid only shows your own failure to assume good faith. Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Corporals killings has 25 edits from me, discounting a couple of edits fixing spelling or missing words. Is that "lack of clear interest in the proposed dispute resolution" too?


 * "and found that only one source (of questionable status)" - no. You don't need to be an expert on the intricacies of Northern Ireland to know whether the incident was a summary execution or not, it's a straightforward case of the killing being carried out without judicial process. Nothing questionable about it.


 * "ONIH argued on, suggesting that those with concerns about his preferred wording (which included a couple of AE administrators) only had them "because they believe the parrot-like comments of FergusM1970"" - quote right. There is FergusM1970's opening statement including "The use of the term "summary execution" for the abduction, beating, stabbing and murder of Howes and Woods is straightforward POV pushing. An execution is a killing carried out with legal sanction by the state which PIRA, itself an illegal group, most certainly did not have". He's repeating the same flawed argument as elsewhere that a summary execution is the same thing as an execution. EdJohnston said in reply to FergusM1970 "Do you believe that admins should rule on whether 'summary execution' can be used to describe killings by the IRA? I share your distaste for that language". Heimstern said "I'm a bit concerned about the use of "summary execution". Ed agrees with FergusM1970 as far as I can see, and Heimstern doesn't say why he's concerned but I'd say my assumption is a reasonable one. You'll note I didn't say definitively that was what happened, note my use of perhaps. However my broader point remains undisputed by anyone, if the case is that editors objection is that it's pro-IRA or confers legitimacy on the killings then the objections are invalid, since it does neither unless people deliberately garble the actual meaning of "summary execution" or "summarily executed". What that wording really does is make clear that those killings were in fact a special case, in that even if people accept the IRA (acting as the army of the Irish Republic) had the right to wage war on Britain, the killing of two soldiers who had been disarmed and captured is an illegal act and simply saying they were "killed" doesn't do that. If the problem is that I "argued on", you appear to be suggesting that as soon as anyone disagrees with me I'm supposed to turn round and say "ok, you're right after all sorry for wasting your time". The choice of "summarily executed" versus "killed" versus "murdered" isn't a NPOV issue as far as I'm concerned, since all three things amount to the same thing - "The IRA shot dead two soldiers".


 * "Similarly, while removing unverified original research and synthesis is good, it is inappropriate to revert "rv unsourced commentary"] which favours one side of the Troubles divide, while leaving in equally unsourced commentary which favours the other, most especially when an editor on "the other side" had already quite appropriately removed the latter material" - covered in detail at User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal, but I'll include a brief summary here. Flexdream attempted to remove an unsourced comparison with IRA bombings during the Troubles, Nick Cooper reverted his edit, then rather than attempt to discuss the inclusion of what he deemed to be irrelevant content, Flexdream added a bizarre comparison that you won't be able to find made by a reliable source. That's where I entered the picture. You appear to be suggesting that if I want to remove the content Flexdream added, I also have to join in an edit war on his behalf and make a different change already known to be disputed, that's ludicrous. I could take that argument even further and say that you're suggesting if I want to remove an unsourced addition from any article I have to remove every other single unsourced claim in the article, that shows how absurd your suggestion is. If Flexdream's first change hadn't been reverted by Nick Cooper I'd have been happy to remove the new comparison (but that's a moot point since the new comparison would never have got added in the first place) but I'm not joining in an edit war on his behalf. We don't deal with problematic content by adding even more problematic content to "balance" it out. At no time did I advocate for the inclusion of the existing material, quote the opposite in fact. Yet despite that Flexdream twice added back the new content after I said that. I've already said my conduct can be seen at less than stellar on that article, but the clear cause of the problem on that article got a slap on the wrist not a 3 month topic ban! And you'll note that every single article you cite as evidence of my poor conduct, Flexdream just happens to be edit warring on all of them...


 * "Huh? If there was a consensus, why was mediation in process?" - is that a serious question? "summarily executed" was the consensus wording, FergusM1970 wanted to get consensus to change that wording to something else. That's why he stared the DRN thread and made the mediation request. Why else do you think he did that? I could suggest he did both as a token gesture to counter the fact he was going to continue edit warring to remove the term anyway, which is exactly what he did at the history of the article shows. <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  11:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes the caveat was needed due to the number of inaccuracies in the request, and I wished to make it clear I had objections to those inaccuracies. Bear in mind there was nowhere for me to write my version of events unlike in say a request for arbitration, I simply added a caveat to make sure I disputed the accuracy of the request. What's the problem with that exactly?


 * "ONIH can't really complain about the detail now being given when it was he who asked for more specifics above" - yes I can. For example you introduce Bloody Friday into evidence, despite there being no mention of it before (and just for the sake of transparency, the related Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive119 doesn't discuss any supposed wrongdoing on my part at all). The only time the word Friday is even mentioned in the AE request was, bizarrely, when FergusM1970 objected to the early close of the DRN thread stating "Hi Steven. I see your point, but seeing as I requested dispute resolution on a Friday night and it's now Saturday night, the editors in question may have social commitments that mean they don't have time to participate in WP beyond making a few more edits to their favourite articles. Maybe we could leave the DRN open for another day or two, just to give them a chance to take part". It was claimed I was topic banned by a"consensus of uninvolved administrators", I think my complaint is wholly valid that you are saying the decision was made based on "evidence" that was never mentioned at the time. If it was never mentioned, how can a consensus result from it? Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 129 didn't result in a consensus for the programme being used as a source. The specific objections were that unless the programme is in the BBC archive and accessible to the general public then the source is unverifiable, and as shown by a reliable source the entire BBC archive isn't open to the public only a small part of it and per WP:BURDEN it's up to those wanting to use the source to prove it's verifiable. Those were never refuted properly.


 * "if ONIH had applied the same verifibiality and NOR criteria to both parts of the sentence, and had supported Flexdream's concerns about and deletion of problematic material by removing it himself, the edit war that followed might easily have been avoided" - I did the former, as the talk page proves. As already stated, I was not willing to edit war on his behalf to make an edit he'd already attempted to make which had been reverted. I find it a hilarious double standard that you're saying if I revert Flexdream's addition I'm edit warring, yet what am I doing if I revert Nick Cooper's edit? Is that not edit warring also? The sequence is bold-revert-discuss. Flexdream was bold in his removal, reverted, then didn't attempt to discuss but made a totally different bold edit. He was then reverted by me, and rather than discuss he started an edit war, then edit warred again, 27 minutes after starting a talk page "discussion" and 1 minute after claiming a "Wikipedia link" justified the inclusion of OR. So exactly who is causing the problem on that article? The editor adding OR, or the one removing it? It's a simple enough question, and while I'll accept some share of blame it's impossible to say my behaviour is worse than Flexdream's on that article, yet he gets a slap on the wrist compared to my 3 month topic ban. I've asked repeatedly how this is remotely justifiable, and pointed out that Flexdream's disruptive behaviour just happens to be on the the same articles you're using to justify my ban, yet I've never received a proper answer to the question. Perhaps someone could take the trouble to answer it? <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Seraphimblade. "why have we a mediation if we have a consensus already" - addressed in the last paragaph of the most above. If the mediation wasn't to change consensus, then what do you think it was for?


 * "ONiH was participating in the edit warring, and AE isn't there to decide who's the "right" side of an edit war, but rather to determine whether someone was or wasn't a part of it" - you really ought to think about the message you're sending out here. FergusM1970 is nothing but a disruptive POV warrior in my opinion, and even Slp1 says was he/she "was appalled by FergusM1970's pointy editing about being "unarmed"". Although he didn't include this as an example, this where he changes "Three-year-old Johnathan Ball" to "Unarmed three-year-old Johnathan Ball" is as bad as it gets, how many armed three-year-olds have you ever heard of? Enough to warrant the addition of "unarmed" to this three-year-old? I doubt it! The message you are sending to any editor who is foolish enough to revert disruption of this nature is clear - dare to do it and we'll accuse you of edit warring and using Wikipedia as a battleground and topic ban you too. That's totally wrong. It boils down to - let the POV warrior make whatever edits they want or we'll topic ban you - is that really the message you think should be sent? <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K  303  11:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Courcelles and PhilKnight, have you actually looked at the backtracking and goalpost moving by the admins here? "Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators" is against Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed. So I break down the evidence actually cited in the original discussion. So what do the admins do? Cailil invents a reason that was never mentioned in the discussion among admins in relation to me, and Slp1 introduces evidence that wasn't discussed either. This is positively Kafkaesque. A ban is proposed based on one edit, I ask for an explanation as to why that edit merits a three month ban, never get a reply. I get banned, for unknown reasons, then told I am banned, again without the reasons being explained. So now we get here, and I'm told I'm banned for a reason that was never mentioned in relation to me and based on evidence that was never even mentioned. And it's within admin discretion to make decisions like that? The mind boggles, it really does.... <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad. As can be seen from the discussion, the 3 month topic ban was suggested to apply to everyone supposedly involved, regardless of previous history. For example has two previous Troubles sanctions on his current account, as well as 5 previous blocks on Troubles related articles on his previous account  (see Sockpuppet investigations/The Thunderer/Archive for details). So to give me the same length topic ban as SonofSetanta is perverse, when I have never even been blocked on Troubles related articles, save one erroneous block quickly overturned. I find myself in a bizarre situation where I have been topic banned for reasons that have not been explained based on "evidence" that hasn't even been fully divulged to me. How am I supposed to edit again under those circumstances? I'll only get topic banned again based on the whim of some admin who refuses to answer questions, as has happened here. <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  11:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@AGK, I'm really struggling to understand this now. SonofSetanta twice tries to force through incorrect or policy violating changes made by FergusM1970. I revert the changes a full 7 days after Domer48 had edited them out, and that's somehow worthy of a 3 (or even 6!!) month topic ban? Seriously, can I have an explanation as to this thinking please? The message is still clear to me, don't bother trying to stop people forcing through disputed changes or you'll get topic banned. So what's the alternative? Let their disruptive, incorrect and/or policy violating changes stand while we go through dispute resolution and they refuse to compromise and insist their edits stand? Does the reader benefit from allowing those changes to stand while all this goes on? <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  11:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@Various people. If the decision is "harsh", then why is a harsh decision being allowed to stand? I'm not simply asking for the ban to be overturned, reducing the length is a second option. <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  11:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@Flexdream. I don't have the time or energy to pick apart your latest attempts to revise history, like when you claimed at editors previously blocked and topic banned "didn't realise at the time they were in breach of a rule" [1RR]. However your claim regarding RTÉ is incorrect, as you are well aware. At the time of the dispute there was no podcast copy of the show on the RTÉ website at all, that is an addition made since the edits in question. This is obvious to anyone reading the discussions about it. <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  11:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@Slp1. Totally irrelevant in my opinion, unless you're of the opinion that topic bans should be handed out at a minimum of three months regardless of the supposed level of misconduct? <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  11:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cailil
On a personal note I have limited time for this particular thread after brining a request for clarification and making input on a RFAR and responding to 2 other declined AE appeals of the same ruling. I have no problem with ONiH appealing it, it's just I've answered for a group decision of 4 sysops 3 times now already - just as a suggestion there needs to be a better way of dealing with AE closers than singling them out when a group decision has been made. ONiH was one of a series of editors topic banned for misconduct both in the WP:Troubles topic area (specifically tag teaming editwarring at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997, but also issues relating to 7 July 2005 London bombings and at AE itself). The ruling took into account the apparent use of AE to "win" content disputes (by multiple parties ONiH being only one). Initially I was of a mind that FergusM1970 was the only problematic user, other sysops disagreed and wanted to see where DRN discussion would go - they explicitly cautioned all articles to engage in a constructive fashion. After the DRN discussion failed Steven Zhang sent the case back to AE. At that point on examination I came round to other sysops POV that stonewalling and/or process gaming was occurring on both sides of the content issues. No constructive attempts at reaching/building consensus were being made by either side and the dispute originating at Corporals killings spilled over. Instead of following dispute resolution policies (ie disengaging for a start) multiple involved editors tried various brute force mechanisms: tag teaming edit warring; reversion without discussion; immediate reporting to AE; 'tit for tat' AE reports; 'tit for tat' reverts. The crux of the sanction was due to the tag teaming at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 while the case was open. It is not acceptable for a party to bring a case to AE for stated misconduct and then engage in such misconduct themselves - that is the definition of unclean hands. Parties as well as previously uninvolved editors (e.g DagosNavy) jumped into an editwar in breach of WP:Editwar and circumventing the single revert restriction by tag teaming -this was noted at the AE thread, perhaps ONiH doesn't see his edit was tag teaming 4 sysops disagreed (if Arbs see it otherwise I'd appreciate a note on it so we don't make the same decision again elsewhere). At that point and in this context those involved in the worst of the issue were considered for topic bans. FergusM1970 & SonofSetanta were given longer bans for recidivism and abuse of AE respectively. I did argue for Flexdream to be banned (after he had been formally notified of discretionary sanctions days previously) but other sysops disagreed. There was no 'lumping together of editors'. I'll also note that contrary to policy ONiH has blanked the topic ban notification. I understand his wish not to have this on his talk page but how he treated it is against policy--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 14:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: I think its good for ONiH to use this process to review this AE decision and for the official ability to appeal to ArbCom to be used and I have no problem at all with him doing so. I'd appreciate your eyes on this as frankly it was the worst case I've seen at AE for a long while--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 14:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @ONiH: I understand you're angry but it's going a bit far to describe AE as a cabal - and it's a bit unfair to target me when this is a group decision. Furthermore slow editwars and tag teaming should be obviously inappropriate behaviours and are and have been covered by WP:TROUBLES's rulings since the imposition of the 1rr & probation. In the midst of an edit war at the Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign article where the same edit was contested multiple times you involved yourself ONiH in that dispute - yes your edits were days apart but the behaviour of you all was unacceptable. This kind of conduct uses the revert function to impose a group's preferred version without a constructive attempt at consensus, in a way that circumvents 1RR. Furthermore Slp1 raised the issue of the 7 July 2005 London bombings of which your conduct was slow editwaring as she mentioned (no perhaps we didn't single you out by name but that should be obvious by the article history and your edits) You were only 1 part of that issue and you were not singled out, others (ie OldJacobite) did the same thing The discretionary sanctions issue was raised within the AE discussion on foot of your question on my talk page - 4 *other* sysops disagreed with your interpretation (Seraphimblade at AE, Tim Canens, Ed Johnston and KillerChiuahua at Tim's page). I belive Seraphimblade dealt with this in detail and an AE appeal by Domer48 was already closed on these grounds as declined. For this appeal to be completely upheld the Arbs would have to exhonerate your actions at both articles ONiH. If the Arbs feel that the discussion at AE was not explicit enough and that that is grounds for appeal, fine - we can learn from that, but the grounds for action seem clear to me and if Arbs disagree fine but I'd like a note on why so similar decisions are not made--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 15:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At the IRA campaign artile ONiH you reverted twice - your second revert is the current version made on April 14th. Your First revert was April 7. In the intervening period the same edit was reverted an re-added multiple times. You were all in breach. On the 7/7 bombings article you reverted the same edit 5 times in concert with others against a group of reverters. Again you were not singled out. If it had been down to me alone Flexdream WOULD have been banned too for his conduct there & that was my proposal--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 15:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @BHG: many felt that mandated external review would be useful. If that passes as a AC/DS applicable sanction I'd have no quibbles with ONiH's ban being replaced by MER for 3 months in the Troubles area articles. Or if the Committee have a novel approach for this I think that would be fine. I'm also not opposed to reductions based on policy reasoning or if the Arb feel we've erred. However I feel that someone as experienced as ONiH should know that misconduct in an area under probation carries sanction--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 15:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @NYBrad: ONiH's edit-warring identified above, with context. The use of AE was also an issue. General conduct around the dispute was considered by AE admins. Furthermore I've pinged 3 of the sysops involved--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 15:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Arbs: Both myself and Seraphimblade have said that we'd see MER as an appropriate alternative to a topic ban here. Given that 1 month of the topic ban has passed without incident I'd have no issue with the other 2 months being moved to MER--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by BrownHairedGirl
I do not have time to analyse this case, but would like to note that User:One Night In Hackney is a long-term editor of articles relating to The Troubles, and one of the most scholarly content-creators in that field. His prolific contributions include the 1981 Irish hunger strike, which he massively expanded in 2007 and brought to featured article status.

