Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case
To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Proposed Finding of Fact 2
Out of the names on the list, per the evidence I would say One Night in Hackney should not be on that list.. even Kittybrewster proposed a finding of fact that ONiH had atttempted to build a bridge over troubled waters. SirFozzie 21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * POV editing? I've not seen a single mainspace diff to prove that. There's these to disprove the charge though:
 * Adding information about republicans threatening a late MPs brother to try and stop him standing in a by-election against IRA member Bobby Sands
 * Adding a quote describing an IRA member as a "dangerous killer"
 * Adding a quote describing the same IRA member as an "evil murderer"
 * Adding "terrorist" categories
 *  One Night In Hackney 303  22:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though i had a recent arguement with ONiH in which i finally agreed on the word killed as he proved to me there was a concensus on the issue, looking at those articles i do have to agree with ONiH here. Mabuska 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can see the only person who has a problem with ONIH is David Lauder, all others seem to feel he has been dong a very good job, and walking a tightrope, in very difficult circumstances. To have the respect of both sides in this dispute is near impossible but he seems to have almost achieved it. Giano 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The evidence against ONIH is very poor. He has simply been lumped in with the "Irish" editors because of his apparent sympathies (which have never prevented him editing in an NPOV way, as evidenced by one GA and one FA). Any evidence of harrassment or "tit for tat" has not stood up well at all. He has been removed from "proposed finding of fact" but is still on "proposed remedies".Scolaire 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Given he added IRA to his username signature a while ago, and has expressed POV (and violent) views against the monarchy and has violated WP:BLP against the Duke of York, Prince Henry of Wales and Margaret Thatcher..., of course he should be added. I am not surprised Sir Fozzie is against the idea, given his self confessed close friendship with ONIH- but really, take about a conflict of interest. Astrotrain 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Astrotrain. Well said. Why does ONIH feel it necessary to provoke others by adding 'point 303' to his signature? Unlike some I simply must earn a living and I don;t have the time to build up a dossier of references, but I would hope the arbitrators would take some time to examine his contributions log and some of the many extremely provocative and sneering comments he has made therein. David Lauder 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As he has explained many times, and you have promptly ignored each and every time, your saying that he has 303 in his signature "because it is a caliber of a rifle used on Bloody Sunday", is, to use words that you hopefully will understand, poppycock and balderdash. It is a type of audio mixer. Did you miss the link to it he posted the last time you spread this idiocy. And Astrotrain, yes, ONiH is my friend, but the evidence proposed against him isn't evidence at all, but innuendo,slander and character assassination. SirFozzie 16:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that he never added IRA to his signature, or 1916? Adding a terrorist organisation to your signature is perhaps his worst crime, but by no means the only one. I don't know anything about 303, but it seems strange to go from terrorist organisation to terrorist incident to a music box. There's also his hissy fit rage when he was blocked a few months ago (sadly deleted when he invoked right to vanish (the first one)). Astrotrain 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I never did understand (nor appreciate) the IRA signature thing. However, he ultimately removed it when requested. As for the 303, well yes. As comments like this will attest, the guy likes techno music - Alis o n  ❤ 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who engages in dirty dancing, techno and London's nightclub scene (a highly noble endeavour) is fine by me. Case closed. DEVS EX MACINA  pray 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for Astrotrain to provide mainspace diffs as evidence I have "engaged in aggressive point of view editing". Rather than provide circumstantial evidence that I possess an alleged point of view, how about some evidence that I have edited in a biased way based on that alleged point of view please?  One Night In Hackney 303  03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Guns?? Anyone who's into electronic music or is a musician (as we both are) will be more than aware as to the deep significance of the whole 303 thing - Alis o n  ❤ 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am lost here what on earth have Princes Andrew and Harry and Margaret Thatcher to do with this case? Giano 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently this is a BLP violation, somehow!  One Night In Hackney 303  16:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Um.. No. While Irreverent, that's nowhere near a BLP violation. SirFozzie 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the other one, that was when Astrotrain got upset when the following sourced quote from a world leader was added by Vintagekits - Thatcher is a murderer...Thatcher is a prostitute. She sold herself to Reagan. It's on page 14 of A Secret History of the IRA by Ed Moloney, just to avoid any BLP problems....  One Night In Hackney 303  17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The "quote" was removed when neutral admins became involved from the noticeboard. Fortunatly there are some neutral admins around. Repeating the slur above is again another violation of WP:BLP- I'll leave it to someone else to remove this time. Astrotrain 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no slur. And have you got any diffs to prove that? Tell you what, I'll let you have this link on me as it proves you wrong - Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive208. It wasn't a BLP violation then, and it isn't now.  One Night In Hackney 303  11:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It breaches WP:BLP as it has no relevance to any article in Wikipedia. A supposed quote by a third world leader reproduced in an IRA text is not the standard required for a sourced Wikipedia article going for WP:FA status. It's nothing more than a disgusting slur against a British peeress Astrotrain 12:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It has no relevance to any article in Wikipedia? That's a bold statement to make, as I'm planning to add it to the wholly relevant Bombing of Libya (April 1986) article later on.  One Night In Hackney 303  12:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I've not seen much evidence of POV in ONiH's edits (and I certainly have looked). He's actually done some stellar work on producing some excellent articles such as Maze Prison escape, while others were busy bickering over flags in templates. If only certain other editors had this kind of diligence - Alis o n  ❤ 17:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ONIH has involved himself in the flag debates on more than one occassion. Astrotrain 11:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding like a broken record - diffs please.  One Night In Hackney 303  11:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why thank you, and indeed. Troubles related articles would be in a much improved state if people were prepared to edit condtructively instead of lengthy disagreements over a single word or a flag.  One Night In Hackney 303  17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And so the sequence went, IRA to 1916 to 303, according to Astrotrain, which means Astrotrain considers the Easter Rising as a terrorist incident? Clearly Astrotrain showing their blatant POV again, and used as evidence against  One Night In Hackney 303  ? --Domer48 08:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it okay for me to make a comment in the discussion here?
I'm a bit puzzled at my includement as a participant in this case and especially being called an aggressive point of view editor.

