Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

For enforcement requests, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests

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 | ^{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 | ^{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? - Alison ☺ 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 | ^{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, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville. Will evidence from these tangentially related subjects be considered also? Rockpocket 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 | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Thanks. Rockpocket 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)

--Rockpocket 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. - Alison ☺ 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)

2 things that I didn't caught that should've been moved...

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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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 Wikipedia: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. Rockpocket 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. [3] Note that "heavily involved in the earlier disputes" equates to being one of the admins who attempted to deal with earlier disputes. Rockpocket 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 | ^{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. Rockpocket 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. Rockpocket 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 [4] and had a look because Vk has been engaging in a slow revert war over Irish names of republicans. Damac (talk · contribs) 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 [5] [6] both of which appeared to be the recreation of an article that had been deleted and merged by AfD consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Donnelly and Wikipedia: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 [7] [8]. 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 [9] [10] (with the charming edit summaries "reverting editing who hasnt a clue what he is doing") the following exchange on my talk page:

Click on show to view the contents of this section

• 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:

Click on show to view the contents of this section

• Have a look at Talk:Patrick Joseph Kelly, all the AfDs involved substantial sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia: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. [11] [12]

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, [13] incivility, [14] [15] aggressive swearing [16] 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. [17] [18] 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? Rockpocket 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? Rockpocket 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 Rockpocket 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? Rockpocket 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? Rockpocket 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 Hackney₃₀₃ 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. Rockpocket 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. Rockpocket 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 [19] [20] 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. Rockpocket 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 [21] [22] [23] 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? Rockpocket 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.) Rockpocket 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: [24] [25] [26] [27] 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 [28] 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 [29] 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. Rockpocket 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.[30] 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 [31] 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. Rockpocket 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 [32] and this [33] 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

• 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.
  

Tyrenius (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Rockpocket 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 Hackney₃₀₃ 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. Rockpocket 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 Hackney₃₀₃ 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. Rockpocket 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 Hackney₃₀₃ 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 Hackney₃₀₃ 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 Hackney₃₀₃ 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 Hackney₃₀₃ 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 [34] 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. Rockpocket 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 Hackney₃₀₃ 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 Hackney₃₀₃ 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)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/W. Frank - that useful enough for you? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 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? Rockpocket 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 Hackney₃₀₃ 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. Rockpocket 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 Hackney₃₀₃ 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I revert those sorts of things when I see them [35] 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. Rockpocket 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? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 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. Rockpocket 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? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 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, [36] 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. Rockpocket 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? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 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..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 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. Rockpocket 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, I thought it was clear this was Troubles-specific? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 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. Rockpocket 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? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 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? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 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. Rockpocket 18:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ehhh - thats bullshit - when I was indef blocked from wiki I was causing zero disruption. I was editing boxing articles and staying away from wankers like you. But you were still stalking me - you said you wernt but then it came out why you were - stalking is much more of harassment then telling someone fuck off! As for abusing you - of course I am going to abuse you - you deserve it - you accused me of harassing you wife and kids you cheeky prick. Until you unequivically apologies for those comments, withdraw those comments and make a public statement to say that that is lies then I will continue to describe you in the terms that are most fitting. --Vinny Feeney Fan (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for responding. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet? The hole gets deeper. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It matters zero mate unless you understand Rockets bitter and twisted agenda! I tried the legit way now I'll do it my way --Vinny Feeney Fan (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)-