It is a serious loss to Wikipedia that a contributor of this calibre should be banned from the topic where they have made such a significant contribution. I would ask all concerned to examine whether this can be avoided. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Slp1

 * (edit conflict with SilkTork's comment) Arbitrators are familiar with lookinb at the overall pattern of a person's edits to see battleground tendentious editing style. Individual edits in themselves can seem innocuous and understandable, but it is the full pattern that reveals the problem. Here, in summary, is why I decided One Night in Hackney needed a break from this topic area; much of this was already noted in the multiple AE reports directly or indirectly.  One Night in Hackney is to be commended for much excellent editing, but as an experienced editor, and one (of many) named to the original Troubles case back in 2007, he knows, or should know, how to avoid practices which exacerbate the systemic problems in the Troubles area and how to promote cooperation and consensus building.
 * Within this appeal request are battleground statements that reinforce my concerns. For example, the repeated statements about how ONIH seeks to "enforce content policy". The comment "some editors are simply trying to enforce content policy in the face of disruptive editors adding transparent violations of policy" is deeply problematic. This is clearly ONIH's view of himself, but of course editors on the other "side" would say just the same about their own actions and motivations.
 * One particular maintainer of this battleground mentality is the extensive use of the reverting and edit warring rather than seeking discussion or waiting till that discussion is resolved. A look at the article histories in dispute during the time the AE was open shows ONIH's participation in such problematic patterns Corporals killings; 7 July 2005 London_bombings Bloody Friday (1972) etc.
 * Another concern is the combative nature of many talkpage comments; related to this a lack of clear interest in the proposed dispute resolution. In the 24 hours between receiving notification of the DRN discussion‎ and the DRN closure ONIH had time to file a sockpuppet investigation about FergusM1970, respond regularly at AE e.g., make multiple other edits including a revert to the article that was the very topic of the DRN as well as delete the DRN notification - all without any hint that he was thinking about participating.
 * My greatest concern, however, comes from the selective use of content policy "enforcement". There seems a clear attempt to have it "both ways" in ONIH's edits.
 * During the various disputes, ONIH has quite rightly urged editors to provide sources for their edits and choice of wording.e.g.. Yet during the "summarily executed/killed/murder" discussion, when another editor suggested using RSs to guide the decision, and found that only one source (of questionable status) used ONIH's preferred wording,, instead of accepting per V, NPOV etc), ONIH argued on, suggesting that those with concerns about his preferred wording (which included a couple of AE administrators)  only had them "because they believe the parrot-like comments of FergusM1970".
 * Similarly, while removing unverified original research and synthesis is good, it is inappropriate to revert "rv unsourced commentary"] which favours one side of the Troubles divide, while leaving in equally unsourced commentary which favours the other, most especially when an editor on "the other side" had already quite appropriately removed the latter material(and been reverted-not by ONIH). Over a period of 6 days, ONIH continued to slow-motion edit war (along with other editors) to remove/reinsert the same part of the unverified original research, before he finally removed all the unverified material.[], for which due credit should be given.
 * A final example, this time about enforcing consensus. In this edit ONIH reverted to his preferred phrasing of "summarily executed" and "brandished" with an edit summary that simultaneously claimed consensus and offered an invitation to the Mediation discussion about the wording. Huh? If there was a consensus, why was mediation in process?


 * Overall, I think there is plenty of evidence that, just like the other editors topic banned, ONIH needs a break from this topic, and the topic needs a break from him. This encyclopedia is not a battleground but a building site, and hopefully he and the others can come back with renewed commitment to work collaboratively to build these articles together. --Slp1 (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A quick and short response to ONIH. Concern about various editors' actions, including ONIH, on the articles during the time period in question were indeed mentioned, directly or indirectly, on one or the other AE threads, by me or others. ONIH can't really complain about the detail now being given when it was he who asked for more specifics above. And yes, ONIH contributed to the later Mediation, albeit initially with a caveat ; my links and comments referred to the prior failed DRN which ONIH referred to in his first post above.
 * AE enforcement looks at behaviour, not content. It examines at how editors apply the various policies and guidelines here, and in this case how they deal with disputed situations where the content is in dispute.  I'd argue that the response above continues to indicate a battleground perspective in which ONIH provides evidence about the "rightness" of his edits.  He states, for example, that on Bloody Friday he reverted because "an an editor was attempting to use an unverifiable TV show as a source". In fact, there was a lively debate about the topic at RSN, in which he participated, with experienced editors disagreeing about the issue. Yet during that very discussion he reverted the content for a third time.. As an another example on the 7 July 2005 London bombings ONIH asks "You appear to be suggesting that if I want to remove the content Flexdream added, I also have to join in an edit war on his behalf.". The edit war happened anyway, actually, but yes, if ONIH had applied the same verifibiality and NOR criteria to both parts of the sentence, and had supported Flexdream's concerns about and deletion of problematic material by removing it himself, the edit war that followed might easily have been avoided, and more importantly a small bridge could have been built between the factions.
 * I could make other points, but that's enough from me.Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding to this; real life busy-ness and it took me a while to research the following. I wasn't the one who suggested three months, but I have done a survey of all the topic bans given out at AE in the last 6 months, and the 3 month length seems very typical. Note: I have not include the topic bans given out in this RFAE in the analysis.
 * 15 were indefinite topic bans. Two were given out, as far as I could see, as the first and only sanction but the bulk (13)  were given to editors who had at least one previous topic bans, blocks etc, mostly in the topic area.
 * 6 were given 6 month topic bans. All of these editors had a previous history of problems and sanctions in the area.
 * 4 editors were given 3 month topic bans, 1 of whom had a previous history of sanctions, while the rest didn't.
 * 1 editor, with a prior history, received a topic ban of 1 month
 * All to say that a topic ban of 3 months for a first sanction at AE does not seem to be unusual at all; in fact it seems to be the typical first step for most AE admins.
 * As with the other AE admins who have responded here, I would be happy to accept any modifications ArbCom chooses to accept. I would be happier still if I felt  that editing restrictions were not required at all; however, based on comments by ONIH here and elsewhere, I do not honestly see that ONIH has developed significant insight into the ways that his actions have contributed to the problems in topic area, and/or what he would do differently in the future. If Arbcom decides to have a trial of MER so be it, but my personal opinion is that given the fact that there are documented problems with talkpage discourse too, I'm not sure this is the best case to try it with. Just my 2 cents. Slp1 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

 * I think Cailil and Slp1 have already said a good deal of what I would say, so I won't belabor those points other than to say I am in essential agreement with them. The issue here is not a single egregious edit or comment on the part of ONiH, nor a violation of a bright-line rule like 1RR. Rather, the issue is an overall pattern of conduct and battleground behavior. Some examples: "rv to last good version" (implying the others are, of course, a non-good version):, states that someone is attempting to "circumvent consensus" but invites them to join the mediation&mdash;why have we a mediation if we have a consensus already? , "good version" again , dismissive attitude in discussions ("Yawn"), , as some examples, as well as the number of reverts occurring. ONiH was participating in the edit warring, and AE isn't there to decide who's the "right" side of an edit war, but rather to determine whether someone was or wasn't a part of it.
 * That being said, if the ArbCom allows mandated external review as a discretionary sanction, as it seems likely will pass, ONiH is probably the one of the disputants here that I'd be most inclined toward moving to MER of the same length rather than an outright topic ban. But I would strongly disagree that there was no misconduct or action required at all, and I would also disagree that ONiH is a blameless victim caught up in a case of, as he said, "Sod it and ban them all". Of course ArbCom does have the final say as that goes. If ArbCom feels an error was made, I would echo those above who would like guidance on what could be done differently in the future. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad: ONiH was participating in the tit-for-tat and the edit warring. Like I said above, there wasn't a single occurrence that was utterly egregious, but rather a pattern of substandard behavior that convinced me the area would be best off with ONiH out of it for a period of time. It is certainly my hope that ONiH, as well as the other editors involved, will return to the area after their topic bans expire with a more cooperative approach, or if they can't do that, will refrain from returning to it at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Flexdream
I don't know if I can post to this discussion? I hadn't been told about it, but I have just noticed it because I am named and misrepresented several times. Do the admins want my account here? I wont be able to supply it till Thursday. If one of the admins can let me know either way please by a comment here in my statement section, or a posting on my talk page. If it's not necessary then I wont needlessly add to what is already a very lengthy piece. However, if the decision on Hackney is to be revised, partly in response to these inaccurate accounts of my activity I think I have to respond. Thanks.--Flexdream (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad - sorry this couldn't be shorter. I have tried to restrict it. For clarity I have grouped comments under article headings.

Corporals killings

I change 'summarily executed' to 'killed' with the edit summary 'A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime' []. That summary was lifted verbatim from wikipedia. Less than 15 minutes later Hackney reverts it [] with summary '..and that's what happened'. I then open a section on the talk page []. On the talk page Talk:Corporals_killings I ask what crime they were charged with. Hackney replies "Please don't ask irrelevant questions. Reference for summary execution added, good day to you." I tell Hackney I quoted the wikipedia definition and say " If they weren't charged with a crime they couldn't be summarily executed". Hackney replies "They couldn't?". Judge for yourself which of us is trying to have a discussion.