I've made very few pov edits to any articles on the Troubles never mind aggressive ones, with the only thing i can remember is two articles where i wanted to use the word murdered instead of killed - both of which where resolved, one quickly and amicably.

The other article i do admit i was at fault as i didn't know of the concensus (no-one informed me there was one until to late), which wasn't there as far as i know on the first article, yet i only made two reverts of killed to murder, yet when ONiH showed me the concensus i accepted it and stopped changing it.

On other Troubles articles where i've made an edit (i think i could count on one hand the amount of articles) i've by on large just added a fact tag requesting source of claim.

I do admit i've made pov comments on talk pages of various articles however i do base my pov on facts (no point standing by non-facts), though sometimes my facts (such as recently on the IRA attack on Loughgall) are wrong and i duly accept my mistakes when they are made clear to me that i am wrong and apologise for any offences i've made if any. I've never aggressively abused anyone either, the worst i've done is accuse a couple of editors of republican-bias, which i know i shouldn't have done and where at times misguided comments, where i have apologised.

Those users where VintageKits, BigDunc, and maybe DerryBoi. I apologised to BigDunc for my wrong presumptions on his pov, me and DerryBoi recently colloborated on tidying up the Tobermore article i'd contributed heavily to so we were (i assume) on peer-neutral terms and on VintageKits, we had a few disagreements but they where resolved or left to die but never anything serious. In fact i called for more npov editors to comment on the issue of VintageKits and his banning before his last banning as the whole issue was saturated with pov editors from the pro and anti VintageKits lobby's.

Is this directly about POV editing of Troubles articles, or because i have an opinion that murdered should be used instead of killed in certain circumstances? As of the my recent debate with ONiH, when he showed me concensus for killed above murder, i'm abstaining from the whole killed/murder thing, as i view it as a matter of circumstance which will contrast with someone else's view and it'd be easier for me to leave the whole issue for someone else to waste their time with.

I've never editted or commented on the Ulster banner article or the Bayonets one mentioned in this project page. I've debated NPOV and offered soluions to the Ulster banner's usage on another discussion page about it but thats it.

I really am surprised at my inclusion here.

Check my block log and you'll see i've never being blocked. I've never being threatened with a block, and i've never had a formal Wikipedia warning from an admin or editor to my name for anything that i've done on Wikipedia, yet now i'm in the proposed list for probation!

