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

message: I'm a bit puzzled at my includement as a participant in this case and especially being called an aggressive point of view editor.
I've made very few pov edits to any articles on the Troubles never mind aggressive ones, with the only thing i can remember is two articles where i wanted to use the word murdered instead of killed - both of which where resolved, one quickly and amicably.
The other article i do admit i was at fault as i didn't know of the concensus (no-one informed me there was one until to late), which wasn't there as far as i know on the first article, yet i only made two reverts of killed to murder, yet when ONiH showed me the concensus i accepted it and stopped changing it. 
On other Troubles articles where i've made an edit (i think i could count on one hand the amount of articles) i've by on large just added a fact tag requesting source of claim.
I do admit i've made pov comments on talk pages of various articles however i do base my pov on facts (no point standing by non-facts), though sometimes my facts (such as recently on the IRA attack on Loughgall) are wrong and i duly accept my mistakes when they are made clear to me that i am wrong and apologise for any offences i've made if any. I've never aggressively abused anyone either, the worst i've done is accuse a couple of editors of republican-bias, which i know i shouldn't have done and where at times misguided comments, where i have apologised. 
Those users where VintageKits, BigDunc, and maybe DerryBoi. I apologised to BigDunc for my wrong presumptions on his pov, me and DerryBoi recently colloborated on tidying up the Tobermore article i'd contributed heavily to so we were (i assume) on peer-neutral terms and on VintageKits, we had a few disagreements but they where resolved or left to die but never anything serious. In fact i called for more npov editors to comment on the issue of VintageKits and his banning before his last banning as the whole issue was saturated with pov editors from the pro and anti VintageKits lobby's.
Is this directly about POV editing of Troubles articles, or because i have an opinion that murdered should be used instead of killed in certain circumstances? As of the my recent debate with ONiH, when he showed me concensus for killed above murder, i'm abstaining from the whole killed/murder thing, as i view it as a matter of circumstance which will contrast with someone else's view and it'd be easier for me to leave the whole issue for someone else to waste their time with. 
I've never editted or commented on the Ulster banner article or the Bayonets one mentioned in this project page. I've debated NPOV and offered soluions to the Ulster banner's usage on another discussion page about it but thats it.
I really am surprised at my inclusion here. 
Check my block log and you'll see i've never being blocked. I've never being threatened with a block, and i've never had a formal Wikipedia warning from an admin or editor to my name for anything that i've done on Wikipedia, yet now i'm in the proposed list for probation! 
Mabuska 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. There's always the occasional editor that wanders inadvertantly into the Troubles related minefield. Some are more than willing to listen to reason and abide by existing agreements (or take part in further discussions with regard to new agreements), while others are intent on having "their" way no matter what. From what little I've seen, Mabuska belongs in the first group. One Night In Hackney303 04:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mabuska is a realatively new editor. Mostly edits his local village article of Tobermore - I havent had cross words with him as such but have had to teach him how to tone down slight good faith POV and OR, and also use citations properly.--Vintagekits 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it okay for me to make a comment in the discussion here?

message: I'll leave the discussions/arguments about concerned parties up to someone else, but it might be an idea for it to have some built in latitude. For example there's the whole Derry/Londonderry situation where the county is referred to as Londonderry and the city as Derry. This is frequently changed on many articles by IP editors, so it would seem slightly harsh for an editor's weekly revert "allowance" to be used up by reverting back to the WP:IMOS agreement. One Night In Hackney303 04:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if there is a way to derive a bot to keep the "londonderry/derry" issue straight and revert the IP's?  Then the regular editors don't have to get fired up about it any longer?  A limited article sort of bot, that also only looks at contributions from ip's?  --Rocksanddirt 16:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't the locals always call it "Stroke City"? - we could always emulate them, as they seen to have a better developed sense of humour than can be found here. Giano 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A bot like the one Rocksanddirt suggests is probably not needed. Let's put it this way. I'm pretty sure that ArbCom will take an extremely dim view of anyone who uses IP's to get around the 1 revert/week probation. Also, the administrators are not covered under this probation as it stands, and you can ask an admin to fix factual errors (they won't be continuing your edit wars for you however!) Also, any and all IP addresses that get involved in the conflict will promptly be added to the people who the remedies apply to (see that section of the remedies). And finally, if IP abuse still gets out of hand, well, semi-protection of the articles is rather easy. SirFozzie 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it just seems a bit overly bureaucratic to have to message an admin to perform a revert that needs to be done, and would normally be done on sight. I think it's simpler for everyone for some common sense latitude to be applied to the probation. One Night In Hackney303 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Problem with that is, that although you'd think it would be self-evident, common sense isn't. Hence this case - Alison ❤ 19:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Fred has taken the concerns of ONiH and others in hand with regards to this and modified the proposed solution. SirFozzie 20:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a double tricky resolution....deals with ONIH's issue, and makes the use if ip's to avoid the probation remedies moot, as reverting the ip's doesn't count.  --Rocksanddirt 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on probation