Hackney cites "Peter Taylor Brits pages 294-295 "In a statement that evening, the IRA claimed responsibility for the 'execution' of 'two SAS members who launched an attack on the funeral cortège of our comrade"." I have pointed out before - this sources puts 'execution' in quotes and that is deliberate. I could describe the AE as a 'court case'. You would know what I meant, but you wouldn't think I meant it was a court case. In addition, the source doesn't use the word 'summarily'. Hackney also added a source to the article which which uses the term 'summarily executed'[]. It is a book on Yugolslavia, and is taken from the introduction. The source also described the funeral as being for three IRA gunmen, when it was actually for one. So the source seems flimsy support. Contrast that with [] who as well as identifying that 'killed' was used for years in the article, shows that there are relatively few sources for 'summarily executed'. Hinckley's response is here []

Hackney states "However Flexdream then asks a totally different question on the talk page, "And the crime they were charged with was what?". There's a substantial difference between "accused" and "charged", thus making the question irrelevant. You don't need to be *charged* with a crime to be summarily executed" Totally different question from what? My summary states "A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime". My question is "And the crime they were charged with was what?" This he calls this a 'totally different question'? This is pedantry. Hackney still will not answer what crime they were accused of or charged with. And he maintains that 'executed' in quotes in a source equates to summarily executed?

Hackney states "summarily executed" was the consensus wording For years the word was 'killed'. It was changed to 'summarily executed' in March []. It was changed to 'murdered' in April [] then changed back to 'summarily executed'. Then changed to 'killed' by me in August. I don't think 'summarily executed' has ever been the consensus wording.

Hackney states "There's various comments falsely alleging I refused to take part in dispute resolution." There's also comments like mine asking for you and others to be given more time []

Hackney states "Yes the caveat was needed due to the number of inaccuracies in the request, and I wished to make it clear I had objections to those inaccuracies. Bear in mind there was nowhere for me to write my version of events unlike in say a request for arbitration, I simply added a caveat to make sure I disputed the accuracy of the request. What's the problem with that exactly?" I think the problem is that it's the only contribution and it seems unnecessary.

Hackney states "removing the disruptive editors from the situation is all that's needed" I agree. the article now uses the term 'shot' []. I've no problem with that as it's accurate and straightforward. Since several editors were banned, no one seems to be wanting to change it to 'summarily executed'.

7 July 2005 London_bombings

Hackney states "Flexdream attempted to remove an unsourced comparison with IRA bombings during the Troubles, Nick Cooper reverted his edit, then rather than attempt to discuss the inclusion of what he deemed to be irrelevant content, Flexdream added a bizarre comparison that you won't be able to find made by a reliable source. That's where I entered the picture. You appear to be suggesting that if I want to remove the content Flexdream added, I also have to join in an edit war on his behalf" I made clear in my first edit here that it was because I thought it irrelevant, it had nothing to do with sourcing. Nick Cooper reverted it as relevant []. Accepting Nick's argument I added material []. I don't see any edit war there for Hackney to join in and I never undid Nick's reversion. Hackney then chooses to remove just my addition [] as being unsourced even though I have a link to the wikipedia article. I then open a section on the talk page to discuss it [](do you see a pattern here, I edit, Hackney reverts, I create a section on the talk page to discuss). Judge again how the discussion goes and how collegiate it is.

Hackney states "Somewhat bizarrely, Flexdream's attempts to edit war OR into an article with unproductive talk page discussion" I still don't see how it's OR when I link to a wikipedia article for reference. Is it really better I go to the wikipedia article, find a source that's used there, come back and put that as a link. How does it help the reader to have a link that takes them out of wikipedia to a single source, instead of taking them to a wikipedia article that has multiple sources? Which makes wikipedia a better encyclopedia?

Hackney quotes ""if ONIH had applied the same verifibiality and NOR criteria to both parts of the sentence, and had supported Flexdream's concerns about and deletion of problematic material by removing it himself, the edit war that followed might easily have been avoided" - I did the former, as the talk page proves. As already stated, I was not willing to edit war on his behalf to make an edit he'd already attempted to make which had been reverted." There was no edit war before Hackney intervened as I've shown. It would have been better if Hackney had concerns about sourcing for him to be clear on that from the start, and explain why he was removing one edit but not the other. Instead he goes straight in and removes one edit saying it's unsourced, and says nothing about the other edit. I think it was reasonable for me to see this as selective.

Hackney states "Flexdream was bold in his removal, reverted, then didn't attempt to discuss but made a totally different bold edit. He was then reverted by me, and rather than discuss he started an edit war" What was 'bold' about it? I didn't discuss Nick's reversion because I accepted the argument given for the reversion. My next edit was consistent with that, and wasn't reverted by Nick. It was reverted by Hackney. I then started the discussion.

Bloody Friday (1972)

"Flexdream reverts twice to restore unverifiable material while not contributing to ongoing talk page discussion for another 4 hours." I still think that a broadcast BBC programme is a reliable source. I know from previous that Hackney will try to remove even direct links to a copy of a broadcast program where he doesn't want them in the article.[]. Again, judge for yourself how the discussion I started that time went[] and the dispute resolution [].

Hackney states "FergusM1970 is nothing but a disruptive POV warrior in my opinion". I think there is a big contrast in Hackney's present action and Fergus' response to a ban []. Fergus acknowledges "my behaviour fell below the acceptable standard", whereas Hackney states "my behaviour can be seen as less than stellar". I think I was harshly treated, but I think the admins have a thankless task. I had probably got used to a level of behaviour among editors that is not typical, and I am encouraged that admins see it as appalling where tag-teaming is used to avoid the 1RR rule and edit-war. Where there is little effort to engage in discussion, which sometimes descends to little more than insult. My concern is that when blocks expire or are lifted some editors might revert to 'business as usual'. In meantime from what little I can see the Troubles articles are doing fine.--Flexdream (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @everyone


 * Hackney has now accused me of lying [] claiming that what I wrote about RTE is incorrect and that I know that. Hackney claims that the podcast did not exist at the time of the dispute and that it has been added later. This is a serious allegation for Hackney to make here, especially as he makes it in the course of an appeal against his AE sanctions and again I am obliged to reply.


 * The Billy Fox article is Troubles related as IRA members were convicted of his murder. The RTE reference was added in 2007 [] pointing to http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/1099677.html. In 2011 Hackney removed the RTE reference as being a dead link []. I corrected the link to point to http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/rumours.html []. I know the link worked and I listened to the recording. In what I now would recognise as an edit war, Hackney supported by the Old Jacobite [][] edited amongst other things to remove the working RTE link. Being outnumbered I used dispute resolution [] and with the assistance of mediators I put a compromise edit in the article including the RTE link. At no time in the talk I started [] or in the dispute resolution I started did either of them claim the RTE link was not working, and I know it was. Instead they objected on the basis that it was an unnecessary addition. As the talk page discussion and the dispute resolution were about references it is inconceivable that any of the references included would have been broken or unexamined. Hackney disputed the content of the Bruton link [] but never disputed the content of the RTE link.


 * I think in this AE that Hackney still thinks that he did nothing wrong at any time, and that he sees editors who disagree with him as those who make 'disruptive, incorrect and/or policy violating changes' [] and that he has been sanctioned on a whim. []--Flexdream (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Domer48
The following report was filed by ONIH on 2 August and was considered at the time by two Admin’s EdJohnston and Cailil on 3 August to be fairly cut and dry with Cailil noting that “…content is not relevant to ArbCom enforcement.” It was Heimstern here who suggested they “hold off on sanctions, let's find a way to resolve the content dispute via actual consensus first." NuclearWarfare asked did Admin’s “see anything by any party that looks like it would be called poor editing (POV writing, misrepresenting sources, etc.) by any objective observer?” and Seraphimblade asked “if there's clear POV editing, baiting, nastiness during discussions...” Heimstern said “no, nothing is blatantly obvious.”

While Slp1 makes the point that ONIH had filed two reports in 9hrs which becomes irrelevant as Slp1 noted that Flexdream "acknowledged that they had broken 1RR" and "the report closed as a warning" however, with two Admins having already seen a clear cut violation, and accepting that "FergusM1970 has broken 1RR" Slp1 makes the bizarre statement that "the 1RR rule as written and applied rewards editors who have a big gang to revert and who use battleground approaches to get their way in a topic area." Apart from the massive assumption of bad faith both these editors had violated 1RR and have been found by AE to have done so. Simple rule, don't edit war on a 1RR article, "they made me do it" is not a defense. Even Cailil noted what Slp1 was saying vis-a-vis gaming but don't see it here, and correctly pointing out that "FergusM1970 has already been topic-banned a breach of WP:TROUBLES is recidivism." and that the "openning of a DRN thread may have had the aim of forestalling this thread - if that were the case that would be a gaming issue."

It was EdJohnston at 16:35, 4 August who suggested holding off on closing while the DRN thread was open. With a number of Admin's agreeing Seraphimblade at 16:39, 4 AugustHeimstern at 20:40, 4 AugustThe Blade of the Northern Lights at 20:46, 4 AugustSlp1 at 22:01, 4 August. The times and dates are important because at 22:35, 4 August, Steven Zhang actually closed the DNR. This makes these comments by Cailil all the more bizarre along with the agreement of John Carter. The DNR was over before it began and the claims of "stonewalling" are without foundation. You cannot find a "source based consensus" if the editor will not provide the required sources.

It is now that the editing history of editors is called into question. We still have a group of editors who insist on violating the 1RR even with threads already open on them, and continuing to add un-sourced POV laden text and nothing is done. I do agree with the comments by AGK, "Topics subject to AE are demonstrably problematic areas of the encyclopedia, so misconduct reported here needs to be dealt with swiftly and effectively." In this case it was not! Admin's failed to act on this, and exasperated the situation by sitting on their hands failing in the one task they were assigned to do and have shifted this mess onto editors who have to deal with these editors. ONIH has ably demonstrated this with diff's and I've attempted to do the same. The more one looks at this, the more I question the fact that I have, along with ONIH been topic banned? I'll put up some diff's on my edits and request that Admins point to the ones that justify such a decision. --<font face="Celtic"> Domer48 'fenian'  10:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by 86.25.25.204

 * The real problem here is 1RR itself. Its application to The Troubles has allowed an informal grouping of editors (of which you are one, Domer) to effectively 'lock down' all Troubles articles, i.e. virtually all articles to do with Ireland or Northern Ireland, to the extent that any other editor now requires permission from this group before they can add, change or delete content. Needless to say, 'permission' is rarely granted, unless the proposal meets current republican thinking. This is a quite deplorable situation. Instead of pratting around with all this shite, as per the above 'debate' (term used loosely), the admins should be sorting out this 1RR travesty. 86.25.25.204 (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mabuska
I was not intending to post in this discussion, however due to the fact One Night In Hackney was topic-banned for behavioural issues I feel that it needs to be mentioned that I have recently had to file a complaint in regards to uncivil comments by ONIH on a non-Troubles article. Mabuska (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recused, although I do think the filer has a pretty good point here. SirFozzie (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Awaiting further input, including from any other AE administrators who participated in the decision and may wish to comment. (For the benefit of Cailil and others, while we appreciate and need the input of the AE admins when there is an appeal, I do not consider that the AE admins are parties to the dispute.) In particular, it would be helpful if someone could identify the specific edits by One Night in Hackney that led to the sanction, and any prior sanctions history involving him that might be relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Still reviewing; will comment further in the next day or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To Flexdream: Yes, a (reasonably brief) statement from you would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Having now reviewed the submissions, I understand the reasons that the AE administrators decided that One Night in Hackney was editing unhelpfully on the articles in question. I do not agree that every single diff that's been mentioned constituted misconduct, and his conduct was less aggravated than that of some of the other sanctioned editors, but there are just enough issues in the context of the overall picture that the decision to sanction One Night in Hackney is defensible. That being said, One Night in Hackney also has a record of positive contributions in this topic-area and, as far as I can tell, has not been subject to any sanctions under the decision in the past. Given that, a three-month topic-ban strikes me as arguably on the severe side. I recognize that deciding on the severity of a sanction by its nature can never be an exact science, and I also recognize the need to create a healthier editing environment on this topic area in general, so I'm not going to vote to modify an AE sanction lightly, so this may well fall into the "within the range of reasonable discretion, therefore appeal denied" category. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate any additional input from the AE administrators on how they chose the length of the topic-ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept that the consensus here is in favor of upholding the sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also waiting more details. Having looked at the discussion, the admins involved appear to have looked into the matter and grown concerned at the approach adopted by the subsequently topic banned users of using the revert button as an editing tool, and that reverting was still happening while their conduct was being discussed. While Hackney's point is taken that the DRN was quickly closed, he does give the appearance of someone unwilling to cooperate by removing the notice, and then continuing to engage in arguments about the article in question, and reverting in related articles until he logs off for the night. Looking at Hackney's contribution history to the article in question, it appears that he is is working to keep the article neutral, though some of the reverts are dubious (is "brandished" really more NPOV than "drew his service pistol" - I don't see "brandished" used in the sources), and some appear to be inhibiting involvement of other good faith editors by removing everything they have contributed in one click back. I also note the unhelpful at times aggressive tone adopted by Hackney when discussing the matter on the talkpage - comments like "And try learning the difference between an execution and a summary execution, it isn't difficult..." will inflame situations rather than calm them down. And difficult not to stray into discussion of content here, but that a source can be found for a term (such as "summarily executed") does not necessarily make that term neutral. Sources can also be found for murdered, and no doubt other loaded or emotive terms. The neutral term, and the one used by most reliable sources appears to be "killed". As such, it appears valid to raise the question, so dismissing it as "irrelevant" is perhaps not in the right spirit of cooperative and collegiate behaviour we wish of our users. I'm interested in what others have to say, and a three month ban may be harsh if there has been no previous sanctions or poor conduct, but I'm not sure at the moment I'm seeing that the admins are that far wrong as to warrant ArbCom overturning their decision. <font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline. <font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  18:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Decline. I essentially agree with SilkTork's last sentence: this could possibly be a slightly harsh decision, but on balance, I think it is within admin discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline appeal, per PhilKnight. Courcelles 15:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline. This decision was justified (in that, e.g., ONIH reverted Domer48). Unlike Newyorkbrad, I think the 3-month topic ban is this case's 'goldilocks sanction'. A longer sanction could have been severe (though 6 month would seem preferable to 3, in my view), but a lesser sanction would have been ineffective and lenient. AGK  [•] 12:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All that said above, I wouldn't be opposed to making this one a MER sanction rather than a straight topic ban, or even allowing talk page comments (but not reverts). The AE result is justified, but we do have other options if there is any momentum that way. Courcelles 18:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I, too, would support converting this to a MER vs. a topic ban. MER was designed for editors who have a history of positive and problematic contributions, as a way for us to ask the community to look over the editor's shoulder and verify appropriate content focus. Having said, that, I also don't see the sanction as overly excessive, per my other colleagues above.  While I don't ever think a site ban should be as short as three months, a topic ban of that length is not unreasonably short. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta (September 2013)