Mabuska 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. There's always the occasional editor that wanders inadvertantly into the Troubles related minefield. Some are more than willing to listen to reason and abide by existing agreements (or take part in further discussions with regard to new agreements), while others are intent on having "their" way no matter what. From what little I've seen, Mabuska belongs in the first group. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303  04:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, seems very reasonable. --Domer48 08:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mabuska? I never heard of him until today. I suspect he is a dolphin caught in a net intended for tuna. He has been removed from "proposed finding of fact" but is still on "proposed remedies". Scolaire 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mabuska is a realatively new editor. Mostly edits his local village article of Tobermore - I havent had cross words with him as such but have had to teach him how to tone down slight good faith POV and OR, and also use citations properly.--Vintagekits 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If i have been removed from the list of aggressive revert editors then why am i still on the probation remedy list? Looking at and  i am only mentioned once and that is under a vote proposed by Kittybrewser that i've done no wrong.

I'm abstaining from doing any voting on the Workshop page as i feel i have no place in it, and because i haven't seen enough contributions (if any) for many of the particpants to have a valid opinion on them. Mabuska 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on probation
I'll leave the discussions/arguments about concerned parties up to someone else, but it might be an idea for it to have some built in latitude. For example there's the whole Derry/Londonderry situation where the county is referred to as Londonderry and the city as Derry. This is frequently changed on many articles by IP editors, so it would seem slightly harsh for an editor's weekly revert "allowance" to be used up by reverting back to the WP:IMOS agreement. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303  04:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there is a way to derive a bot to keep the "londonderry/derry" issue straight and revert the IP's? Then the regular editors don't have to get fired up about it any longer?  A limited article sort of bot, that also only looks at contributions from ip's?  --Rocksanddirt 16:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't the locals always call it "Stroke City"? - we could always emulate them, as they seen to have a better developed sense of humour than can be found here. Giano 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A bot like the one Rocksanddirt suggests is probably not needed. Let's put it this way. I'm pretty sure that ArbCom will take an extremely dim view of anyone who uses IP's to get around the 1 revert/week probation. Also, the administrators are not covered under this probation as it stands, and you can ask an admin to fix factual errors (they won't be continuing your edit wars for you however!) Also, any and all IP addresses that get involved in the conflict will promptly be added to the people who the remedies apply to (see that section of the remedies). And finally, if IP abuse still gets out of hand, well, semi-protection of the articles is rather easy. SirFozzie 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it just seems a bit overly bureaucratic to have to message an admin to perform a revert that needs to be done, and would normally be done on sight. I think it's simpler for everyone for some common sense latitude to be applied to the probation. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303  18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem with that is, that although you'd think it would be self-evident, common sense isn't. Hence this case - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 19:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like Fred has taken the concerns of ONiH and others in hand with regards to this and modified the proposed solution. SirFozzie 20:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a double tricky resolution....deals with ONIH's issue, and makes the use if ip's to avoid the probation remedies moot, as reverting the ip's doesn't count. --Rocksanddirt 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators please note
Arbitrators are respectfully referred to my comments at Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Workshop.

I also endorse the comment that the decision in this case needs to address the culpability of individual editors on a more nuanced basis than it has done to this point. It is unfortunate that for all the pounds of virtual ink that the parties have spilled on the workshop page, they have provided little assistance to the arbitrators in this effort. Newyorkbrad 00:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

... 6 votes are a majority? HUH?
''I have moved this important discussion to the more prominent forum of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration so that it can receive the careful community wide attention it deserves. :) Newyorkbrad 15:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up
Several admins who are listed as involved parties (Myself, Alison, BrownHairedGirl, and I've also left notes for Rockpocket and Tyrenius) are discussing a temporary injunction on the editors in tis ArbCom similar to the one put forward in the Proposed Decision.

To Wit: Any editor who is listed as an involved party in this ArbCom case is put on probation (1 Revert/Week on articles relating to this ArbCom case (If the usual parties are edit-warring in the usual way, it would apply), until ArbCom's end. This 1 Revert/Week limit does not apply to the revert of anonymous IP Edits. This is due to another edit war outbreak on Orange Institution.

