Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]]

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Thepiper|Thepiper]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Change of title of case

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Ok, will do. Thanks. Rockpocket 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query for clerk 

message: 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)
replies: text: He emails me too. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I email a lot of people!--Vintagekits 08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request from Vintagekits 

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

message: ====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)
thread_title:  2 things that I didn't caught that should've been moved... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Traditional unionist|Traditional Unionist]]

message: Moved to TER. One Night In Hackney303 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to include a link if a thread is moved: WP:TER. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Astrotrain]]

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

text: *no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry. Don't play me for a fool. They are the same editor, a sock, end of. --Domer48'fenian' 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * You need to take it up with that checkuser, then; she was the one that closed the SSP report. Black Kite 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I'm commenting in my capacity as admin patrolling WP:AE and responding to enforcement requests there. Ryan is right in that I won't (and have no authority to) overrule any admin enforcing the "Troubles" case as he or she sees fit. However, the "Troubles" decision does not, as Ryan seems to believe, provide for discretionary sanctions. Instead, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors, it provides that disruptive editors may be put on Wikipedia:Probation and, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement, that these editors are then subject to 1RR. That is the arbitral decision that can and should be enforced at WP:AE, including by me.
The section entitled Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case, which purports to put all articles in the area of conflict under 1RR, on the other hand, is not an enforceable arbitral decision, since it was apparently never voted on by the Committee. Its author, Rlevse, has confirmed this at . That is why I will not act on enforcement requests concerning it.
I recommend that the Committee:
* remove the section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case from the case page or leave a comment so as not to cause others to mistake it for an operative remedy, and
* if it feels that this is warranted (I've too little experience in this area to comment on this), properly amend the case to provide for either a general 1RR restriction on the area of conflict, or for discretionary sanctions as with other comparable cases.  Sandstein  05:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Sandstein 

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

message: Having opposed the sanctions, or I should say how they came about I must concede that they have had a positive effect. They have reduced the edit warring and encouraged discussion. POV warriors have been marginalised with disruptive editing being quickly closed down most of the time. Some Admin’s with a particular bias (admin’s can and do have biased opinions) have been reluctant to address the actions of some editors but the 1RR has proved itself despite this. We all know what the sanctions entail, and have clarified through experience what 1RR is and how it operates. For example, a number of reverts without intermediate edits in between is considered to be 1 revert. 
So what I’d suggest is that the sanctions be placed on a separate page with the block log transferred to it.  It should include:
*All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
*All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
*Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
*Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered. 
*As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, it is up to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: 
*These final remedies have been linked to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case. 
It should also include what we mean by 1RR, so there is no ambiguity.  If it is felt that criteria no.1 is not clear enough expand it. The template be changed to direct editors to the appropriate page, including a link on  Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case in case any templates are missed during the page change. That’s my 2 cents worth, as to simply remove the sanctions would be counter productive.--Domer48'fenian' 09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Domer48 

message: Maybe if Elonka was as quick to admit her mistake and clarify the log then we wouldn't have an edit war on this page. My edit was not comment it was a clarification of the block. As it stands it is ambiguous as to what happened. When it was an admin making a mistake and not the editor. BigDunc 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War  

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

message: Where am i to post for an explanation about why British National Party has suddenly been described as a troubles related article. The BNP have nothing to do with the troubles, they are a far right political party in the UK not a loyalist paramilitary group.
WHy are people allowed to go around adding any article they like claiming its troubled related when it clearly isnt?  BritishWatcher (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Elonka seems also to be of the view that the Scotland article is somehow Troubles-related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irvine22#Probation
This is the sort of thing that gets the project its reputation as an internet dog's breakfast. Nae wunner ye canna mak ony geld oot o'it.Irvine22 (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: Several and I believe a large majority of users have stated views that the BNP is not particularly linked to The Troubles and not more so than any British or Irish political party, so adding the  banner seems highly inappropriate. The article is currently being edited 'aggressively' by several editors, but also discussed, reasonably productively, on the talk page and while some editing restirction might be appropriate, but these should be brought though the normal methods, not by expanding another controversial area. --Natet/c 11:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Nate1481 

message: There is no reason at all for the BNP article to be listed as "troubles related". The British National Party is a right wing political party in the United Kingdom, they are not a loyalist paramilitary group in Northern Ireland. The article mentions the BNPs policy towards Ireland, but all political parties in the UK have policies towards Ireland Conservative party (UK), Liberal Democrats. Labour party (UK) all mention Ireland yet they would never be classed as troubles related. The edit wars that were taking place on that article had nothing to do with Ireland matters, it was about the fact the BNP is a right wing racist whites only political party. 
If the BNP article can be considered troubles related then its clearly not what arbcom originally agreed to. The sanctions have been in place for about two years and only now has the BNP became a "troubles related article"? Its important to remember how this all came about.
The first mentions of the troubles on the BNP talk page from what i can see was on the 16th of November 2009 by  User:Off2riorob. He was moaning about people being anti BNP and he said..
::"what is it about the irish troubles editors editing this article, I don't get it? why is that? Is it an IRA thing?" 
The suggestion that anyones position on that page was an "IRA thing" was rather offensive, i am certainly no supporter of a terrorist organisation and i do not think others involved on the article at the time were either. The vast majority of the British people hate the BNP, the idea that article is being influenced by IRA supporters was rather stange and this has nothing to do with "British nationalism towards Ireland". Anyway he went on to mention troubles related editors again , and then he said.. 
::"you good day are also involved in the troubles editing, please comment as to the reason the editors involed in those articles are involved here, should I ask Elonka to add this article as troubled related conditions as so many of the editors involved in those disputes are editing here?"
Is it really acceptable to claim an article is troubles related just because several editors are also involved in the troubles articles? If that is possible then any article we go to could have such sanctions imposed, even things that are nothing to do with Britain and Ireland. He made a couple more comments about The troubles editors and then Elonka came along and said the article was troubles related, with NO debate. The only reason Elonka did that was because of Off2riorob. 
This matter needs clearing up. I am concerned at this very moment Elonka is seeking to have admin powers expanded in relations to the troubles yet the current powers are being misused. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_The_Troubles Also some of Elonkas comments about the action taken concern me and i think the justification is clearly not in line with the current arbcom ruling.
::"My attention was drawn to the article because of the recent edit-warring, which appeared to be an overflow dispute with involved editors who routinely edit Troubles-related articles. The article also falls within the proper scope. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, and the subsequent community amendment in October 2008, the scope of the case is defined as, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." The article British National Party is clearly within that scope. Just search for the term "Ireland" in the article and read about the Party's policies. " 
That basically says if it mentions Ireland it can be considered related.
and 
::"It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case."  
Which basically says The troubles sanctions can be imposed on articles that have nothing to do with The Troubles. 
Anyway clarification on this matter would be very useful. In particular the BNP article needs to be correctly removed from "troubles related" articles, but a more general clarification about what is and is not reasonably connected to the troubles would be useful. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by BritishWatcher 