 * ''[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=573281797#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_SonofSetanta Original discussion]

''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – SonofSetanta (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Appeal against a topic ban as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The imposing administrator has commented on this page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SonofSetanta
It would be my feeling that the ban was imposed incorrectly because the sysops involved did not take me at my word. The detail of the complaint clearly shows I was having difficulty with a process, receiving help from others, engaging in discussion and most importantly, reverting edits which I clearly thought were vandalism. I made no alteration to the text of the article and my decision to nominate it for deletion wouldn't have taken effect immediately but would have required discussion which clearly could have resulted in another method of dealing with my concerns over the article. The situation wasn't helped by the intervention of an editor called Mo aimn. I believe his alterations were designed to invite reverts from me as he knew I would be under preessure and make mistakes. He wold have observed this from previous (unhappy) interaction with me. From the text of the complaint you can see that sysops and some other editors argued for a ban because I had been consistently disruptive since 2008 and should have known by now how to nominate a page for deletion. They claim I have hidden two previous identities to avoid scrutiny by sysops. They appear to ignore the representations made by the other editors who were involved and who speak in support of me being confused but discussing. I am accused of causing a "Battle Royale" over image copyright. This is far from true. I was accused of deliberate copyright violation yes, but after several weeks of activity was able to prove that I had never violated copyright but had made mistakes in the pretty complicated area of Crown Copyright on images uploaded in 2008.

The facts are: 1. I have not edited constantly since 2008. I had a username for 2 months in 2008 before retiring under pressure from edit-warring gamers. A second identity was created in 2008 which lasted for around four months. My current identity was created in 2010 but used sparingly until May of this year with only a handful of edits in 2010, 2011 and 2012. The truth is my editing history spans 12 months since 2008 with substantial breaks. 2. My issues since 2008 have always revolved around articles concerning the Irish Troubles and my unsuccessful attempts to edit out POV where I saw it. A dedicated cabal was roaming the wiki ensuring that all of these articles were guarded and kept with their particular POV intact. My opposition to this was noted and I became a target for "gaming" to get me off the wiki. It sounds bizarre but it has happened to many people who have dared to edit these articles with a neutral POV. Why don't I just leave these articles alone? I am from Northern Ireland and am of very moderate views. I also have a passionate interest in the military of Ireland, our police forces and the British Military. Why should I not edit the articles? In my opinion, after examining what happens and being part of it, the thing to do is to stay involved and to try and assist admins in identifying what can be done to prevent this type of gaming. 3. I am not guilty of copyright violation or disruption but this is used against me by sysops and those supporting a call for me to be banned. All I did was to stand my ground, discuss, learn and save the images which were tagged for deletion. Why is this wrong? 4. The most important point is that I was not disruptive. I tried to nominate a page for deletion. Several AfD patrollers came at me from nowhere and so quickly that the situation was developing whist I was responding to them on the talk page of the article, their own talk pages and mine. 5. After the ban was applied I adjusted the licencing on image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:5_UDR_Record_Sleeve.jpg. I was not aware that such an action was a violation of the ban and pointed this out at Sandstein's talk page. Without warning I was then blocked. Was that fair? Summary: The real meat of the issue is at the article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland#Tags The edit history will show me putting in headers including the 1RR Troubles Restriction before opening a discussion as required to debate the possible deletion of the page. I am experienced in 1RR and wouldn't have engaged in an edit war. My belief was that I was reverting vandalism and that can be seen in my edit summaries. The issue to me is that sysops are claiming I'm being disingenuous when all the evidence says otherwise. I think it has to be examined why an uninvolved user (Psychonaut), who is a copyright enforcer, came to file the complaint at AE and why Mo aimn became involved. Both of them excacerbating an issue which was by then under control and clealry needed no further intervention as an admin was already involved. If the admin didn't feel it necessary to file a complaint why did Psychonaut? I request that the ban be overturned and my name cleared. If possible the block that was applied to my user name because I did not understand that image pages were not part of the ban should be expunged. Only since May this year have I been able to edit at any pace on Wikipedia. My success in doing so had me feeling for the first time that I was a real and active part of the Wikipedia community. I brightened up my talk page for the first time ever by putting in colour and infoboxes. I want to stay as part of the community and I believe the outcome of my learning when I was thrust into copyright issues proves that I am willing to work hard to remain and be productive. Where I think the problem lies is that some editors still want to play games and sysops are too prone to looking for past demeanours to prove a knee jerk feeling that someone is being disruptive - that people like me can't learn to avoid being gamed. The central issue is that the content of an article wasn't the cause of my error. I was learning a new process, made mistakes, and thought what I was doing was subject to vandalism (for a short period). No credit has been given to me for backing down and following instruction given by other, concerned and helpful editors and admins.


 * I wish to correct the statement by Sandstein (below) where he says that "several administrators had declined the speedy deletion request". This is untrue.  One administrator was involved, the other three people who tried to help were ordinary editors who could see I was having trouble and were trying to assist, as is evidence on the article talk page.  The fourth editor who joined in was Mo ainm whose motives I doubted.  The "speedy deletion" request was never declined.  The tag was removed by several people, three of whom joined in the discussion.  I think Sandstein's statement is testament to the fact that he did not in fact apply logic to his rationale or examine what happened closely but rather based his decision (and persuaded others to do likewise) on the track record of the identity The Thunderer which I ceased to operate on 28 November 2008.  The previous identity GDD1000 contains only 1 block on 27 April 2008.  My current identity has been operated since October 13 2010 and I had little difficulty until recently with 1 block in 2010,  3 in 2012, one of which was lifted and nothing since until quite recently when I was (incorrectly in my opinion) blocked because I would not accept the removal of  File:The Yellow Card.jpg from the article at Ulster Defence Regiment.  I insisted the card could be the subject of discussion at NFCC whilst remaining at the article and as it transpires I was correct.  The file was deemed to be valuable enough to be kept and is still there, proving I was correct all along.  It was I who Cailil banned for 48n hrs however, not the copyright enforcer who made the error.  The learning curve I went through as a result however improved my knowledge of copyright to the extent that I am currently (and have been all week) assisting copyright enforcers in the removal of dozens of copyvio images and replacing them on Commons with correctly licenced version.  SonofSetanta (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to say that, in my opinion, allowing the same sysops who were involved in the imposition of a ban to conduct appeals, as in this case, is a flawed policy. My appeal was dismissed within 15 minutes by a sysop who had advocated a topic ban and by his comments it can be seen that the appeal decision was not a considered one but was influenced by opinions he had already formed during the AE case. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I am very alarmed that a single administrator seems to have made a final decision here. Where's the discussion, the process? Does my submission not warrant comment

@NW - Thank you for your comments. Yes: in the event of my appeal failing if it were possible to allow me to continuing editing at Ulster Defence Regiment to maintain my goal for GA status I would be grateful. I have made this request before. The UDR is a complicated subject however and it has at least another 18 pages associated with it which deal with the 15 battalions as per List of battalions and locations of the Ulster Defence Regiment and also List of attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment plus Timeline of Ulster Defence Regiment operations. The ancillary articles could be raised to B Class at least, if not GA status with a comprehensive amount of work. Part of the peer review report suggested reducing the size of the article and to that end I have been considering removing the fairly substantial women's section here to an article which would probably have the title "Greenfinches (Women's UDR)". If I were allowed to edit in this area a topic ban on the troubles wouldn't matter to me because I had already (as the AE case shows) withdrawn voluntarily from that topic. whilst I may have the knowledge to contribute usefully in that area I find that I'm not able to find proper collegiate responses generally and would prefer to maintain a distance, even though my fingers twitch at the sight of some of the more glaring examples of POV and inaccuracy within many of those articles. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@Salvio. In your statement you say: we should not substitute our own opinions to those of the admin(s), but that is exactly what I believe is required. The admins have stated that they based their opinion on the fact that I have been a user for five years and have treated me as an experienced user. If you read my statement above you will see that I contest that view. Even if it were true however it remains that some areas of Wikipedia are quite complicated and if one hasn't engaged in a particular process before it can prove to be difficult and need experimentation. I've always been encouraged to apply WP:BOLD and try new processes and I have learned a lot since 22nd of June this year when I commenced editing full time, something I've never done before. My editing history shows that I have made 4329 edits. Almost 3500 of those have been made since 22nd June. This is the only period since I first joined Wikipedia where I have enjoyed editing on a productive and collegiate basis without considerable WP:BATTLE taking place as a result of my edits. In my opinion this is clearly because of the absence of certain editors who opposed what I was doing on partisan grounds. In my previous identities the edit count of both equates to what I've done in the period June 22nd until now. It can clearly be seen from my interaction with other editors and admins that, for the first time, I can identify myself as part of the Wikipedia community and am behaving in a commensurate manner.

The issue at stake here is: did I conduct my editing in a disruptive manner and then try to be disingenuous in my comments, or did I simply make errors in good faith whilst attempting a new process ? Did the sysops involved treat my case on the basis of my editing history since 22nd June or was I topic banned because of what happened in a previous identity? Has my conduct changed from previous identities? Look at how I followed the guidance given to me during the incident. examine how I stopped reverting what I considered to be vandalism when it was explained how I should go about it. Did I change the content of the article or was I simply trying to make a case for deletion in the full knowledge that it would lead to a discussion on the talk page rather than an instant deletion of the article? Did I engage in discussion? Did I seek help from admin? (The answer to both of those questions is yes).

@Sandstein. You claim: SonofSetanta does not recognize that the sanction is a result of their own conduct, and instead assigns blame to others.  You state that:  {SonofSetanta} has a relatively long record of blocks for disruption in the "Troubles" topic area, under three accounts.   Did you not consider that I might have just made mistakes as I claim? Which would clearly fall into Don't come down like a ton of bricks. That's not wikilawyering btw, the essay is there for all to read and you cannot blame an editor like me for quoting it to try and persuade you that you've got me wrong. Were you simply blinded by the fact that the article fall under Troubles Sanctions, an area which I worked in since 22nd June without similar difficulty (barring the copyright incident mentioned in my statement which is not Troubles related)? Nor was my attempt at nominating the page for deletion Troubles related. I feel I need to point out my opinion that {Troubles Restriction} was created to prevent edit warring over content on Troubles related argument. Not to prevent editors from learning and employing Wikipedia processes. The Troubles is an area where Wikipedia desperately needs editors. It is a very difficult area to work in. You've just lost me from that area because the Devil and all his imps couldn't persuade me to edit comprehensively on the subject again whilst you, as my personal Sword of Damocles, are going to come down on me like a ton of bricks every time I make a mistake which isn't content related.