Would ArbCom have any problem with this as a temporary measure, while we wait for the Proposed Decision to be ratified? SirFozzie 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never edited that article Astrotrain 18:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not saying everyone has, Astrotrain. We're just saying, due to the length of time this case has been opened, we've had several "Usual editors warring in the usual ways" incidents and this is seeing if we can put something temporary in place to try to reduce the wars before ArbCom's decision is ratified. SirFozzie 18:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well why don't you just put those involved in that edit war on probation then? (assuming you even can) Astrotrain 18:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's called trying to be proactive. that way, we don't have to wait till the NEXT edit war breaks out to warn everyone, and it's trying to treat everyone in a fair and even-minded way (almost wrote "fair and balanced", but that phrase has been twisted more then a hammock in a hurricane here in the USA) SirFozzie 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So are you putting yourself on probation- given you are a named editor in the arbcom as well? Astrotrain 18:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As regards for editing Troubles related articles? Sure! SirFozzie 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I've also put in the suggestion from the Proposed Decision, that reverts of IP edits do not count towards this 1/Week Revert Rule. SirFozzie 18:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one object to this very dubious proposal. The proposer of this motion is heavily involved in this ArbCom as are the others seemingly setting themselves up as a defacto authority. It is no co-incidence either that amongst them they are also promotors of motions against the so-called "involved parties". I also think this is further evidence, should it be needed, that 'The Troubles' ArbCom really should be confined to Irish articles as that appears to be where all the difficulties to which this ArbCom refers commence. David Lauder 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's the exact same proposal that ArbCom has two support votes for, David. You may want to bring it up with them, then. SirFozzie 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom is dealing with and has not completed its findings in these issues and you should not pre-empt them. David Lauder 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with David Lauder. I feel the admins named here have had ample opportunity to sort these problems out, perhaps it is best now to leave it to others. Giano 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree certain admins are very involved and quick to jump on certain sides so lets leave it to others to resolve. BigDunc 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem at all with others resolving things, but ArbCom is taking its time, and in the meantime we've had another edit war followed by more of the old acrimony. This is not pre-empting arbcom, it's a request for an interim injunction, and it won't happen without arbcom's  approval. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I beg to differ, their was no edit war! More of the old acrimony, I'll grant you, and an opertunity there to address it. The ball was dropped, and nothing is resolved. --Domer48 08:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This issue will not be resolved until TU's POV is left in the article we all saw his tantrum yesterday and his attempt to invoke WP:IGNORE when he was reinserted unsourced text back in to the article and as Domer says I feel there was NO edit war just an editor "throwing his toys out of the pram". BigDunc 09:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * BigDunc, I have to disagree on your last point: the revision history does show an edit war, with a series of reversions of contested points. (Even if one side's edits were all NPOV, it was still an edit war).
 * I have just posted to article's talk page a suggestion on how the editors concerned could start resolving some of the disputes: see Moving on, starting discussion.
 * I have only analysed one short section of the article, but it seems to me that in that section both sides have been seeking evidence for some of the article's statements. I have suggested breaking down the disagreements into more manageable chunks, and taking them one point at a time.
 * That suggestion may not find favour, and I'm sure that there are other ways of resolving this. But if my suggestion is useless, please do find some other way of settling the content dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Im a bit disturbed at how all this is being portrayed. I ask anyone reading to see what exactly BigDunc/Domer/whoever it was removed from the article.  Examine the highly selective nature of what was removed.  It has also been suggested that I have tagged claims with a mind to remove them.  I have NEVER removed tagged items (with one exception in Sam Gardiner).  I reverted what was pov pushing of the most disgusting form.  Then Nationalists tag teamed to push me over 3RR.  I reported the incident to an admin before that happened in anticipation of it happening, and thus I am glad that common sense prevailed an I was not blocked.  I am increasingly exasperated by the WP:BURO violations.  Rules are making wikipedia a decreasingly interesting place to contribute.  I don't have all day to look up books for references for things that I know to be true, but the Nationalist tag team evidently can use the rules to push POV.Traditional unionist 14:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, sir, unfortunately you're on the wrong side of the edit war. The core pillar behind Wikipedia is NOT Truth. Different people have different truthes.. I'm not saying your truth isn't the real Truth, mind you, you know by now I have no dog in the greater Northern Ireland fight so I can't say.. but the core view of Wikipedia is "Verifiability, not truth". We don't report "The Truth", we report what we can verify with a NPOV. SirFozzie 14:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take a look at exactly what was done on the Orange Institution page. It left the page as a Sinn Fein manifesto piece.  Unverified and all. Traditional unionist 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I do understand the difference between verifiability and truth, as I demonstrated by providing references.Traditional unionist 15:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Domer and Padraig are already nodding their heads, because they know what I'm about to say on this, Traditional Unionist, cause I've said it to them when they've complained to me about the other side removing information.