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

message: Agree with the above two comments, as well as with the many others who have commented in two separate threads on Elonka's talk page. It is pretty hard to argue that the BNP page (which I have never edited btw) is a "Troubles-related" article, and the dispute in question there is most certainly not. Nor is it related to the broader question of "British nationalism in relation to Ireland". If this is how wide the net is going to be drawn, pretty much every article on Wikipedia can probably be brought under an existing ArbCom decision. In this case for example, there's a stronger argument for having the Conservative Party and Glasgow Rangers Football Club subjected to the Troubles regime, since the connections there are much stronger than for the BNP. Sure you have to have flexibility, and someone arguing for example that the Easter Rising or the Border Campaign, or even some parts of the Oliver Cromwell article, are not connected to The Troubles, is indeed probably Wikilawyering - but that's a very different situation.
On the wider point, I would also express concern that an admin has suddenly descended on the page to make a unilateral declaration of this sort and to start imposing special restrictions on the article, and potentially the editors there, without any sort of consensus from ArbCom or the wider community for them to start doing that. Furthermore, repeated observations to them from multiple editors that they might have made an error of fact are repeatedly stonewalled or even ignored with a repeated pro-forma response, eg here. If there are problems on that article - which there are fairly likely to be, after all - address them of course, possibly even with severe action, but don't do it under a regime designed explicitly for something else altogether. 
The admin in question also appears to be deploying the argument that the terms of the Troubles ruling say "when in doubt, assume [the article] is related". Well, as has been pointed out, there isn't much doubt that the BNP is not a related article. I and others have provided examples of cases where there might be a genuine debate, and hence doubt, about the relevance of an article or parts of one, where one could perhaps invoke that principle and err on the side of inclusion. Ultimately though these decisions are actually fairly simple - eg the Bill Clinton page is not "Troubles-related", but that small part of the page which discusses his involvement in Northern Ireland is. To argue that because one editor/admin has asserted that the entire BNP page is related, the doubt as to whether it is or isn't therefore does now exist and consequently they are right to apply the template, is a rather classic example of self-serving sophistry, to be blunt. Any claims as well that their action has helped sort out problems on the article are also somewhat irrelevant as i) it is simply the wrong template to apply, regardless; and ii) it is simply an assertion of causality, without evidence. I think we need clarification of the issue in question, as well as some sort of comment on whether this sort of unilateral action, based on a pretty fundamental misjudgement and/or an overzealous interpretation of prior rulings, is appropriate in future. --Nickhh (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Nickhh 

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

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

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

message: The BNP topic is not "British Nationalism in relation to Ireland". Perhaps a special clause could be added for such articles but as linking Irish Nationalism to British Nationalism could be misleading in many critical ideological ways, declaring such articles to be "Troubles related" or even Nationalist in relation to Irish Nationalism without a direct connection is bound to produce dissaproval. The list of diffs shown by Elonika appears to be an edit war started  and largely continued by me . The issue, if it is of any consequence here, is wether to rely upon the disparity between third party sources and the primary source rather than providing information about the disparity, with barely even speculative relation to Ireland let alone The Troubles. Apologies... perhaps there is a model whereby these sanctions could be introduced to "Troubled Article"s without labelling them with any particular politic or ArbCom case?
Self-explanitory note: for any unassuming of the fact that political partys may be in no way connected to The Troubles in the manner that Monster Raving Looney Party is not, for instance. 
As suggested by User:Nickhh above, there is much more direct scope for insertion of British political parties which have been in government during the Troubles period. Can't think of anything else. ~ R.T.G 23:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by RTG

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

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

message: Hi, not sure I quite understand the point being made here. Are you agreeing there was no need to invoke the ArbCom Troubles decision in dealing with any problems on the BNP page? Or are you saying that because it now has been, but by an individual admin rather than by ArbCom, any review should be at AN/ANI or using some form of DR rather than here? We tried reasoning with Elonka on her talkpage but were brushed off. We tried going to ANI and were told to ask for formal clarification here, which is what has been done, but no one seems willing to give it. A mixture of one editor/admin's astonishing stubborness and refusal to admit a mistake, combined with the usual bureaucratic "oh no mate, you want Dept 4B, other building", seem to be conspiring to make this all rather complicated when it's all rather simple really. Correcting a rather obvious mistake really shouldn't take this much time and effort. It is all quite surreal
*Clarification of the Troubles decision - does it cover the BNP page, as 99% of involved and uninvolved editors have said it doesn't?
*Clarification re Elonka's action - should she have just unilaterally imposed the tag and associated restrictions on the page?
Thanks, --Nickhh (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Vassyana

message: Please could the provided clarification to this problem be clarified. 
Does an Admin have the right to label any article Troubles related because several editors from the troubles are involved at the article? 
If an article mentions a sentence or two about a policy on Ireland and there is an edit war over something totally unreleated, can the fact there is one sentence on Ireland be used to justify placing that article under troubles related restrictions?
Yes or no to these two questions would be most helpful, its a pretty simple question that has been very well avoided in the extensive response below. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to clarification provided 