FYI, and for the attention of all admins involved in this discussion. I am a disabled man. I know perfectly well that my private situation has no bearing on this case or upon my work in Wikipedia but it does mean: because I am unable to engage in gainful employment I have spent all day every day since 22nd June devoting my not inconsiderable intelligence, education, life experience and skills to improving Wikipedia, largely in a very difficult area to work in. I had no difficulties prior to the copyright incident. Would it not have been more prudent of you to encourage and cultivate my input rather than trying to portray me as a disruptive editor and applying draconian means to curtail my editing? I made a series of mistakes very quickly. Mo ainm's intervention wasn't helpful - if that's what you mean by me blaming others. Your wrongfully applied sanction could well have driven me away from Wikipedia: is that what you want?

1. No request has been made by me for an investigation into Psychonaut's comments however, given his intervention and his comments here I think it should be apparent to all the he has an axe to grind and should be given guidance on how too extend good faith and to be helpful to editors like me who occasionally get a little confused over processes.
 * Ref comments by Psychonaut:

2. Admins should clearly be able to understand why Psychonaut has little comprehension of the difficulties of trying to edit articles relate to the Troubles on an NPOV basis and why they would lead to blocks or bans as "cooling off periods" when discussions become heated, uncivil, or abusive.

3. Psychonaut is mistaken. I have never been blocked or banned in any shape or form for copyright violation. The images he refers to which he tagged are still on Wikipedia with several notable exceptions: one or two which I did not wish to retain and three where I made an error in my interpretation of a Creative Commons licence. I accepted the deletion of those with good grace and in reference to the latter three, learned something new. I have learned so much in fact that, as stated above, I have been assisting copyright enforcers this week in the weeding out, replacement and deletion of dozens (possibly coming close to 100) copyvio images.

4. With regards to the incident at Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland he is again wrong. The editing histories show that I posted this message to Shirt58 at 13:55 after I had been reverted for a second time. I left a message for a sysop here seeking advice but prior to this had already begun to engage on the talk page which makes me wonder why Mo aimn made his revert of me at 14:55 when discussion had clearly been going on between myself and other helpful editors since 14:23 in the section I had started at 12:42 to specifically provide a discussion area for my deletion tag. Uncle Milty made a revert at 15:15 removing the tag again but gave an informed summary. The final tag which I placed at 16:11 was after I had been unable to list the page for deletion at AfD. After reading further instructions I was of the opinion that I needed to place {subst:prod|reason goes here} in order for the listing to become active. This tag was removed immediately by Mo aimn: his second revert on a 1RR page (a guideline he knows well).

5. He is again incorrect in claiming that I knew the ban affected images. If the request made to Sandstein on 25th August is examined here it can clearly be seen that I requested permission to change images ON the article Ulster Defence Regiment understanding that I couldn't edit the article page. At Banning_policy it does not state that images are part of the ban however and I had concluded that while it would not be permissible to add or remove images from article pages it would be acceptable to update the licencing on images which were already in the article. Psychonaut was quick to inform Sandstein of this mistake on my part which can be seen at the same link on Sandstein's talk page. Which led to the "without warning" block. After this I became convinced that I couldn't edit ANY images until it was pointed out to me that Commons wasn't included in the ban. I then created File:Ulster_Defence_Regiment_Crest.png and requested assistance from several other users before finding one who was prepared to replace the .jpg format image already on pages with UDR in the title. As you can see Psychonaut continues to try and assert that I am trying to circumvent the ban by editing an image into Northern Ireland Security Guard Service even though, as he admits himself, the organisation was formed post-Good Friday Agreement and therefore is not included in {Troubles Sanctions}. Although another editor has helpfully informed me that there could be a grey area so I have not returned to complete the formatting of the image but instead have asked him would he be kind enough.

Summary. As you can see the situation was quite complicated. I have said before I became confused (no wonder) and was of the opinion that the reverts I was making were outside 1RR because I was reverting vandalism (of Peridon and Mo aimn}, or as in the last one, following instruction from AfD. My edit summary here  after my first revert couldn't be clearer.  If the other editors had stayed away from it instead of creating the impression of WP:TAGTEAM I am confident that Peridon and I could have sorted my misunderstandings out quite quickly on the article talk page because I was seeking help.

I keep wondering why Psychonaut is following my edit history and making multiple complaints about me. If he thinks I am prone to making errors why then doesn't he interface with me rather than converting my mistakes into ANI or AE cases? Although he did state on the ANI board that he will never engage with me again. I am no longer engaging with SonofSetanta because my many weeks of doing so patiently and politely have led me to believe that it is futile. If I were completely incapable of making productive and useful contribution to Wikipedia I would have realised this a long time ago and simply left the site. The opposite is true however. The vast majority of my edits (and images) are productive, useful and in volume.

I think it's got to be noted that it was ME who tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland as WP:1RR. Why would I do that and then be disingenuous about {Troubles Restriction}? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@SilkTork. Your point would be valid if indeed I had been making regular contributions for three years but I haven't. Between October 2010 and June 2013 I made less than 1200 edits. Most of them on articles such as White Island, County Fermanagh, Joe Dolan, RAF Greencastle (created by me, now C Class), Herbert Westmacott, Provisional Irish Republican Army, Brian Kenny (British Army officer), John Strawson (British Army officer) (created by me]], Battle of the Imjin River, Winston Churchill, Denis Ormerod (created by me), Harry Baxter (created by me), Imber, Lists of shipwrecks, Bill Bellamy (British Army officer) (created by me - B Class, listed at the Template:Did you know, 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars, HMS Dasher (D37), MV Princess Victoria, Black Watch, Viola Grosvenor, Duchess of Westminster (created by me), Arthur Denaro (all images from my own personal collection), Tannenberg Memorial (C Class), Queen's Royal Irish Hussars (most images from my personal collection).

So, given this knowledge and the fact that I made very few contributions to The Troubles until 22nd June this year in this identity would you be kind enough to explain your comments regarding confusion and ignorance and poor understanding of procedures? Perhaps you could elaborate on how a poor ignorant soul such as me could have an article up for GA status? (see Ulster Defence Regiment, almost completely rewritten by me between June and August). I put it to you that you have completely misunderstood the situation as the admins who imposed the ban also did. I have uploaded 63 unique images on Commons since 13th July, created 32 new articles on the Wiki (over three identities) and God knows how many unique images, most of which I have donated from my personal collection taken by me during military service.

Educate this poor old thicko then. Why would someone of my ilk believe that a topic ban is the least they can expect in order to prevent further disruption.

Are you aware of the disruption caused on articles pertaining to The Troubles which led to DS being imposed after a very long and convoluted ArbCom case? Are you cognisant of the fact that tag-teamers roamed articles related to The Troubles to game new users (at that time) like me into making mistakes and getting blocks and bans to prevent us from removing partisan views from articles?

Lastly: can you see the annoyance in the words that I use when replying to you? Annoyed that you haven't actually bothered to examine the detail of what happened at Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland but based your statement on preconceived prejudices because I admitted to having the occasional problem with new processes? I respectfully urge you too to read Don't come down like a ton of bricks where it quite clearly states that: policies and guidelines are not the law and do not need to be ruthlessly enforced. You obviously haven't read a word of what I've posted in my defence or you would know, despite my manifold contributions, I've only really been editing Wikipedia since 22nd June this year because of the difficulties I've had in my two previous identities. I didn't know that editing articles on my own country, county and town would be so difficult in a project which professes to be as well run as this one is. My frustration at being defeated in my efforts to change that over three identities has been expressed on many occasions. Yet with all, people like you are able to post twisted and incorrect opinions about me whenever it pleases you without fear of repercussion, because you are an admin and I'm just a pleb editor. You use the block log to judge me without knowing what I, and others, went through to try and make genuine contributions. We welcomed the DS. We didn't think it went far enough and are very happy to comply with it. It has a flaw however: it can still be gamed and I fell for it in a moment of confusion. Read the detail. Go to Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland and see who discussed what and when. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad and T. Canens. May I ask what logic you applied to reach a "decline" opinion. Have you examined the incident in detail or is your response one of backing up a fellow administrator's decision? I have proved beyond doubt in my various submissions that much of what has been asserted about me being disruptive is untrue. Do you not feel that a deeper investigation into these allegations is warranted? Have you examined the incident in detail to see if my statement is true? While I certainly and very much appreciate the inclusion of an offer to allow me to continue editing certain articles whilst the ban continues I still maintain my innocence from any wrongdoing and that is really what this appeal is about. Don't judge me as The Thunderer; judge me on my achievements, input and modified behaviour in this identity. Is it not possible, in your opinion, beyond all conceivable doubt, that I could actually be telling the truth? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

POINT OF ORDER - As per Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions:

administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit,

Has good faith been exercised towards me by Sandstein? Have I been "bitten" because I was inexperienced in a particular process?

I would like this to be considered please. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I refer to the rationale I provided for the topic ban in the AE thread that led up to the ban on 24 August 2013, and to the conclusions reached by my administrator colleagues when they declined an appeal of the ban at WP:AE on 26 August 2013.

The appeal does not address the disruptive conduct by SonofSetanta identified in these proceedings, notably, edit-warring to reinstate a frivolous speedy deletion nomination of a "Troubles"-related article after several administrators had declined the speedy deletion request, as per the evidence provided in the AE request linked to above. In imposing the topic ban I considered that SonofSetanta has a relatively long record of blocks for disruption in the "Troubles" topic area, under three accounts:

In this appeal, SonofSetanta does not recognize that the sanction is a result of their own conduct, and instead assigns blame to others. For this reason, the topic ban is still, in my view, a necessary and proportionate measure to prevent further disruption by SonofSetanta in this topic area. Accordingly, I recommend that the appeal be declined.  Sandstein  16:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Psychonaut
I see that SonofSetanta's appeal contains a request for investigation into my conduct (though I was never notified of same). I had hoped to avoid any further discussion of this user, but as he seems to have dragged me into this one I'm not sure it's avoidable.

I endorse Sandstein's conclusion that SonofSetanta seems unable to recognize his own disruptive behaviour, and that it was this behaviour (and not others' reports of it) which is the reason for his current and past sanctions. This lack of awareness is demonstrated most saliently by points 3, 4, and 5 of his appeal:

In (3) he flatly states that he is "not guilty of copyright violation or disruption", though this is precisely what he has been repeatedly blocked for; one needs only consult his various accounts' block logs and user talk pages here and on Commons to appreciate the scope of the problem. I was one (but neither the first, nor the most prolific) of several users who tagged his infringing images for deletion.

In (4) he claims he was "not disruptive" in the incident that led to his latest topic ban, which flies in the face of his next claim that "several AfD patrollers" had to engage with him in order to get him to stop edit warring over the deletion tag.

Finally in (5) he claims his latest block (for violating the topic ban) was unfair because it was without warning; however, he had been conspicuously notified of the topic ban on "everything related to The Troubles" (emphasis in original) on his user talk page on 24 August. The notice made it clear that noncompliance would result in blocks. In fact, a quick check over SonofSetanta's recent contributions shows that he still may not be complying with the topic ban. He's made a number of edits, for example, to Northern Ireland Security Guard Service, who according to the article are best noted for their controversial defence of a post-Good Friday attack by the Real IRA.