 * "It has to be right. It doesn't have to be right right this instant."


 * Rather then spending energy, emotion and time edit warring that's not going to get anywhere but people into trouble, what folks should be doing is taking the time to rigorously source their information to Wikipedia's standards before re-inserting it into the article. That way, if it STILL gets removed, at least now, you have the balance of the rules on your side (Yes, I know that "Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy", but to the same point, "Wikipedia is not a Free-For All"). The rules are there for a reason in general.. to try to avoid this kind of emotionally charged, both sides dig their heels-in edit war.


 * Just do me a favor and think on that for a while. SirFozzie 15:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion and guidance, but I will not allow things like that to happen. What was done was wrong, and to leave it as it was would have damaged the credibility of wikipedia.  It wasn't right the instant after I reverted those edits, but it was a damn sight better.Traditional unionist 15:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * TU, your comment "I will not allow things like that to happen" sounds like a threat to edit-war, which is not wise. Fozzie is right: "verifiability not truth". If you think that those bits of text are necessary, then go get the sources to back them up, and seek consensus on the use of those sources. The page is now protected; you can either use that time to complain about the unfairness of everything, or you can use it find sources and to work for a consensus. Your choice, bit only sources and consensus are going to help you avoid the outcomes you dislike. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We can either continue to use this arbcom to pretend it is about specific instances, or we can address the issue of POV tag team editing. I maintain that I did the right thing.  People don't seem to understand how badly things like this damage wikipedia.  If that were allowed to remain, I guarantee it would make provincial press - and it wouldn't be a positive story.Traditional unionist 16:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that sounds to me a bit like "I don't care if I'm breaking the rules, I'm doing it for the truth".... SirFozzie 17:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"I guarantee it would make provincial press - and it wouldn't be a positive story." Now that sounds like a threat! Tu have you never heard there is "No such thing as bad publicity." If the press did decide to write a story, you could reference it in the article, or at the ArbCom. Might I suggest the Belfast Newsletter, it was a Republican paper after all. --Domer48 17:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already outlined the regard I hold for wikipedia, and my desire to keep up its credibility. Accusing me of making threats doesn't help anything.Traditional unionist 13:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits allowed to update his boxing pages
Would it hurt anyone if Vintagekits were allowed to edit his boxing pages, specifically Michael Gomez while the Arbcom is deliberating this case? Giano 06:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Giano. He's been indefinitely blocked due to harassment and intimidation. No "war of attrition" here. VK agreed to his unblocking for the ArbCom case only and a number of admins and other editors endorsed those rules. Now, at the latter end of the ArbCom case, you want to push the boat out and bend the rules. Given his history, the answer from me is "no". - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 06:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The terms of Vk's temporary unblocking were defined explicitly at the time: to permit him to contribute to this ArbCom and nothing else until ArbCom ruled on his current block. This was agreed upon on discussion among a number of admins. If any change is to be made, I would propose the block be reinstated, as he appears to have said all he wishes to here. Especially as he has been "dabbling" in other pages with increasing frequency (which, I'm sure, all the admins involved have noticed but overlooked). Rockpock  e  t  06:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alison - Blocking me, as you threaten on VK's page, would be futile because like so many others I am sick to death of wikipedia, only kept here by addiction and the desire to maintain and protect what I have already written. The sight of so many admins, like yourself, who seldom write a proper  page skipping about telling others how to behave is nauseating. It must be very hard for those such as you to understand how those that do write, feel about a page. Let's face it the final and ultimate reason VK was blocked was because you wrongly believed he had sent threatening emails to WFrank - to whom you chat on the telephone for up to an hour at a time. Now we all know those emails do not exist - and you are too vain to back down. Giano 06:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Nice try but no cigar, Giano. Plenty of hand-waving and little facts, as usual. Take care now! :) - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 07:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Vintagekits may edit normally under the terms of probation"
Regarding the above proposal by Fred Bauder. Vintagekits is currently indefinitely blocked (suspended to contribute to this ArbCom only). This block is due to be re-instated on the closing of this case if "ArbCom does not rule on your blocking or rules to endorse" While the proposal above appears to imply an over-ruling of Vk's current block, it doesn't explicitly say so. I wonder if one of the Arbiters would consider modifying this proposal to be more precise on the issue of the current block. I ask this so, on the closing of this case, we can be absolutely clear that ArbCom has ruled on this issue. Then we can unblock or reblock Vk per the decision, without the the chorus of protest/support that inevitably occurs from certain quarters, when it comes to Vk. Rockpock e  t  17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty cut and dried to me, Rock, to be honest, man. It means that just like the other people who are placed under probation in this case, that VK is limited to the 1 RR per week, etcetera.. SirFozzie 21:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but its not clear to me whether this remedy is meant to supersede current actions, or are addition to current admins actions. For example, is the intention of that proposal: "Vk can edit normally under the terms of the probation if/when his prior block is lifted" or "Vk's block should be lifted so he can edit normally under the terms of the probation." This is what I would hope ArbCom can clarify by ruling on the block explicitly, as much for Vk's benefit as anyone else, so there can be no misunderstanding, argument or lawyering about it when the case is closed. Rockpock  e  t  21:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see what is confusing you Rockpocket. The proposal is very clear. It is proposed that VK be subject to the same restrictions and sanctions as all the others involved in this case. Giano 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was very clear to me I wouldn't be asking for clarification. If your interpretation is correct, it shouldn't be too much effort for the Arbitrators to confirm that. I am more concerned, however, at the situation à propos Vk's block in the event that particular proposal does not pass and no other with regards to Vk is specifically proposed. Are we then in a situation where "ArbCom does not rule on his blocking"? Or do we look at his naming in Participant probation, and is that also interpreted to mean the Arbitrators wish to over-rule his block? If so, why is there a second proposal specifically about Vk, when the first proposal says the same thing? If not, what does that proposal mean vis-à-vis his block, if anything? I'm glad you are so clear about all of this, Giano, because as it stands I have very little clarity. Rockpock  e  t  00:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: I also interpret the proposed decision, if passed, as meaning that Vintagekits would be unblocked and free to edit anywhere, subject to the 1RR and other terms of the decision. However, in view of this thread, arbitrator clarification would be advisible. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Brad. I acknowledge that is, indeed, the most obvious interpretation. However, since the person that proposed the remedy originally stated "I have no interest in examining the block of Vintagekits", and at various times during the case noted he saw no reason to overturn it, I just wanted to ensure that the was the intended outcome of that proposal. Rockpock  e  t  01:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me, but I understand that you want to verify, that the arbitrator you are referring to (Fred Bauder) changed his mind at some point during the progress of the case and his review of the evidence. You might want to post a link to this thread on his talkpage to make sure that he sees it. Newyorkbrad 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, should that proposal pass VintageKit is no longer banned. My thought is that this experience has been a lesson learned. Fred Bauder 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for having a little faith in me. I have learned a lesson from all this - the sad thing (or maybe actually the good thing because it has put all my wikiediting into perspective) that I wont be editing wiki as much as I used to. I think I will mainly concentrating on creating new articles in my sandbox rather than battling over existing ones. --Vintagekits 08:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus that this interpretation is clear, then its not really necessary that it be amended solely for my benefit. I'm happy to go with the consensus. Fred Bauder is entirely justified in changing his mind (that is the point of the case, after all), and I don't mean to question that decision. I just can't face another wiki-drama over this issue, when the whole point of bringing it to Arbcom was to settle it once and for all. If that isn't going to happen, then fine. If it is, then I feel a more clearly worded proposal now will save a lot of trouble later. Rockpock  e  t  01:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it also is quite clear that there will be no tolerance for any further instances of threatening or abusive behavior. If the proposed unbanning is adopted, VintageKits needs to understand that he caused very real fear to several users and administrators here, and that he needs to steer well clear of any similar activity in the future. Restricting his editing for the foreseeable future to the non-political topics, though not required under the proposed decision, might well be advisable. Newyorkbrad 02:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Limiting the scope of my editing may work however if it is unlimited then I know on what terms I can edit them. I also know that my wikicareer is hanging by a threwat in the future - but other editors have also be exposed. I wish that rock would stop trying to focus all this arbcom on me - the evidence has shown it is clearly not just or even mainly me that is the root of this problem. I have been blocked from editing mainspace for a couple of months yet the "troubles on the Troubles" has continued and possibly even increased. All I want to do is be treat like all other editors.--Vintagekits 09:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Vk, I appreciate this isn't the place for this discussion, but since you have expressed the wish I don't communicate with you on your talk page, there is no other place to reply. I just wanted to request that you should try and see my contributions from my POV. I'm not "trying to focus all this arbcom on [you]", as I am on record time and time again expressing my support for the behaviour of all involved editors to be looked at. However, my personal involvement in this pretty much starts and stops with your behaviour. It was your involvement in meatpuppetry that got me involved in this and you subsequent poor behaviour that resulted in administrative action by me. The little interaction I have had with other participants that has been problematic, I have offered as evidence (Thepiper and Frank's probable sockpuppet), just as I have yours. So, the reason my primary contributions have been about you, is simply because that is what I am familiar with and so that is what I can speak about with primary experience. I have followed the evidence provided about others with a keen eye, but there isn't much I can add to it.
 * So, I am pleased that this case appears to have made you appreciate what every admin been telling, pleading, threatening and cajoling from you for months: your previous standard of behaviour has got to stop. But I am equally pleased that the behaviour of others have been fully exposed also, and hopefully they have taken the same message. Rockpock  e  t  07:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its probably clear that my opinion differs on the effectiveness of this proposal (should it pass) and advice, but perhaps my optimism is just burnt out from over-exposure to Vk's chequered past. However, I thank Fred for clarifying the issue for me and hope this should mean we can all accept ArbCom's decision graciously and without protest, whatever it may be. Thanks, also, Brad for your comments. Rockpock  e  t  03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever arbcom's final decision, I hope that the form of words which arbcom uses in relation to Vintagekits states explicitly what is happening to the block. It need only take 2 words ("block upheld", "block reinstated, "block overturned"), and I think that everyone (Vintagekits included) would benefit from the clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that the proposed decision has been re-worded to be clearer. The arbitrators' comments along with their votes are also worthy of attention. Newyorkbrad 14:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Took a whack at moving this forward
I proposed two remedies on the Workshop page to try to satisfy the concerns of the ArbCom members who opposed the general probation proposal, saying that the burden fell on people differently. I decided to only list the people who have actually been blocked for editwarring. SirFozzie 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to harp on it, but I think it definitely needs to be clarified whom (if anyone) will be placed on probation and what, if any, the terms of that probation are. We have VK being unblocked and able to edit under the terms of the probation, but right now, we have no probation terms accepted in the proposed decision. SirFozzie 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry I'm sure all will be made clear - eventually. Giano 15:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The holdup is my reluctance to break down the list of persons affected by individuals. I suspect mere laziness. However, I would appreciate feedback on the list of folks who would be subject to editing restrictions. Are some included who should not be, or vice-versus? Fred Bauder 16:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a case for rmovinh the name of ONIH, otherwise I think it should be left as it is, with all included. Giano 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As the terms are not particularly restrictive and probably good practice for such a controversial subject anyway, I tend to agree with Giano. However, the Arbitrators don't seem to concur and appear unwilling to endorse a blanket proposal, if this is not passed we essentially have no probation for anyone, which is a much worse situation (for everyone). We have to find some agreeable compromise. Rockpock  e  t  18:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, reading it again, it appears the conditions of the probation are set under proposed enforcement. So as it stands we have Vk and "any users who join in the edit warring"..."limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation." Those who "violate the terms of the probation may be blocked for an appropriate period of time" and "may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility". That is fairly clear, I suppose. What is undefined is the extent and limit of "the set of articles included in the probation". Is this open to the interpretation of administrators? Is it a good idea to set some guidance on this in advance? Rockpock  e  t  19:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding goes like this. Essentially the committee were happy with Fred Bauder's proposed probation restriction but unhappy with the list of names and have passed this to the community, except for Vintagekits who is on the probation by implication. So, there is a one revert per week probation on articles relating to the troubles for Vintagekits and for any other editor placed on it by an uninvolved admin. Editors can only be placed on probation for good cause and I would have thought any disputes over whether an editor should or should not be on probation would be handled on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Is this right? Sam Blacketer 10:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never been a editor that has partically cared for editwarring and the ones I have been involved in has invariably been instigated by Astrotrain who for many month gave you on constructive editing and solely logged in to revert and leave - I am also concerned that Rockpocket is once again trying to focus this all on my again despite the fact that the nasty underbelly of the activities of many editors have been exposed.--Vintagekits 10:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Give the victimization routine a rest, Vk. I'm trying to establish - in advance, before there is a need to invoke it - that we all are on the same wavelength with regards to what the committee have ruled. I think your interpretation is valid, Sam. Rockpock  e  t  00:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