message: Arbitrators are respectfully referred to my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Workshop#Motion to close the workshop.
I also endorse the comment that the decision in this case needs to address the culpability of individual editors on a more nuanced basis than it has done to this point. It is unfortunate that for all the pounds of virtual ink that the parties have spilled on the workshop page, they have provided little assistance to the arbitrators in this effort. Newyorkbrad 00:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators please note 

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

message: Would it hurt anyone if Vintagekits were allowed to edit his boxing pages, specifically Michael Gomez while the Arbcom is deliberating this case? Giano 06:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Giano. He's been indefinitely blocked due to harassment and intimidation. No "war of attrition" here. VK agreed to his unblocking for the ArbCom case only and a number of admins and other editors endorsed those rules. Now, at the latter end of the ArbCom case, you want to push the boat out and bend the rules. Given his history, the answer from me is "no". - Alison ❤ 06:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The terms of Vk's temporary unblocking were defined explicitly at the time: to permit him to contribute to this ArbCom and nothing else until ArbCom ruled on his current block. This was agreed upon on discussion among a number of admins. If any change is to be made, I would propose the block be reinstated, as he appears to have said all he wishes to here. Especially as he has been "dabbling" in other pages with increasing frequency (which, I'm sure, all the admins involved have noticed but overlooked). Rockpocket 06:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alison - Blocking me, as you threaten on VK's page, would be futile because like so many others I am sick to death of wikipedia, only kept here by addiction and the desire to maintain and protect what I have already written. The sight of so many admins, like yourself,  who seldom write a proper  page skipping about telling others how to behave is nauseating. It must be very hard for those such as you to understand how those that do write, feel about a page. Let's face it the final and ultimate reason VK was blocked was because you wrongly believed he had sent threatening emails to WFrank - to whom you chat on the telephone for up to an hour at a time. Now we all know those emails do not exist - and you are too vain to back down. Giano 06:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope. Nice try but no cigar, Giano. Plenty of hand-waving and little facts, as usual. Take care now! :) - Alison ❤ 07:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vintagekits allowed to update his boxing pages 

message: I proposed two remedies on the Workshop page to try to satisfy the concerns of the ArbCom members who opposed the general probation proposal, saying that the burden fell on people differently. I decided to only list the people who have actually been blocked for editwarring. SirFozzie 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to harp on it, but I think it definitely needs to be clarified whom (if anyone) will be placed on probation and what, if any, the terms of that probation are. We have VK being unblocked and able to edit under the terms of the probation, but right now, we have no probation terms accepted in the proposed decision. SirFozzie 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry I'm sure all will be made clear - eventually. Giano 15:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The holdup is my reluctance to break down the list of persons affected by individuals. I suspect mere laziness. However, I would appreciate feedback on the list of folks who would be subject to editing restrictions. Are some included who should not be, or vice-versus? Fred Bauder 16:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a case for rmovinh the name of ONIH, otherwise I think it should be left as it is, with all included. Giano 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the terms are not particularly restrictive and probably good practice for such a controversial subject anyway, I tend to agree with Giano. However, the Arbitrators don't seem to concur and appear unwilling to endorse a blanket proposal, if this is not passed we essentially have no probation for anyone, which is a much worse situation (for everyone). We have to find some agreeable compromise. Rockpocket 18:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, reading it again, it appears the conditions of the probation are set under proposed enforcement. So as it stands we have Vk and "any users who join in the edit warring"..."limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation." Those who "violate the terms of the probation may be blocked for an appropriate period of time" and "may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility". That is fairly clear, I suppose. What is undefined is the extent and limit of "the set of articles included in the probation". Is this open to the interpretation of administrators? Is it a good idea to set some guidance on this in advance? Rockpocket 19:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding goes like this. Essentially the committee were happy with Fred Bauder's proposed probation restriction but unhappy with the list of names and have passed this to the community, except for Vintagekits who is on the probation by implication. So, there is a one revert per week probation on articles relating to the troubles for Vintagekits and for any other editor placed on it by an uninvolved admin. Editors can only be placed on probation for good cause and I would have thought any disputes over whether an editor should or should not be on probation would be handled on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Is this right? Sam Blacketer 10:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have never been a editor that has partically cared for editwarring and the ones I have been involved in has invariably been instigated by Astrotrain who for many month gave you on constructive editing and solely logged in to revert and leave - I am also concerned that Rockpocket is once again trying to focus this all on my again despite the fact that the nasty underbelly of the activities of many editors have been exposed.--Vintagekits 10:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Give the victimization routine a rest, Vk. I'm trying to establish - in advance, before there is a need to invoke it - that we all are on the same wavelength with regards to what the committee have ruled. I think your interpretation is valid, Sam. Rockpocket 00:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Took a whack at moving this forward