I have no opinion or recommendation concerning the outcome of this appeal; I just wanted to voice my support of Sandstein's observations and to rebut some of the claims made in the appeal. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta

 * This section is to be edited only by Arbitrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * Decline appeal. The idea behind discretionary sanctions is that we trust admins to exercise their judgement in a sound manner; as a result of that trust, I believe that, when dealing with an appeal against a restriction, we should not substitute our own opinions to those of the admin(s) who originally imposed the sanction de qua, but, rather, we should see if there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the imposing sysop(s). In this case, the sanction seems reasonable and, so, it should not be lifted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline, after having reviewed the situation fully. However, I am always in favor of salvaging situations with long term editors whenever possible, so let me ask you this SonofSetanta: Is there a particular article you would wish to work on and bring up to perhaps WP:GA status? I might be willing to carve out a single article exemption for you to work on. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline. Editors have been blocked for such disruptive behaviour on ordinary articles, let alone sensitive and contentious articles under DS; a topic ban seems more than fair, and no doubt has been given due in part to SonofSetanta's explanation of confusion and ignorance, as well as his three year contributions to the project. If an editor has such poor understanding of procedures that they engage in edit warring on a DS article, then a topic ban is the least they can expect in order to prevent further disruption.  SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  14:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the basic topic-ban should stand. I am somewhat more open to the possibility of narrowing it slightly so that SonofSetana could edit articles that are within his area of interest but unlikely to be troublesome. I know that the DS administrators considered this possibility and rejected it, but perhaps this could be reconsidered at some point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline. T. Canens (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline per the above, though like NuclearWarfare I might consider a single article exemption. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The original sanction was valid. Decline, and oppose the attempt to refine this sanction that other arbitrators are contemplating. AGK  [•] 12:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline and similarly to AGK, I have no interest at all in carving out a limited exception in this particular case. Courcelles 20:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles concerning anything to do with the flag of Northern Ireland
This is an enquiry. Are the terms of this arbitration still in force about restricting the number of reversions allowed (and the wider issue of slow-motion edit-warring) on articles that include the "Flag of Northern Ireland"? I raise it because some editors are insisting on repeatedly adding the purported flag to articles when they can give no reliable source that there is one, and on many of the relevant articles, there is a long-standing consensus that Northern Ireland does not have any such flag. In some cases, these editors also refuse to discuss the issues on relevant talk pages or have used insults and outrage when action has been taken against them (by myself) when, admittedly, I did not realise that these articles were covered by this arbitration. One editor that I know of has already been blocked on more than one occasion though in the long past for similar kinds of editing concerning the flag of Northern Ireland. I am mostly referring to: Template:UKFlags with edit history here just now, but similar slow-motion edit wars with a refusal to discuss much has happened on other articles where flgs of the UK have been included. Thanks <font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch  <font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)  12:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also it would do no harm if an admin took a close look at the Flag of Northern Ireland article looks like a sock farm is at work on it. Mo ainm  ~Talk  12:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I finally ask that Miles Creagh withdraws his unfounded allegation that I am acting from some political motivation, because it is unfounded by reasonable scrutiny of what I have done, above. As such, it is demeaning of him and the other disruptive editors to continue to reply to legitimate requests with silence and continued edit-warring, making unfounded allegations towards me or some others, who object to their actions, or both. <font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch <font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)  18:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the problem here. You seem to to be under the impression that User:Snowded is "another administrator", which may explain why you sought his opinion and advice on the use of administrative tools in this matter. In fact, Snowded is not an admin, but is an editor involved on one side of the long-running content dispute in the matter of the Northern Ireland flag. Does this information change your view of your conduct in this matter? And here, by the way, is an undoubted Reliable Source that says "'The flag of the Government of Northern Ireland is often called the 'Ulster flag', but we have called it by its 'official' name, the 'Northern Ireland Flag" (My emphases). Finally, your request to me is declined. Miles Creagh (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what is going on here. however if you check the sources (and the article concerned) you will see that the Ulster flag is (per the sources) explicitly no longer the flag of Northern Ireland.  This is well established and long standing.  We have periodic (over a decade) attempts to insert it in multiple articles and I and other editors with experience of British Isles issues regularly revert those changes.  The insertions tend to be Unionist editors trying to make a point.  There is no "long running content dispute", there is a clear position supported by the quoted sources.  Experienced editors on the pages regularly change notes as we also deal with multiple sock farms and meat puppets.  Whether DDStretch thought I was an admin or not is irrelevant.  Experienced editors collaborate to deal with vandalism or political motivated edits.  The fact that you quote a 1994 book as source indicates your lack of familiarity with Irish history.  The Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998 and became effective 1999.  That and the associated work on peace and reconciliation meant that the Ulster Banner was removed as the official flag of Northern Ireland and replaced with the Union Jack.  A cursory reading of the sources on the Flag of Northern Ireland page would have shown you this.  I suggest that you withdraw the accusation against an admin who has done more than their fair share of work to manage a difficult and contentious area of wikipedia.   I also note that your own page has a prominent picture of King Billy at the battle of the Boyne so I rather suspect you know all of this anyway, but lets give you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to retract. <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 19:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume the IP editor above is Snowded? Miles Creagh (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You caught me in the middle of an edit - I was checking your user page so see additional comment and signature <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 19:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Yes I am interested in Irish history, and the depiction on my user page of a key event in the early modern history of Ireland reflects that interest. Anything else you read into it is your POV. This probably isn't the place to rehearse the whole argument about the Ulster banner, commonly known as the Ulster flag, officially known as the Northern Ireland flag, but anyone who is interested could start with the discussion at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland which if nothing else should make clear that any claim of consensus on the topic is spurious. Miles Creagh (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in Irish History then you know the significance of a prominent display of King Billy at the Boyne on your user page and you also know full well what happened (against some loyalist wishes) to the official use of the Ulster Banner in the peace settlement. Your recent edit warring on Patrick Pearse also makes it clear that you are pretty much involved in this subject and hardly "relatively new to the topic" as you assert. To be clear it is explicitly not known officially as the Northern Ireland Flag. The discussion at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland is largely asserts that the Ulster Banner is official but todate no one has cited any source to establish this or contradict the sources already on the page which say it is not.  You still haven't withdrawn your accusation against DDStretch by the way.  Hopefully with the matter raised here a non-involved admin will address that issue.<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 19:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, the Good Friday Agreement didn't address the Ulster Banner at all. It is generally asserted by folk on your side of the argument that the undoubted official status of the Flag of the Government of Northern Ireland, otherwise known as the Ulster banner, the Ulster flag or simply the Northern Ireland flag ended when the Stormont assembly was prorogued in 1972, and abolished in 1973, not when the GFA was signed in 1998. That's why it's interesting that the Queen's University, Belfast source above, published in 1994, shows two academic researchers in the Centre for Irish Studies stating that they intend to refer to the Ulster banner by "its official name, the Northern Ireland flag." As to DDStretch, I am perfectly willing to allow that it may simply have been his honest, if mistaken, belief that you were an admin that caused him to conduct himself in a manner that looked as if he was coordinating the use, and threatened use, of administrative tools to advance one side of a content dispute. I'll wait to see what he has to say on the matter before commenting further. Miles Creagh (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the best thing for you to do, is to open an Rfc on whether or not the Ulster Banner should be implemented throughout Wikipedia, as Northern Ireland's official flag. The result will likely be no flag, but at least it will put an end to these continuing edit spats. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, GoodDay, which does seem to indicate that there is no existing consensus on the topic. However, I am not sure that it would be appropriate to use the Northern Ireland flag in every instance across Wikipedia, and I'm not arguing for that. In any case, I reckon we should finish the RfC at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland first. Miles Creagh (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The requirement for an apology, therefore, still stands because making comments in an attempt to undermine another editor by alleging political motivations on their part is simply unacceptable. It is one main reason why such restrictions have been imposed on all articles that are in some way connected with "The Troubles". <font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch <font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)  19:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * DDStretch it is big of you to apologise for your mistaken assumption about Snowded's admin status, and to acknowledge you wouldn't have posted your message on his page had you been aware of the actual situation. I took your message as you essentially offering to use your administrative tools to support a particular POV in an on-going content dispute. I now accept that it was simply a misunderstanding based on mistaken assumptions, and I am happy to apologise in turn for any implication that you were acting in bad faith in this matter. I would note, however, that I haven't imputed any political motivation to you here, as I have no idea what your politics may be - although that does seem to be what Snowded has done to me and other editors engaged in this dispute when he says above that we are "Unionist editors trying to make a a point". He should probably apologise for making such an assumption. Otherwise, as to the content question, there is an on-going RfC at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland which may be the better venue to advance this? Miles Creagh (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Apology accepted. I must also say that I really feel too many allegations of political issues just obscures things here. I do see that some discussion is happening now, and I hope people can concentrate on the reliable sources and weighting of any to arrive at the best solution. But a failure to do this and just game the system by the slow-motion edit warring is really not good for anyone here. <font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch  <font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)  21:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Scope question
My question is two-fold: Other similar edits have been made by, but since I am not an expert, I do not wish to take unilateral action except in the most blatant cases of non-verifiability. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Would edits like, and  fall within WP:TROUBLES? In each case, the cited source does not link the incident to the Provisional IRA.
 * 2) If they do fall within WP:TROUBLES, what action should be taken?
 * If you feel that these changes aren't adequately sourced, you could make that argument on the respective talk pages, and notify the editor of those discussions. Anyone may leave an alert of the Troubles sanctions via WP:AC/DS on the editor's talk page but it is best to try normal negotiation first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request: The Troubles (June 2018)
Original discussion

Initiated by Swarm at 00:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Statement by Swarm
Greetings. So, WP:TROUBLES contains a 2011 provision that places all pages in the topic area under a blanket 1RR page restriction that is specifically enforceable without warning, provided Troubles restriction has been placed on the talk page. This directly contradicts the current awareness criteria for enforcing page restrictions, and it's unclear to me whether that provision is exempt from, or has been superseded by, the modern awareness criteria that were implemented in 2014 and 2018. In spite of the contradiction with standard practice, it continues to be advertised as an active sanction on many articles, which is apparently validated on the case page. However, there's no apparent record, anywhere, of an intentional exemption to ArbCom's now-standardized procedure regarding awareness. It also claims to derive its authority, at least in part, from a community decision, but there is no record of such a restriction at WP:GS or on the case page, so it's unclear as to whether the "no warning" provision is actually the will of the community. Thanks in advance.
 * I thought this was clarified based on the initially-unanimous response that warnings/alerts should be given. But now there are Arbs coming in, saying that the "no warning" provision still stands. So, I don't know how these things go. Will someone assess the consensus in this discussion, or should I file an amendment for the Arbs to vote on? S warm   ♠  20:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by T. Canens
The 1RR restriction originated from an AE discussion in 2008 and was clarified in an ANI discussion in 2009. It's not clear whether the 2011 motion superseding "all extant remedies" actually superseded these restrictions, since these aren't actually arbcom remedies, but looking at the history of User:Coren/draft this appears to be the intent.

Additionally, it is not clear whether and how the later changes to the DS system impact a page restriction imposed in 2011 given the provisions in WP:AC/DS (Nothing in this current version of the discretionary sanctions process constitutes grounds for appeal of a remedy or restriction imposed under prior versions of it. and All sanctions and restrictions imposed under earlier versions of this process remain in force.). T. Canens (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by L235

 * By its own terms, the motion applies only to page restrictions placed as discretionary sanctions and does not apply to restrictions directly imposed by the Committee, such as 1RR from The Troubles or the General Prohibition from PIA3. As far as I remember, comments from arbitrators from the original motion supported that interpretation. Similar interpretation at the ACN talk thread. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC) I'm not recusing because this is a procedural clarification request per Jan 2018 precedent (mailing list login required). Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread this. Community consensus was apparently here: permalink. Looks like it was at AE, though, so it probably doesn't really count as a community-imposed sanction. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It also appears that if the community did impose 1RR, it may have been rescinded by ArbCom in this motion, which superseded "All extant remedies of The Troubles" with the intention of "Clarity and complying with general expectations", as arbitrator said. In any event, this ends up beyond the clerks' pay grade in interpreting ArbCom decisions. Hope the links help. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

As the Committee noted in adopting the most recent amendments to the DS procedure, the point of having warnings is that it's fundamentally unfair to subject people to penalties for violating sanctions they didn't know about. That's what notifications and alerts are all about. There's nothing stopping admins from using the existing, well-functioning procedure to tag each page with 1RR and alerting each editor before using the blunt tool of AE sanctions against them, just like in (almost) every other topic area that the Committee has imposed DS in. In my view, any disruption in this area can be handled with existing discretionary sanctions. I suggest that the Committee vacate any Troubles topic-wide 1RR that may (or may not) be currently in effect for the sake of clarity and fairness.

Also, I strongly believe that the recent motion concerning page sanctions applies to all previous page sanctions, too. The Committee didn't technically vacate or invalidate the page restrictions – it simply placed restrictions on enforcing them by sanctioning editors, going forward. (The motion provided that "There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions." – this doesn't invalidate the page sanctions, but it does create new restrictions on enforcing them.) If that argument sounds too wikilawyery, the more pure argument is that the clear intent of the Committee was to make the change applicable to existing sanctions, too. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly think a motion would be helpful to clarify what the Committee wants.
 * The Committee has been trending toward requiring more warning – see, for example, PIA 1RR, where the Committee has in the past said 1RR could be enforced "without warning ... even on a first offense" (March 2012, January 2016, December 2016) but explicitly took out the "without warning" wording (May 2017) . I think an unequivocal statement that no page restrictions, whether imposed by discretionary sanctions or by the Committee itself, may be enforced without warning would be very helpful, if that's what the Committee intends. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Deryck
From the earlier statements by arbs and other admins, it is evident that we don't yet agree on whether the existing sanctions on The Troubles-related articles are subject to the awareness principle or not. Hence this clarification request is valid and necessary.