5 votes to free me
Does this mean I can start editing now?--Vintagekits 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not til the case is closed. Fred Bauder 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You has better ask Alyson. Giano 18:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you should probably wait until the case is closed, Vk. As you can see from the discussion above, there is some hope that we can get some firm probationary measures passed and therefore they may still be some action on proposals with regards to your editing. Rockpock  e  t  18:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably best not to risk it - email an Arbcom member for some advice. It is most unlikely that you will face any restrictions on your boxing pages though so ask if you can edit them. Giano 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The case is likely to formally close within the next day or two. It really shouldn't make a difference if you jump the gun slightly, but the prudent thing to do would be to wait until then. When you do resume editing, please remember the cautions that have been expressed to you. Maximum efforts from everyone to maintain a reasonably collegial, or at least minimally civil, editing environment are mandatory from this point forward. Newyorkbrad 00:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's Alison with an I, Guano. VK, as this is about to close very soon, jumping the gun would not be the thing to do, especially as we had an agreement regarding your unblocking. Once the lame-duck ArbCom case ends, judging from its current direction, you should be free to edit under the same restrictions as everyone else, soon :) - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit When a cure for dyslexia is invented then you have the write to piss take, until that happy day shut the fuck up, or at least hang on to the insults. Giano 11:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies, Giano. I don't know what came over me. Please forgive me. And yes, I do hope a cure is found for your affliction. - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will sit it out for a few more days then. Ally, can you restore my Lennoxtown and OMacB sandbox, cheers?--Vintagekits 09:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Gah! Did I not send you that? Oops. Just a sec .... - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 10:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Back :) - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 10:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I got my article on Oistin but I aint got Lennoxtown. cheers--Vintagekits 14:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm - it's right here. Click the 'back' link above - you might have missed it - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 15:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicve one, just found it. ta! --Vintagekits 16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify "uninvolved admin"
Please can arbcom clarify the use of the term "uninvolved admin" in Proposed remedies#Additional_participants_2.