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

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

message: * tl:dr version: My initial thoughts are that this should be resolved at the community level. Hash it out there, without the involved editors overwhelming the discussion. I do not see why this cannot be reviewed normally like other disputes about administrator actions. Vassyana (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Full rationale: The Arbitration Committee has generally recognized community-based clarifications, implementations, and expansions of area-targeted remedies and sanctions. The results of arbitration cases do not preclude additional community imposed warnings, conditions, or sanctions on any individual area or editor. The additional clarifications and conditions related to the Troubles case are noted in the arbitration enforcement log. Similarly, the presence of an ongoing arbitration case or arbitration remedies does not impede or prohibit administrators from acting normally using existing policies, norms, tools, and processes. Normal administrative actions and actions otherwise taken under the scope of community level decisions should be resolved normally at the community level. The Arbitration Committee should only intervene when it is clear that the available options have exhausted and/or a dispute cannot be resolved at the community level. If any action taken under community conditions is disputed, the regular avenues for resolving disputed administrator actions should be utilized. That means such disputes should use normal dispute resolution options and seek community input, as recommended in the administrator policy. Vassyana (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

text: * I will not intervene as an arbitrator nor encourage the Committee to intervene on a community imposed or expanded sanction unless it is clear the question cannot be resolved by the community. Even if it were purely a matter of an arbitration remedy, which it is distinctly not in this instance, things should still be resolved at the community level whenever possible. Some confrontational discussion and a derailed ANI thread does not comprise much of an attempt to resolve this at the community level. If people are saying "hands off this has to go to ArbCom", or any analogue thereof, they are mistaken. I should also note that if attempts at community discussion are derailed, overwhelmed, or otherwise disrupted by involved parties that when this returns to our doorstep, I will be looking at least as much at that as the administrator actions. Vassyana (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: * Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies
: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; temporary bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; temporary bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; temporary restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
: The scope of these sanctions may include any article in conflict that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, or British nationalism. When there is doubt as to whether or not an article falls within the scope of this case, assume it is related.
: For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.
: Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to this case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor.
==== Statement by Elonka ====
Discretionary sanctions have been routinely authorized in other nationalist topic areas, such as Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia, and so forth. However, they were never specifically authorized in the Troubles topic area, possibly because the Troubles case is such an old one (from 2007, when ArbCom did not start routinely authorizing discretionary sanctions until 2008). This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Wikipedia. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems. This would serve the project well, as with a discretionary sanction in place, a targeted editor would still be allowed and encouraged to edit constructively in other areas of the project.  
I have personally used discretionary sanctions to good effect in multiple other topic areas, and can vouch for their effectiveness.  A complete list of every formal warning or sanction I have placed is at User:Elonka/ArbCom log, but a few examples of creative sanctions include:
* Banning one editor from one article and its talkpage for one week.
* Banning one editor from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days.
* Banning one editor from editing the lead section of one article for one month.
I should point out though, that in actual practice, specific sanctions were rarely needed.  Mainly it was the possibility of sanctions that was useful. In most cases, simply warning an editor that they were at risk of being placed under discretionary sanctions, was all that was needed to encourage them to voluntarily moderate their own behavior.  
To see examples of sanctions which other administrators have used, see:
* Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans
* Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans
* Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
The Armenia-Azerbaijan situation is a good case study for this.  I have never personally implemented sanctions in this topic area, but I did note that the first case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, in April 2007, did not include discretionary sanctions.  The conflict in the topic area continued, and resulted in a second case a few months later, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2.  In the second case, discretionary sanctions were authorized, and with administrators empowered to use creative sanctions (example), a third Arbitration case has not been needed.  
The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008 and October-November 2009. A recent (November 2009) attempt was made to authorize discretionary sanctions via community discussion at ANI, but though a majority of uninvolved editors were in support of the idea, there was not a clear consensus.  So I'm bringing this here, for a formal determination by ArbCom. It is my hope that if discretionary sanctions can be authorized in the topic area of Irish and British nationalism, we can avoid a case with a name such as "The Troubles 2". --Elonka 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Amendment 1: New remedy: Discretionary Sanctions

message: Discretionary sanctions have been routinely authorized in other nationalist topic areas, such as Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia, and so forth. However, they were never specifically authorized in the Troubles topic area, possibly because the Troubles case is such an old one (from 2007, when ArbCom did not start routinely authorizing discretionary sanctions until 2008). This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Wikipedia. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems. This would serve the project well, as with a discretionary sanction in place, a targeted editor would still be allowed and encouraged to edit constructively in other areas of the project.  
I have personally used discretionary sanctions to good effect in multiple other topic areas, and can vouch for their effectiveness.  A complete list of every formal warning or sanction I have placed is at User:Elonka/ArbCom log, but a few examples of creative sanctions include:
* Banning one editor from one article and its talkpage for one week.
* Banning one editor from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days.
* Banning one editor from editing the lead section of one article for one month.
I should point out though, that in actual practice, specific sanctions were rarely needed.  Mainly it was the possibility of sanctions that was useful. In most cases, simply warning an editor that they were at risk of being placed under discretionary sanctions, was all that was needed to encourage them to voluntarily moderate their own behavior.  
To see examples of sanctions which other administrators have used, see:
* Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans
* Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans
* Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
The Armenia-Azerbaijan situation is a good case study for this.  I have never personally implemented sanctions in this topic area, but I did note that the first case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, in April 2007, did not include discretionary sanctions.  The conflict in the topic area continued, and resulted in a second case a few months later, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2.  In the second case, discretionary sanctions were authorized, and with administrators empowered to use creative sanctions (example), a third Arbitration case has not been needed.  
The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008 and October-November 2009. A recent (November 2009) attempt was made to authorize discretionary sanctions via community discussion at ANI, but though a majority of uninvolved editors were in support of the idea, there was not a clear consensus.  So I'm bringing this here, for a formal determination by ArbCom. It is my hope that if discretionary sanctions can be authorized in the topic area of Irish and British nationalism, we can avoid a case with a name such as "The Troubles 2". --Elonka 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Elonka 