Gnomish editors are prone to falling foul of 1RR restrictions if there isn't an awareness clause. I often make reverts on articles I pass by, only to find out afterwards that the article is subject to 1RR. The recent fiasco with the block against seasoned administrator User:Jorm, which could have been averted if there was an explicit requirement to warn before blocking, also springs to mind. I strongly recommend ArbCom to amend this case and other old case with bespoke 1RR sanctions, to enshrine the awareness principle and standardise them to standard 1RR discretionary sanctions. Deryck C. 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

The Troubles: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Moved to above section. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The general 1RR in the area was placed as a discretionary sanction by an administrator, so it is subject to the awareness criteria while enforcing it. This includes the requirements for page restrictions, as individual administrators cannot supersede the awareness requirements set by the Committee. (They could theoretically make them more stringent, but not less.) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you find the answer here clear? If so, I'll have a clerk archive this. If not, I'll prod additional arbitrators for comment, but I strongly suspect it will be more of the same ("Yes, notifications should be made").
 * The 1RR without warning was placed as a discretionary sanction, not by the Committee. Does that change things for you? Are you suggesting discretionary sanctions placed before our change of awareness criteria go by a different set of rules? If so, that has major implications for page restrictions, etc. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The concept of giving a warning, before blocking or sanctioning an editor for innocently violating a DS restriction, originated in a comment I made in a 2008 case that it would be unfair to penalize an editor for doing something that is generally allowed, but isn't allowed on a page covered by DS. The intent was certainly not that this observation evolve into a complicated rule-set of "awareness criteria," in parallel with the rules-creep that continues to take place all over the wiki (as observed in this essay by a community-elected WMF trustee). The importance of reasonable warnings is reinforced when we periodically get AE or ARCA appeals from editors who are blocked or topic-banned for a DS breach and respond in good faith along the lines of "I didn't know there was any such rule" or "what the heck are you talking about?" To me, "warn before sanctioning if it isn't clear the editor knew (or clearly should have known) he or she was violating a restriction or acting improperly" remains a basic precept of wiki proportionality, fairness, and common sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Late to the party, but for what it's worth I agree with NYB. Arb-related sanctions are a topic with so much rules creep that I understand why this question was asked, and yet I also want to think we as a community can manage to warn people before sanctioning them even if WP:OMGWTFBBQ#RTFM paragraph 3 line 2 says you don't technically have to. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The DS warning system is a poor attempt to codify what should be commonsense. Prefer the approach outlined by NYB, where we don't actually mandate a slew of warnings and alerts before doing anything, but nonetheless have the courtesy to let people know if they've done the wrong thing before applying sanctions. FWIW, I reckon the without-warning-1RR technically still stands despite the later implementation of other processes, but its existence suggests we should again go through these older cases and review the surviving sanctions to see if they're worth updating or even keeping at all. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * After looking at this issue several times, I think I also agree with NYB. I also agree that the without-warning-1RR still stands. I'll also note that even where we've found that sanctions aren't being used, editors have agreed that they are helpful. Doug Weller  talk 17:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I just want to be clear, because this actually has wide-reaching implications: is the emerging consensus that restrictions placed before changes to the DS regime are grandfathered in? If so, all old page restrictions can still be enforced without needing page notices. I do not think that was our intent. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you're asking me. Perhaps you should ask NYB? Doug Weller  talk 18:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I rather interpret NYB as saying that all page restrictions of whatever sort need page notices. If that is not the present rule it should be, and it should apply to all existing page restrictions whenever placed no matter by whom. The issue is basic fairness, which is the principle behind all arbitration and enforcement policy.  DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It all seems fairly cut and dried to me. From a common sense perspective, if a person does not reasonably know about a restriction, they should not be sanctioned for it - the first step should be alerting them. We've put multiple motions out to say the same. If it's still felt that this particular set has slipped through the cracks, then I'd happily support a motion to change that. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The Troubles: Motion
The Arbitration Committee clarifies the following: All sanctions placed under remedy 3.2 of The Troubles prior to its replacement with remedy 5 are considered discretionary sanctions. Specifically, the 1RR sanction affecting the topic area is considered a form of page restriction placed as a discretionary sanction, and the additional awareness requirements regarding page restrictions apply.



Enacted -  Mini  apolis  14:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) After re-reading this discussion a few times, I think we're being very silly. Ideally, all of this would be common sense, but we've had repeated issues regarding awareness, so we know it isn't. Stripping away the idealism, we all seem to agree that editors should be aware of a page restriction before they're sanctioned for violating it, so let's make the awareness criteria apply here. I've phrased this as a clarification, but I urge the rest of the Committee not to get hung up on whether this is a change to existing practice or merely a clarification of it. We all agree on the outcome, so let's just make sure it's implemented. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) OK. This all seems like a lot of bureaucratic mud to me, relative to the apparent problem of "nobody really thought to update that one template". If spelling it out makes a difference, sure. (But isn't the first sentence of this already true anyway?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) OK here also.  Doug Weller  talk 15:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Per my comment above, thanks for sorting this Rob. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Alex Shih (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Per my comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * That’s why I phrased this as a clarification. I personally think all of this is true already, but I don’t want to debate whether it is or isn’t when we can just quickly confirm this is how it should be and move on to issues of greater substance. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Community comments

Clarification request: The Troubles (February 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Thryduulf at 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request As there are no specific other people involved, I have left notifications at:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland
 * Talk:The Troubles
 * Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland
 * Talk:Great Famine (Ireland):

Statement by Thryduulf (re The Troubles)
In The Troubles arbitration case the committee authorised a remedy that was effectively discretionary sanctions (this was before standardised discretionary sanctions as we know them today had evolved) and as part of that a general 1RR restriction was imposed. Later, the old remedy was replaced by discretionary sanctions, incorporating the 1RR restriction. However, because of the way these sanctions have evolved the scope of the DS topic area is stated differently in different places and this is causing confusion (see for example Talk:). What I believe to be the full history of the scope(s) and where I found them is detailed at User:Thryduulf/Troubles scope but what I understand to be the differing scopes presently in force are (numbered for ease of reference only):
 * 1) Pages relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner, broadly interpreted
 * 2) [A]ll articles could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland
 * 3) Pages relating to The Troubles and the Ulster banner (The Troubles)
 * 4) [Page template:ArbCom Troubles restriction is transcluded on] along with other articles relating to The Troubles.
 * 5) All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

British Baronets were formerly part of some of the scopes, but that was unambiguously removed by a previous committee.

I am asking the committee to:
 * 1) Clarify this whole mess by defining a single scope for the discretionary sanctions and sanctions placed under its authority (the general 1RR is the only one I know that will be affected).
 * 2) Formally and explicitly end the restrictions imposed in the related Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine as superceded by the discretionary sanctions authorised in The Troubles case. This is de facto the case anyway, but while tidying we might as well spend another 2 minutes to tidy this as well. (note that the Great Irish Famine article was moved to Great Famine (Ireland) after the case concluded)

Request 1 does lead to the need to determine what the scope should be. In my view, formed following some discussion at WikiProject Ireland and Talk:Great Famine (Ireland) and looking at various articles and talk pages is that there are only two that need considering:
 * A "Pages related to The Troubles, broadly interpreted."
 * B "Pages related to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland." with both geographical and political meanings of "Ireland" being within scope.

The Ulster Banner does not need to be separately mentioned - the Ulster Banner article is quiet and is not even tagged and while the Flag of Northern Ireland article would benefit from continued inclusion in the discretionary sanctions regime it is firmly within either scope suggested above.

The Easter Rising topic area is unquestionably within the scope of suggestion B and is reasonably interpreted as also being within the scope of suggestion A as crucial background to it.

Whether the Great Famine (Ireland) is within the scope of either A or B is less clear, nor is there clear consensus whether it should be - more input than I was able to attract prior to the request is needed here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I've been involved with any disputes regarding the term "British Isles" but I can't imagine anything serious that wouldn't be covered by a reasonable interpretation of B. Whether it would be covered by A would be more dependent on the exact nature of the disruption, but if it is completely unrelated I don't think we should be using the sanctions of this case to solve that problem. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While the topic area is relatively quiet at the moment discretionary sanctions are still desirable for at least as long as Brexit is an active political issue as any changes to the status of Northern Ireland or the Irish border could get quite messy quite quickly (history shows that the heat of conflicts on Wikipedia related to real-world geopolitical issues correlates pretty well with the heat of those issues in the real-world). Whether the specific 1RR restriction is still needed is a different question that's independent of what the scope of the DS authorisation is. It could be made narrower, but what that narrower scope should be is not clear (it's tricky to predict what the flashpoints will be), although when this ARCA is resolved I will be (proposing) removing the notification template from the talk pages of most of the few Northern Irish footballer articles it is currently transcluded on (from memory only one of those articles even gave any indication of any political or nationalist activity by the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are conflating two separate issues here (1) the scope of the topic area discretionary sanctions are authorised for, (2) the scope of the 1RR restriction imposed under that authorisation. The aim of this clarification request is solely to clarify what the scope of (1) actually is, not whether the DS regime is still required: it is, and because Brexit is on the horizon now is a good time to clarify it. (2) is a question that cannot be usefully answered until after (1) has been clarified (because the scope of any restrictions imposed under DS must be equal to or wholly contained by the scope of the DS authorisation) and in any case is not a question that requires arbcom - the purpose of discretionary sanctions is to allow administrators additional flexibility to make, adjust and remove remedies without needing to consult the committee each time. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While a review might be useful it cannot sensibly happen until after the scope of the DS is clarified, and it doesn't require the Committee to do it - it can be done at AE or even a relevant WikiProject page, while the DS scope clarification does need to happen here. FWIW though I think it would be silly to remove the 1RR at the current time and that setting the scope to A or B above (to match the DS authorisation) would be about right. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The most recent confusion I'm aware of is at talk:Great Famine (Ireland) (this is where I intended to link above but I see now I forgot to include the page name, sorry!), and I've seen other confusion previously but cannot immediately recall where. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm not proposing to remove the 1RR at all (that's BU Rob13's confusion), simply clarifying the scope of the discretionary sanctions it's authorised under and, if necessary, adjusting the scope of the 1RR to match it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My reading of the intent of Timotheus Canens's statement at Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is that the 1RR is a standard discretionary sanction appealable in the normal manner but a statement making that explicit certainly wouldn't harm. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

letting you know about the suggested motion below in case you have any more comments. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * re: political and geographical meanings. My intent with this was to make it clear that the restriction covers both the political entity "Ireland" (the 26-county Republic of Ireland) and the geographical "Ireland" (the island) so as to avoid any lawyering about what is in scope or not. I'm all for a better way of phrasing this if you have any suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll think about that suggestion (I've just realised I'm going to be late meetings some friends), but "Ireland" does appear in the phrase "British nationalism in relation to Ireland" and I can imagine someone attempting to wikilawyer about Northern Ireland not being part of the country of Ireland. The "unless otherwise specified" is there to prevent any conflict between the general authorisation and a future restriction that is more narrowly specified - i.e it sets a default but allows for exceptions to the default - if there is a definition at all then this is needed. "British nationalism" and "Irish nationalism" are not ambiguous terms so don't need clarification, whereas Ireland (disambiguation) is a thing. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that anyone would gain any traction with that argument (especially given Ireland (country) redirects to Republic of Ireland, which article describes it as a country) or indeed why anyone would think it would make a difference. I still think it's better to be explicit about having both geographical and political meanings, so I'll leave it for the arbs to decide (but if they decide not to include it then 6a should obviously be numbered just 6). Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for moving forward with this, and I agree your wording is better than mine. There is just one trivial point though - the numbering of remedies should either be 5 and 6 or 6 and 7 (depending whether you want the first to be a modification or replacement of the existing restriction, I think the latter would be slightly clearer); the present 5 and 7 makes no sense. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggested motion re The Troubles
Per SilkTork's request, here is my suggestion for the salient points of a clarification motion. It needs some introductory text and may need some wordsmithing

Note to the clerks: If this (or some similar motion) passes the scope of the DS authorisation will need to be updated at Template:Ds/topics and Template:ArbCom Troubles restriction as well as the case pages linked. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SilkTork and others: Note I've made a slight revision to point 1 (noted by strikethrough and italics) following Scolaire's comments. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
(B) would be better, in my opinion ... one could argue for the second section to specifically include the use of the term "British Isles", but that will probably be sufficient.

If I remember correctly, the issues with the Ulster Banner weren't particularly on that article itself, but edit-warring to include the Banner instead of the Irish flag / Union Jack (depending on context) and vice-versa on BLPs and other articles that included flags and flagicons. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
I would caution that 1RR may need to be kept in place, during the Brexit process which effects the British/Irish border & thus related articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm for anything, that'll prevent 'edit wars' around this topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
Per a motion passed this year, the 1RR which is currently in place for Troubles articles is due to the decision by an administrator to impose it under discretionary sanctions. (Most likely it is due to this log entry by User:Timotheus Canens in the fall of 2011. The idea of a blanket Troubles 1RR didn't originate with him, it used to be a community sanction before that). So, if anybody thinks that the blanket 1RR should be adjusted they could (in theory) appeal it at AE. Personally, I can see the advantages of single-page 1RRs that could be applied by individual administrators.