Does it mean:
 * an admin not involved in that bout of edit warring
 * an admin who has not listed as a party to this arbcom case

... or something else? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As the decision does not find fault with the admins, my assumption would be the latter - though perhaps those in the appropriate position can confirm. Sam Blacketer 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the former, an admin not involved in that bout of edit warring.--Padraig 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I do! Sam Blacketer 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Meaning who? No admins were involved. - Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  03:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kittybrewster, I think what is meant that if any admin (including the ones mentioned as parties in this case), catches any of the usual edit-warring going on at the usual articles, as long as the admin is not actively participating in the edit war in question have the power to place the participants of the edit war under the terms of the probation as mentioned in this case. SirFozzie 11:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Admins shouldn't edit-war at all, but they might quite legitimately support one side or the other. My definition of an uninvolved admin is one who does not, either overtly or covertly, have strong opinions on the subject of the immediate dispute. Sam Blacketer 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the admins will inevitably be accused of bias, depending on whom they block. - Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  14:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved admin must be someone who can be identified as being clearly independent. Not just one who says he/she has no view or involvement on a situation but who, from a check of their user page or their contributions, clearly has a conflict of interest. David Lauder 11:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

British Baronets
Huh? - Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  07:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Still listed
Why am i still listed as a participant for possible probation? Fellow editors; ONiH and others who Fred thought i was aggressively edit-warring with (he added me as a participant) voted that i have no involvement in this big dispute. I'm gonna be stuck with a probation order for doing diddly-squat on the issue here which has gone into personal abuse and mass edit-warring on various articles by the same groups of people - things i haven't done. The 2 revert disputes i was involved in where resolved without the need for admin intervention and could be classed as very civil compared to what i've seen here. Mabuska 17:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not listed. - Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm right here beside VintageKits in Proposed Remedies, Participant Probation: Mabuska 16:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which was not passed. - Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The final decision provides that editors who cause problems on these articles after the decision was passed may be placed on probation by an uninvolved administrator. To date, this has not occurred and there is no indication that it will. The final decision in the case is found at Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Please note that this supersedes the earlier proposed decision. Newyorkbrad 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Um.. Brad.. you may want to check the logs of blocks, bans and probations. SirFozzie 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my comment wasn't clear: I meant it hasn't been implemented for the user who started this thread, to whom I was responding. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 19:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The whole page was confusing in parts hence i didn't know whether it would be implemented or not. Mabuska 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)