message: The articles within the topic area of Irish and British nationalism are subject to large quantities of tag team edit-warring.  The articles are technically under 1RR (one revert per editor per article per day), but when teams of editors on each side engage in the battle, 1RR means very little, since we'll just get a stream of different editors coming through, all reverting each other. For example at Sinn Féin, there has been a longterm edit war about whether the infobox should state that the founding date of the organization was 1905 or 1970.  Other disputes overflow to articles that have a more tenuous connection to the topic area, but are still clearly the same editors battling over issues of nationalism. For example,  created articles about soccer players from Northern Ireland, such as Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer) and Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer), and move wars erupted as to whether the articles should be disambiguated as "(Northern Irish footballer)" or "(Northern Ireland footballer)". The dispute has also overflowed to the Scotland article, with an edit war over Scotland's national anthem.  Another overflow article is at British National Party, about an extremist political group which has policies related to Northern Ireland. Though not directly related to "The Troubles", it is still an article in the British/Irish nationalism topic area, and is a location where established editors continue to revert each other.
Any action taken by an administrator in this topic area, no matter how minor or how clearly supported by policy, is usually immediately challenged by one side or the other of these battling editors.  Challenges range from well-coordinated wiki-lawyering and  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments, to accusations of bias and incompetence, and sometimes out and out personal attacks.  It takes considerable fortitude for an administrator to deal with this, and the frustration is enhanced by the fact that administrators have very few tools at their disposal in this topic area.  We can remind people of 1RR (1 revert per article per day) or put them on probation (1 revert per article per week), but with the coordinated tag team efforts, the edit-warring at the articles continues. If discretionary sanctions were authorized though, uninvolved administrators could implement more specific sanctions.  For possible examples:
* Implementing 0RR on an article's infobox
* Banning an editor from reverting any good faith edits, unless they are already engaged in discussion at the article's talkpage (this in particular would help in eliminating "drive-by" reverts)
* Banning a particular editor from editing one or more articles, but still allowing them to participate at the talkpages.
* Banning an editor from creating new articles that use titles not supported by previous consensus
* Banning editors from removing reliable sources from an article
These kinds of sanctions would force the battling parties to cease their coordinated edit wars.  This would (hopefully) encourage them to find other methods of dealing with disputes, such as to work through the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and work on crafting an actual consensus version of each article. --Elonka 21:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Elonka's reply to Vassyana

message: ==== Statement by GoodDay====
The proposed amendment is acceptable. Afterall, my proposal of barring self-proclaimed British & Irish editors from those articles, hasn't been endorsed. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually appereciate it if as part of these new remedies, the numerous instances of unsubstantiated soapboxing commentary were addressed by admins as and when they see it. Highking has been asked time and again to put up or shut up with regards to his pet theories over the result of the Ireland naming poll, and he has been reminded time and again who the authority is to which he needs to appeal if he thinks the result was an abuse or does not reflect the NPOV, so far he has done nothing except continue to make these unsubstantiated allegations, poisoning the atmosphere, presumably on the 'say it enought times and it becomes true' principle. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

text: As with the BNP example, the Scotland example is another dispute that had nothing to do with British - Irish relations, on an article that had nothing to do with British - Irish relations. The common thread here is apparently editors, not article topics, so why are topic based sanctions such as placing articles on 1RR being used here? If a full case is needed to deal with editors so that we don't have to start labelling everything and anything they might ever touch as under Troubles restrictions, then lets have it. MickMacNee (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  "It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case."
If that is currently the rules then god knows what will happen if the attempt to expand Admins powers is granted. How on earth can The troubles sanctions be applied to artciles that dont have anything to do with the troubles? This needs sorting out and clarifying to stop admins going around imposing martial law in such a way with threats that anyone can be banned or blocked without warning if they violate a 1RR. Authoritarian is too light a word to use.BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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

text: Comment: On the last point, this is a serious matter. The purpose of this project is to write an encyclopedia, it's not social club. "Discretionary" powers emphasises keeping order, not writing/improving content. "Removing" an editor may have a very calming effect on an article but it does nothing to address genuine problems the content may have. It's an answer to a content dispute that relies on "removing" editors that say there is a problem with the content. That's doesn't solve anything, it just makes belief that there is no content dispute. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

text: The community-based restrictions put in place on articles in this area (1RR rule on all editors, etcetera) will be continued for a minimum of 60 days from the conclusion of this motion. 30 days after the conclusion of this motion, the ArbCom will invite comment on whether to continue these restrictions as they stand for a period of time, to modify them, or to let them expire. Involved editors are invited to discuss these restrictions, but the greater uninvolved community's thoughts and desires will take precedence.
This would allow us two months of phase in time, to see who gets placed under discretionary sanctions, etcetera, while continuing the general sanctions and seeing if they're still needed. SirFozzie (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any update on this, prior to the US Thanksgiving break? SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

message: Discretionary sanctions are more than needed for ongoing disputes in the area of British - Irish relations, broadly construed, primarily because of the ongoing poor behaviour of the editors involved, rather than any inherent problem with the topic. However, I have extreme concerns over the potential scope of this, and the wording needs to be extremely precise. The committee should read User_talk:Elonka#Placing_British_National_Party_under_1RR for an example of where the scope of the term "...British nationalism in relation to Ireland" has already been taken way too far, to chilling effect, to impose a Troubles case restriction on an article which has barely anything to do with British - Irish relations, in order to deal with an ongoing dispute that didn't even encompass British-Irish relations in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually appereciate it if as part of these new remedies, the numerous instances of unsubstantiated soapboxing commentary were addressed by admins as and when they see it. Highking has been asked time and again to put up or shut up with regards to his pet theories over the result of the Ireland naming poll, and he has been reminded time and again who the authority is to which he needs to appeal if he thinks the result was an abuse or does not reflect the NPOV, so far he has done nothing except continue to make these unsubstantiated allegations, poisoning the atmosphere, presumably on the 'say it enought times and it becomes true' principle. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