message: Does this mean I can start editing now?--Vintagekits 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not til the case is closed. Fred Bauder 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You has better ask Alyson. Giano 18:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should probably wait until the case is closed, Vk. As you can see from the discussion above, there is some hope that we can get some firm probationary measures passed and therefore they may still be some action on proposals with regards to your editing. Rockpocket 18:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best not to risk it - email an Arbcom member for some advice. It is most unlikely that you will face any restrictions on your boxing pages though so ask if you can edit them. Giano 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The case is likely to formally close within the next day or two. It really shouldn't make a difference if you jump the gun slightly, but the prudent thing to do would be to wait until then. When you do resume editing, please remember the cautions that have been expressed to you. Maximum efforts from everyone to maintain a reasonably collegial, or at least minimally civil, editing environment are mandatory from this point forward. Newyorkbrad 00:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  That's Alison with an I, Guano. VK, as this is about to close very soon, jumping the gun would not be the thing to do, especially as we had an agreement regarding your unblocking. Once the lame-duck ArbCom case ends, judging from its current direction, you should be free to edit under the same restrictions as everyone else, soon :) - Alison ❤ 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this edit  When a cure for dyslexia is invented then you have the write to piss take, until that happy day shut the fuck up, or at least hang on to the insults. Giano 11:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My sincere apologies, Giano. I don't know what came over me. Please forgive me. And yes, I do hope a cure is found for your affliction. - Alison ❤ 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I will sit it out for a few more days then. Ally, can you restore my Lennoxtown and OMacB sandbox, cheers?--Vintagekits 09:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gah! Did I not send you that? Oops. Just a sec .... - Alison ❤ 10:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Back :) - Alison ❤ 10:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I got my article on Oistin but I aint got Lennoxtown. cheers--Vintagekits 14:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Umm - it's right here. Click the 'back' link above - you might have missed it - Alison ❤ 15:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nicve one, just found it. ta! --Vintagekits 16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 5 votes to free me

message: Please can arbcom clarify the use of the term "uninvolved admin" in Proposed remedies#Additional_participants_2.
Does it mean:
*an admin not involved in that bout of edit warring
*an admin who has not listed as a party to this arbcom case 
... or something else? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the decision does not find fault with the admins, my assumption would be the latter - though perhaps those in the appropriate position can confirm. Sam Blacketer 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the former, an admin not involved in that bout of edit warring.--Padraig 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I do! Sam Blacketer 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meaning who? No admins were involved. - Kittybrewster  ☎ 03:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kittybrewster, I think what is meant that if any admin (including the ones mentioned as parties in this case), catches any of the usual edit-warring going on at the usual articles, as long as the admin is not actively participating in the edit war in question have the power to place the participants of the edit war under the terms of the probation as mentioned in this case.  SirFozzie 11:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins shouldn't edit-war at all, but they might quite legitimately support one side or the other. My definition of an uninvolved admin is one who does not, either overtly or covertly, have strong opinions on the subject of the immediate dispute. Sam Blacketer 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the admins will inevitably be accused of bias, depending on whom they block. - Kittybrewster  ☎ 14:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An uninvolved admin must be someone who can be identified as being clearly independent. Not just one who says he/she has no view or involvement on a situation but who, from a check of their user page or their contributions, clearly has a conflict of interest. David Lauder 11:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify "uninvolved admin" 

message: Huh? - Kittybrewster  ☎ 07:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British Baronets

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

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