According to Canens, the scope of the case is "..reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland.." In my view, this is an adequate description of the scope and I wouldn't advise the committee to get really specific as to which articles are in or out. Admins shouldn't take action unless the nature of the edits suggests that nationalism is at work in the minds of at least some of the editors. Modern nationalism can cause problems with articles that seem tangential, as when editors who are warned about WP:ARBMAC get into wars about Alexander the Great, since the word 'Macedonia' occurs there. Yet the ARBMAC decision did not mention our article on Alexander the Great, nor should it. Even so, the ARBMAC sanctions would reasonably apply to any nationally-motivated editing of that article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Scolaire
I have nothing extra to bring to the general discussion. It was always my belief that the scope of the sanctions should be B, and this seems to be the arbs' view as well. I would just note that, in the Famine article, there was within the last week. The historiography of the famine is still very much a battleground between Irish nationalists and British nationalists. The article has had a Troubles restriction template on the talk page since 2009. I don't see any point in removing it now. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you want to comment, given it is one of 's two questions. Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Ireland' has the standard geographical and political meanings" a phrase that has commonly been used in the past? It's not clear to me what it's saying. Where are the standard meanings posted and who set the standards? And is there a political meaning that's different from the geographical meaning(s) – one that includes Boston, Massachusetts or Celtic Park, Glasgow, for instance? If there is no bureaucratic reason for having this, I would leave it out. If there is, I would rephrase it so it is unambiguous. Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Simplicity is the key to clarity. I suggest Ireland' refers to both the political entity (also known as the Republic of Ireland) and the island of Ireland." I can't imagine anything that might be covered by "unless explicitly stated otherwise", so I think you should leave that out.  Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, your proposed wording does not have the word "Ireland" anywhere, so is it necessary to define it at all? It refers to "Irish nationalism", which is an unambiguous term. If you're going to define "Ireland" (for purposes of wikilawyering), should you not also define "Britain", which has even more possible interpretations? Scolaire (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your revised wording nicely illustrates how adding layers of complexity can have the opposite effect to that intended. For many people, Ireland the island is Ireland the country – a country that is partitioned between two jurisdictions. Wikilawyers could have a field day with that! The point is, it's not needed. Your Remedy 6a says, "all pages related to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly interpreted" (emphasis added). Obviously, and by any standard, a broad interpretation of "Ireland" would include both the entire island and the 26-county state. Clear as day. 6b is not needed. Scolaire (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have already pointed out the ambiguity in the word "country" in regard to Ireland. Building ambiguity into a "clarification" makes no sense. The word "state" is used exclusively in the Irish Manual of Style. It was also the word used in the 2009 Poll on Ireland article names authorised by Arbcom, and in any number of discussions on WT:IE and WT:IECOLL. If you're going to go ahead with 6b (which I still think is just wordiness for the sake of wordiness), please change "country" to "state". Scolaire (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

The Troubles: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Before we do anything here, I would invite views on whether the 1RR in this topic area remains necessary. Is there still active disruption that warrants applying 1RR to an entire topic area indefinitely? Can that be reduced to just those pages actively undergoing disruption, as is typical? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent point about Brexit. It may be worth holding on this request for a couple weeks to see if that situation changes in light of May's defeat in Parliament. In the meantime, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on fully overturning the topic area wide 1RR (rather than providing it with a new scope) in favor of encouraging uninvolved administrators to apply 1RR to specific pages at their discretion as disruption occurs. I think that would be the preferred route so long as the number of articles facing frequent edit wars is relatively small, say, no more than a few dozen. Could you comment a bit on that? I'm not set in that view right now; just trying to understand exactly what's going on to form a comprehensive opinion. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not misunderstanding your request. I just think a review of the 1RR is worthwhile at the same time as we're reviewing the discretionary sanctions. To my knowledge, it's the broadest sanction ever imposed under DS, and it's persisted for quite some time. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This case played out while I was inactive on Wikipedia, so I'm not familiar with the history., can you point to an example or two of the confusion? (Your link isn't working, and probably I'm being unobservant but I can't find which discussion you meant to refer to.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a sensible request. Of the two options I feel Option B seems to more clearly cover the areas of concern, though "broadly construed" should be applied. I'm comfortable leaving 1RR in place as I'd prefer users in a contentious area to use more of the discussion and negotiation style of editing and less of  the blunt and inflammatory style. The question of who is procedurally responsible for the current 1RR and can therefore lift it seems a bureaucratic mess, but if we want a separate formal ruling (for clarity) then I'm comfortable with clarifying that the current 1RR is within the jurisdiction of AE admins to lift or amend as appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would support bringing Great Irish Famine under The Troubles. We need a motion to formally enact Thryduulf's suggestions., as you know this area well and have given this matter some thought, what do you suggest would be appropriate wording for a motion?  SilkTork (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thryduulf. Let's let it sit for a few days to invite comments. SilkTork (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Option B seems appropriate to me. Thryduulf has a good point about Brexit; it would probably be a bad idea to lift the 1RR at this point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say go with the 2nd option in this case. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Option B sounds sensible. Unfortunately I don't see this becoming an uncontroversial topic area any time soon. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fine with option B. Brexit and the backstop issue between the Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland border will undoubtedly invite consideration controversy now and in the days to come. I would not want to remove the 1RR or even trial it until the situation stabilizes. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 20:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Troubles: motion

 * Enacted - Bradv 🍁  01:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Enacted - Bradv 🍁  01:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Proposed; this is based on the motion drafted by  above, with some modifications and rewording. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) SilkTork (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  18:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 02:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  AGK  &#9632;  10:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Belated support. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Abstain
 * Abstain

Amendment request: The Troubles (December 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by The C of E at 07:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed"


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed"
 * Removal of restrictions


 * "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed"
 * "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed except in relation to sporting articles

Statement by The C of E
I would like to request removal of my Troubles restrictions because I do feel that the lesson has been learned. I feel I have shown in the past I am able to edit in these areas evenhandedly with John Brady (Sinn Féin politician) and Gerry Mullan (politician) being some examples. The crux of the ban was based on me allegedly trying to get Londonderry on DYK on a politically sensitive day which was not desirable to consensus. While I have been under the ban, 1831 Londonderry City by-election ran on DYK on Ulster Day so I feel its not been done consistently. As for the judicial review article, I already explained that was an unfortunate coincidence and I had not been thinking about it at the time I wrote the article.

If removal is not acceptable, can I request then that it be amended to permit editing of sporting articles. The reason I ask is because I asked if I could edit GAA articles and he said no because of the sport's political culture. But most players and clubs are not political and I have done work in there previously without concern (Seán Quigley, Killian Clarke, Ian Burke, Gerry Culliton, Cillian O'Connor, PSNI GAA and Irish Guards GAA). So, if full removal is not desired, I would like it amended for clarity and so I am able to continue working on sporting articles please.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel that people are slightly misunderstanding my clarification request here and . I do not want to edit the GAA article, what I would like to do is make it clear if I am permitted to edit on the sportspeople and clubs who play Gaelic football and Hurling.  Those aren't political if it is as  stated that it doesn't come under the sanction. The reason I said "GAA" because I had assumed people knew that it was an encompassing term for Gaelic football and Hurling (as opposed to the sporting/political body) but I was mistaken and for that I apologise.   The C of E   God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If GAA is off limits for its political associations, so be it. But I don't think sport as a whole is. Football and rugby for example aren't political.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When I think of sports, I don't tend to connect them with politics even with GAA hence why I asked. I ask an honest question in good faith for clarification but now it looks like I am going to have the screw tightened for daring to ask. I could have just gone on and done the editing willy-nilly but I didn't, I tried to get it squared and understood fairly but it is upsetting when you try to do everything right and by the book and get pilloried for it again. As I see this may be how it is for this restriction, I formally withdraw my request  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
The WP:AE request mentioned a parallel discussion which is now at WP:AN archive. That WP:AN discussion was closed with the restrictions at WP:Editing restrictions. Those restrictions handle my greatest concern as they seem to prevent further problems regarding DYK. Accordingly I am relaxed about whatever the Committee wants to do regarding the WP:AE topic ban. Nevertheless, I have to record that "allegedly trying to get Londonderry on DYK on a politically sensitive day" is an own-goal in an appeal. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
I participated in the AE discussion, and gave my reasons for why I supported imposing a topic ban there. I don't have anything in particular to add to that. I will say that the fact that a community discussion at AN also came to the conclusion that there was disruptive behavior which merited sanctions shows that outcome to be a reasonable one. I think best at this time if the editor does productive editing in other topic areas, and then revisits this in six months or a year. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

The Troubles: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * AE doesn't exactly follow the same procedures as the full committee, but speaking only for myself, I'm not inclined to consider lifting a t-ban placed for such reasons, in one of our most contentious topic areas, after only three months. And while I do appreciate that they did ask the admin who closed the original discussion if edits they were contemplating might violate the ban, the article in question has an entire section on "nationalism and community relations, so I should think the answer was rather obvious. While I am willing to be convinced, this does not fill me with confidence that lifting the ban is the right move. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just re-iterating what was said below, the top article on the subject makes it clear that the overall topic of Gaelic football is closely related to Irish nationalism. Further it stretches AGF to the breaking point to imagine the appellant wasn't already perfectly aware of that. I would suggest waiting at least 12 months before even considering appealing this again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's put aside the fact that sport in Ireland is closely connected to sectarian politics, and therefore doesn't even have to come under the "broadly construed" part of the sanction, or that one of the DYK hooks that led to the AE sanction specifically referred to Gaelic football. The crux of the AE decision and parallel discussion at AN was CofE's tendency to insert inflammatory political statements or offensive 'jokes' into DYK hooks on seemingly mundane topics. There's the NI-related examples cited at AE, which involved articles on several minor elections (1, 2 or a 3), a court case, a local council (and although CofE says "allegedly" above, he specifically asked that at least one of these run on The Twelfth). But also from the AN discussion: a Methodist hymn becomes an excuse to insult the Prophet Muhammad; a piece of public art becomes a coat-rack for homophobic slurs; three minor landmarks in New Zealand all happen to have a derogatory slur in their name; a university anthem somehow ends up summarised with a tangentially-related white supremacist slogan; the list goes on. The AE topic ban was fully justified and the broadly construed proviso is extremely important in this context. It has only been in place for a few months, and I see no indication from the above statement that CofE has learned anything from it since he still maintains this is a misunderstanding of isolated incidents. It isn't, and the topic ban should remain in place for the foreseeable future. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for the confusing wording. I think that sport in Ireland is definitely included in the topic ban. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course they are, as I think you're well aware. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I see absolutely no reason to reduce this topic ban. Joe does an excellent job of summarising the links that I have reviewed, but my biggest concern is the fact that you have multiple times attempted to bring inflammatory subjects onto the front page on Wikipedia on dates that will exacerbate those concerns. Putting the word "allegedly" seals this for me - given there are clear comments which request the date, implying that you are either (AGF) unaware of ramifications of your actions, and therefore should be kept out of the area, or (ABF) lying through your teeth, and therefore should be kept out of the area and possibly out of Wikipedia all together. I am willing to accept that you can move on to less problematic editing with the topic ban (and other editing restrictions) in place, and I may reconsider after a significant period of non-inflammatory behaviour, but this was put in place only a few months ago. I thank our AE admins for coming up with a solution here that allowed CofE to continue editing, and I hope he realises that more drastic action could have been reasonably taken. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you appear to be reading Joe's statement differently to me. Due to the close nature of the sport and politics, editing any Gaelic football articles would be a breach of even a "narrow" view of the topic ban - you don't even need the "broadly construed" part. In other words, no, I do not believe you should be editing any of the Gaelic sports personality articles at present, due to the sports political culture. As you say, this view has been shared by Barkeep, and I believe it is also shared by, based on my reading of his statement (though I'm sure he'll be able to correct me if I'm wrong) <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 15:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Joe and WTT. Regards So  Why  14:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the above. The topic ban is far too recent for us to consider lifting it on the basis that is no longer necessary, and I don't see any reason to conclude that the ban itself was unwarranted. I would advise CofE to stay far away from any topics having to do with Irish–British relations, whether in parliament or on the pitch, and to not appeal again until they have a solid track record of uncontroversial editing to point to (i.e. at least six months). – bradv  🍁  16:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with everyone above, particularly Joe. I am voting to decline and this appeal of the topic ban raises some additional concerns about whether the issue is fully understood and how to avoid these same problems should the topic ban be lifted. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Standardizing Unusual Remedies, The Troubles (October 2023)

 * Original discussion


 * Enacted - &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) Paring back to a more standard 1RR without the extra notification requirements, including an article talk page --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Izno (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) GeneralNotability (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) With Sinn Fein having made the transition to being a mainstream political party a regular 1RR seems more uh, mainstream. Cabayi (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:
 * 1) SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussions (The Troubles)

 * @Guerillero, @Primefac, @Izno, @Barkeep49, FYI: I've copyedited the motion in Special:Diff/1180014953. Please revert if there's anything there you oppose. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see a strong need to always put everything in a box, but it is fine if it makes you happy -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We all end up in boxes. That, and taxes... Cabayi (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)