message: The Troubles case currently points to WP:Probation, apparently referencing this version. We have moved well beyond that, and we need some sort of update. As for "the community discussing this" you can urge as much as you want, but from where I am sitting, the community at large is not interested in the issue, although they are occasionally interested in the abstract topic of admin power. I appreciate the concerns that LessHeard vanU and those less eloquent but still in agreement with him have. I can only respond "tough." The intense partisanship in the topic area, combined with the already unpleasant topic (partisan bloodshed over the course of many years), combined with editors quick to point fingers and accuse of bias have made it impossible for any sort of "reasonable" solution. New editors to the area (the lifeblood of solving these sorts of problems) are quickly run out or simply frustrated the hostility of the editing environment. The goal at the end of the day is a good quality encyclopedia - to reach that end, we need a normalized editing environment, or as close as we're going to get, and discretionary sanctions are the only tool we have that can do that.
The only alternative is the community stepping up and really making a real effort. If twenty, or even ten completely disinterested neutral editors showed up everyday to work on the topic are, that would fix pretty much everything. I would welcome the community's interaction with open arms, and gladly put my tools away and STFU, and let them on their merry way if so asked. If arbcom has any brilliant ideas on how to achieve that, awesome. I've made a couple not-so-brilliant suggestions myself on this neglected RfC. Until we get the collective balls to really take on these situations though, I insist that the poor sods who try to keep the peace or at least stop the pressure from boiling over be given tools that don't reference an extinct procedure.--Tznkai (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Tznkai

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

message: I also strongly oppose the extension of Admin powers on this case agreeing with many of the points raised in previous statements. The situation over at British National Party and the conversation that has taken place over at User_talk:Elonka#Placing_British_National_Party_under_1RR highlights the dangers of the current powers, the idea such power should be expanded is deeply concerning.
Here is the quote by Elonka on her talk page
"Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, and the subsequent community amendment in October 2008, the scope of the case is defined as, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." The article British National Party is clearly within that scope. Just search for the term "Ireland" in the article and read about the Party's policies."
That is basically saying that any article which mentions a policy on Ireland or mentions Ireland could fall foul of the troubles restrictions. I consider this a gross misinterpretation of the original ruling by Arbcom. This matter of the BNP article urgently needs to be addressed and could be considered here as its on this same topic. If the BNP is troubles related which is a political party in the UK but not related to Northern Ireland nationalism / loyalist groups then all UK and Ireland political parties must also have such restrictions.
Conservative Party (UK) - Mentions they support devolution for Northern Ireland. 
Labour Party (UK) - Mentions Northern Ireland on several occasions, including not allowing people in northern Ireland at one point to join the party.
Liberal Democrats - Mentions the fact they do not contest elections in Northern Ireland.
These are just a couple of political parties. Every single political party in the UK and Ireland has a policy on Ireland. The idea we must apply restrictions to all those articles is simply a huge expansion of the current Arbcom ruling on the troubles issues. Again i strongly oppose the expansion of Admin powers on this matter as it has been proven current powers have been so clearly misused. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  "It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case."
If that is currently the rules then god knows what will happen if the attempt to expand Admins powers is granted. How on earth can The troubles sanctions be applied to artciles that dont have anything to do with the troubles? This needs sorting out and clarifying to stop admins going around imposing martial law in such a way with threats that anyone can be banned or blocked without warning if they violate a 1RR. Authoritarian is too light a word to use.BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by BritishWatcher 

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

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

message: I don't object to this amendment. I think for it to be successful, we would have to have a rather strict interpretation of "uninvolved" (for example, I wouldn't dream of using these sanctions myself). I think many of the participants fear admins who they have a history with would use these unfairly. It may put some minds at rest for those of us admins who have been active in this area to make it clear they would have no intention of using these. 
I also think judicious and creative use of such sanctions can and would have a strong positive effect. For example, removing a single disruptive presence from an article and talk page can do wonders for improving the editing atmosphere. Often just one individual can be the driving force behind divisiveness. Remove that editor specifically, even for a short time, and other editors from both sides may find a consensus on an acceptable middle ground. As a practical example, see the section at Talk:Dunmanway killings#Use of "informer" and the one below, and compare with the discussions in the sections above it. Note the difference in tone and, consequently, how sensible editors coming from many perspectives managed to have a civil and constructive discussion and apply that to the article. Its my interpretation that the absence of a single editor from both the talk page and article was the key difference. I think is amendment could permit this type of progress to occur more often. Rockpocket 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Rockpocket

message: Definitely no. On the face of it this may seem like a good idea and I in no way doubt Elonka's sincerity in respect of it. The major issue facing British-Irish articles is the battlefield that they have become. Even among ostensibly cool-headed editors exists suspicion of the motives of others. A handful of editors occasionally flare into outright war-mode, drawing others into it. The way to resolve the issue is not to give admins a bigger stick, that only re-inforces the idea that a battle is being fought. We need to normalise the situation, not "abnormalise" it any further.
Outside admins, to their misery, have tried to resolve these issue before - go ask SirFozzie or Masem. God bless them, but anyone trying to "fix" this problem gets drawn into it and becomes an actor in it. We don't need a lone cowboy to put order on the Wild West. We certainly don't need to kit them out with bigger guns. What we need it a wet blanket, not more fire. 1RR is good because it acts as a wet blanket. Bigger sticks are bad because they encourage more warfare.
We need to normalise. Normal means assuming good faith and remaining civil. Normal rules. If someone breaches the normal rules, enforce the rules as normal. There's plenty of scope within the normal rules to enforce normal behavior. We don't need to make anyone feel special just because they behave incivilly. We definitely don't need to reinforce the idea that they are fighting a war.
The range of articles that this ruling has come to cover is so extensive that it now effectively covers the an entire chapter of the encyclopedia. We cannot square off a corner of the encyclopedia and label it as a battleground. That is how this ammendment would be interpreted and it is the kind of behavior that it would encourage.
Think: wet blankets. Don't think: fire. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: View by Rannpháirtí anaithnid

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

message: To my surprise, I find myself in agreement with Giano: the powers proposed here are far too sweeping, and will inflame the problems which they seek to resolve.  Their unlimited scope reminds me of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922, which allowed police to pretty much whatever they thought fit, and were applied overwhelmingly to nationalists.  As a result, the manifest injustices of Special Powers Act became a significant factor in stoking further conflict, and the "remedies" proposed above will undoubtedly have a similarly destructive effect.
Per rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, we need to normalise this area of wikipedia rather than adopt measures whose perceived injustices which will stoke the conflicts between editors.  --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by BrownHairedGirl

message: Having read the other contributions to this discussion, and thought about it further, I would like to offer a further observation.
To date, admin involvement in this area has overwhelmingly focused on policing technical infringements such as edit-warring, and conduct issues such as incivility.  That sort of response can succeed only if it restores focus on a shared purpose, but the lack of that shared purpose is the source of the problem here. As such, technical and conduct-based enforcement will inevitably fail to resolve the disputes, because suppressing one set of symptoms merely produces another set of symptoms.  Admins end up playing Whac-A-Mole, unsuccessfully.
The core issue here is that on both sides of this dispute there are editors with strongly-held points of view.  This of itself is not a problem, because WP:NPOV is explicit that we should be representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources ... but the most notable feature of this area is the presence of a number of editors on both sides who persistently and tenaciously work to ensure that articles either disprove or suppress viewpoints to which they are opposed.  I have watched countless articles turn into battlegrounds as the opposing forces manoeuvre to slant an article on way or the other, when it is painfully obvious in most cases that the article concerned could be relatively easily constructed to give clear voice to all the significant viewpoints.
Unfortunately, this core problem is never addressed, because arbcom refuses (for good reason) to take a stand on content issues, reserving its remit to user conduct.  As a result, countless warnings, rulings and sanctions in this area have not resolved the problem, because they never actually address it.  So we find ourselves facing a proposal for draconian powers, which still fail to address the core issue.
Rather than looking for yet more ways of taking sledgehammers to symptoms, I suggest that these proposals be shelved and a wider discussion initiated on how the community should deal with editors who persistently take NPOV to mean that the opposing viewpoint may be represented only if it is demonstrated to be false.  That's a huge undertaking — and maybe an impossible one — but I can see no other way to end the conflicts in this area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addendum by BrownHairedGirl 

message: I think that the amendment proposed by Elonka could work, but only if applied to a much smaller set of articles than they suggest. I would use wording along the lines of "1. an article about or directly related to the Troubles. 2. articles articles about Irish nationalism or British nationalism related to Ireland where there is no significant objection by established editors of that article not involved in Troubles-related disputes". This would avoid situations like the existing one over the BNP article. As a counterpart to the vastly reduced scope of article restrictions, I would say that restrictions on editors involved in the disputes should be used more, with blocks of several days in the first instance for engaging in Irish nationalist and/or British nationalist POV pushing in other articles. 
This would need to be done carefully however to avoid accusations of bias against others by heavily biased editors resulting in blocks to innocent parties. In a dispute where everyone who did not agree with one editor's opinion was labelled as anti-Irish regardless of why they did not agree. In this situation, the user throwing around accusations of anti-Irish bias without merit should have been subject to restriction for their disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Thryduulf

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

message: Something does need to be done, although overall the problem is not as bad as it has been at times.  A series of wars on a range of Irish articles can be linked to provocative edits by a small number of editors - some of whom have been banned and not received progressive blocks for subsequent failures.   Scotland has just got one of its 2/3 times a year debates about national anthems and country status, there is no need to extend this type of sanction to that article.  The surge in interest in the BNP and EDL and other far right groups in the UK has put them in the news so they are active, but I wouldn't say that any of them are really out of hand given the contentious nature of the subject matter.  The current debate on the "whites-only" membership rule and the related court case has nothing whatsoever to do with the Troubles and there is no case for a 1RR rule there at the moment.   So I would suggest:
*Enforce WP:BRD and sanction anyone who reverts a revert, with the admin restoring the prior position.  This was used well on British Isles but needed more enforcement.  That is much better than a 1RR restriction which is too easily gamed
* Ban all IPs from editing any article put under this type of sanction.  IPs can edit at will and frustrate established editors tempting them into a failure to follow IRR.  Some of the IPs are socks anyway.
* Most of these articles really need admins who understand the political context.  Its too easy to miss deliberate provocation, or misunderstand what is going on.   I think there is a case for a small number of admins to look after some articles and agree sanctions collectively.  They can also intervene to create a structure to debates.
* Keep the British National articles under watch, but don't impose on them yet, the connection to the Troubles is remote (ditto Scotland).  Keep this to articles linked to the Troubles, or individual attempts to take issues related to the Troubles onto other pages.
* It is all too easy for a disruptive editor to make multiple small changes to an article, claiming that each is an attempt to improve the article.  They don't fail the 1RR rule but place other editors who simply want to restore the prior version while discussion is taking place on the talk page in an invidious position.  Any sanction should therefore clearly state that if an issue is disputed, then the ONLY place for discussion is the talk page, not progressive edits of the main article. 
--Snowded TALK  02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Yes, WP:BRD would be far superior to 1RR. If there is to be an amendment it should be that. 1RR is just asking to be gamed - although BRD requires genuine discussion, not a lock down on "consensus" by veto. That too would need to be enforced, which requires admins familiar with the topic to understand the nuances involved. I don't agree about blocking IPs for many reasons that don't need to be discussed here and would see the issue as being both British and Irish nationalism involving, say, Scotland but not the BNP (different kind of nationalism, different kinds of topics). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: View by Snowded

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

message: I am in favor of anything that would normalize the environment in this section of articles. I do not think that removing current sanctions would do that however. I think the only reason that John Vandenberg's suggestion below would work, was that everyone who is currently gaming 1RR and AE will now be gaming 3RR and ANI/3RR. IE, AE would stop being clobbered... and it would go back to ANI.
If you're thinking of that, tell us to make a full fledged case. Otherwise, what it will do, is ensnare more administrators (in ANI) into this area and send them down the path to being attacked, charged with bias, etcetera just like every other administrator who has gotten involved in this area. 
Rather then wait a couple months for that to happen, let's do it now. Let's identify the high-level bad actors in this area, and remove them from the environment (Topic Ban, or siteblock, etcetera), and see if other editors improve (either from not being pushed as much into wars, or getting the hint that WP has had ENOUGH of the constant battles). If not, deal with them until either all the edit warriors have been removed from the battlefield or until everyone stops the Battleground mentality.
My thoughts are that these new sanctions would supersede the existing sanctions (ArbCom/Community). I do think that something needs to be in place. This is a good idea, but we really have three options: The current sanctions (ArbCom/Community), the newly proposed sanctions, or a full fledged Troubles 2 cases. Annulling the existing case is not a good option, in my opinion. SirFozzie (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The community-based restrictions put in place on articles in this area (1RR rule on all editors, etcetera) will be continued for a minimum of 60 days from the conclusion of this motion. 30 days after the conclusion of this motion, the ArbCom will invite comment on whether to continue these restrictions as they stand for a period of time, to modify them, or to let them expire. Involved editors are invited to discuss these restrictions, but the greater uninvolved community's thoughts and desires will take precedence.
This would allow us two months of phase in time, to see who gets placed under discretionary sanctions, etcetera, while continuing the general sanctions and seeing if they're still needed. SirFozzie (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any update on this, prior to the US Thanksgiving break? SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by SirFozzie

message: After discussion of this case with others, I do think the proposed discretionary sanctions would be useful in this area. I would be hesitant to completely drop the community restrictions "cold turkey", however, and prefer phasing them out if we can. So I would take Elonka's wording for the proposed restriction, with the following addendum.
:The community-based restrictions put in place on articles in this area (1RR rule on all editors, etcetera) will be continued for a minimum of 60 days from the conclusion of this motion. 30 days after the conclusion of this motion, the ArbCom will invite comment on whether to continue these restrictions as they stand for a period of time, to modify them, or to let them expire. Involved editors are invited to discuss these restrictions, but the greater uninvolved community's thoughts and desires will take precedence.
This would allow us two months of phase in time, to see who gets placed under discretionary sanctions, etcetera, while continuing the general sanctions and seeing if they're still needed. SirFozzie (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any update on this, prior to the US Thanksgiving break? SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for proposed motion

message: Vassyana below asks what are the specific behavioral problems being encountered? It is a fact that  behavioral problems in this area from the time of the original Troubles Arbcom have dramatically reduced. This is no doubt down to the number of sock abusing accounts that were closed down, (I'm not fully convinced that we got them all) which has resulted in this reduction. The current problems being encountered at the moment in addition to the normal issues is the "New Admin in the area" syndrome. The latest is User:Elonka who was preceded by User:Rd232, User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Tznkai etc etc... In this syndrome it seems to follow a typical pattern. They start by taking their Que from the sitting Admin's, a big mistake since these Admin's are neither uninvolved or without their own bias, they then wave a big stick, throw around a few blocks which get overturned, and then call for additional sanctions.  
Now the latest problems started with a  bad block, another common feature on these articles. This  block here which then had to be lifted. The Admin, rather than accept that they were wrong, created a fuss and went off to   Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles looking for "clarity." Now everyone knows what 1RR on the Troubles is, and we know that they were dropped because one Admin did not want to block a sock abusing editor. We also know that the 1RR restriction is not part of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles decision which was Case Closed on 08:09, 30 October 2007, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy, established by consensus during this discussion. In addition to proposing amendments at  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard they then posted this at    Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. 
This latest proposal is also based on a bad block and ban, and the same Admin's attempt to get retrospective support for them in the form of these additional “discretionary sanctions.” Here is the  page ban and then the block. Now the block was very quickly overturned as been a bad block. Likewise the ban, however the Admin who issued it still has not got the good grace to admit they were wrong, with this comment supposed to signify that it has been dropped. Not to be thwarted though, they placed a “discretionary sanctions” here, with this call now for additional sanctioning powers to be given to them.
So what do they mean by “discretionary sanctions”? Is it like user:Angusmclellan's use of “discretionary sanctions” above to issue a bad block and ban on an editor who he is involved in a content dispute with? Or is it like User:Elonka's bad block above and placing probation on an editor who has challenged here misleading and disruptive comments? When sanctions are place at the discretion of Admin's they are going to be abused. Clear cases of edit warring will be ignored, violation of 1RR will also be ignored  despite previous blocks here and here with Admin's obviously not being sanctioned .
I agree with 1RR, but it can not be at the discretion of Admin's. If you violate 1RR you get sanctioned! These latest blocks and Bans illustrate why we should not give “discretionary sanctions” to Admin's.--Domer48'fenian' 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One very good reason to reject this attempt to censor wikipedia. That the like of Moreschi could be considered "uninvolved" shows this motion up for the joke that it is. To even suggest this motion illustrated how you and others have have seriously failed to adhere or understand the purpose of Wikipedia.   --Domer48'fenian' 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Domer48

message: I'm generally in favor of discretionary sanctions in problem areas, as I'm not aware of any more effective alternatives (though I'd be open to hearing bright ideas). I do agree with Coren that discretionary sanctions formalize, rather than extend, an admin's "power". If the admin enjoys a reasonable degree of community confidence, then their imposed sanctions will generally stick whether or not they're backed by a formal decree from ArbCom. On the other hand, if the community lacks confidence in an admin's discretion, then they shouldn't really be in the business of enforcing discretionary sanctions in the first place, so it's a moot issue.
That said: I think anyone voting on this proposal needs to pay close attention to the wording. The existing Troubles probation covers "British nationalism in relation to Ireland" (emphasis mine). Elonka's proposal would cover "British nationalism" categorically, regardless of relation to Ireland. That is a significant broadening of the scope of the existing case, and it appears to be one crux of dispute here and at Elonka's talk page (one current dispute is over whether to characterize the British National Party as "whites-only", which seems to have little to do with Ireland).
Let's take it as given that discretionary sanctions are an appropriate extension of the existing Troubles probation. I'd like to see more (rational) discussion on the proposed extension of scope, because that to me is the real debate. Perhaps discretionary sanctions should be extended to any issue of British nationalism; if that is the case, I would ArbCom to make that extension with eyes open. MastCell Talk 00:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by MastCell 

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

message: There is a table like that mentioned by John Vandenberg at User:Angusmclellan/Troubles. Many thanks to Elonka. 
While I have no objection to the changes Elonka proposes, I do not view them as essential. Policy on edit wars says that "...editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR". Other policies are equally broad in their applicability, such as biographies of living people and no personal attacks. As Rockpocket said, "removing a single disruptive presence from an article and talk page can do wonders for improving the editing atmosphere". So let's do it more often, if necessary. 
I am not in favour of extending the scope of the decision which I think is broad enough, as I interpret it. I am fairly clear in my own mind as to what constitutes a Troubles article. It is one where the editorial disputes which can be seen in articles concerning the Troubles, narrowly defined (and I can't define the Troubles so narrowly as to exclude the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War, although others may do so), are imported. From that perspective the recent fun at British National Party or over the non-existence of a purely Scottish national anthem are not part of this problem even if they do share some of the same cast. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Angus McLellan 

message: At the moment we have teams of people trying to re-write all kinds of articles for POV in this area. The only way this will change is if admins enforce NPOV - as well as general good article standards for readability and length. If admins need more powers then fine. If you're not edit-warring you've got nothing to fear
The problem with many Irish history articles right now is that, due to competing wars over pov, many have become unreadable, too long and contradict themselves. in those articles where one "side" has given up - as at Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment - not only is the quality of the articles terrible, they also extremely pov. In the USC article, for example, half the "disbandment" section currently argues the USC were Nazis! 
With the current tag team edit wars going on, it's also impossible to revamp such articles, as your edits instantly get reverted by eds who assume you're on the "other" side.
What are we doing here? Are we playing a game, where antagonistic teams compete to see who can game the system best? Or are we supposed to be working together to produce quality, readable, npov articles? If its the latter then we need admins to be able to enforce non partisan editing.
Jdorney (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Jdorney

message: * Explain it to me like I'm stupid. What are the specific behavioral problems being encountered? Are there editors exihibiting such problems who otherwise work productively and uncontroversially in other areas? Are the numbers of disruptive editors too high or too deeply engrained in the editing area to deal with them on a case by case basis? As a side note, the discussion linked demonstrates how the heavy participation of involved editors can derail outside input and make it extremely difficult to decipher the opinion of the broader community (as represented by participating uninvolved editors). I strongly encourage the community to address this issue, as it has deep negative consequences across most controversial areas. Beyond that, I await further statements. (As a note, please keep statements to a reasonable length and do not rehash the ANI discussion here.) Vassyana (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: ====Motion 1: Discretionary sanctions====
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; temporary bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; temporary bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; temporary restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Blocks and/or topic bans may initially be for up to one month in duration, escalating in stages to a maximum of one year if the misbehaviours continue.
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to this case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor. 
;Support:
# John Vandenberg (chat) 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Motions

message: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; temporary bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; temporary bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; temporary restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Blocks and/or topic bans may initially be for up to one month in duration, escalating in stages to a maximum of one year if the misbehaviours continue.
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to this case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor. 
;Support:
# John Vandenberg (chat) 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion 1: Discretionary sanctions

message: The scope of the discretionary sanctions may include any article in conflict that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, or British nationalism. When there is doubt as to whether or not an article falls within the scope of this case, assume it is related.
;Support:
# There is obvious sprawling from the main area into related areas of nationalism. I am not ignoring concerns about spreading the drama, but rather find them less convincing than arguments that the disruption is inclusive of these areas. Drama prevention should not be focused on inhibiting the ability of administrators to act, but rather on dispute resolution so that admins do not have to act. If behavioral issues are spreading and disruptive, it is the response to administrator intervention that is drama-laden and disruptive, not the impositions of sanctions themselves. It is not the admin's fault, nor that of other editors in the topic area, if an editor is launching personal attacks, edit-warring, tendentiously arguing, or so on. That responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the editor engaging in such conduct. Vassyana (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion 2: Scope

message: The community-based restrictions put in place on articles in this area (1RR rule on all editors, etcetera) will be continued for a minimum of 60 days from the conclusion of this motion.  45 days after the conclusion of this motion, the Arbitration Committee will invite comment on whether to continue these restrictions as they stand for a period of time, to modify them, or to let them expire. Involved editors are invited to discuss these restrictions, but the greater uninvolved community's thoughts and desires will take precedence.
;Support:
# John Vandenberg (chat) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion 3: Review of community-based restrictions

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

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

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

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

message: I endorse Scolaire's summary, except that there a further incident after 2007.
There was a further flare-up of the Troubles-Baronets link in May 2009, involving me (BrownHairedGirl), Vintagekits and Kittybrewster. A request for abitration was opened, and dealt with by summary motion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=289861526#Baronets_naming_dispute 
So far as I am aware, there has been no further Troubles-related disputes wrt Baronets since then.
All of the troubles-related disputes wrt baronets involved , who is currently indef-blocked (and I think also perma-banned) after a very long series of conflicts. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by BrownHairedGirl 

message: : This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*Notified various noticeboards and Wikiproject talk pages per Courcelles' request (link). Daniel (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: *This is potentially thorny enough that I would appreciate the clerks notifying various noticeboards/wikiprojects that would be reasonably interested.  Might be worth letting AN know as well. Courcelles 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: On a personal note I have limited time for this particular thread after brining a request for clarification and making input on a RFAR and responding to 2 other declined AE appeals of the same ruling. I have no problem with ONiH appealing it, it's just I've answered for a group decision of 4 sysops 3 times now already - just as a suggestion there needs to be a better way of dealing with AE closers than singling them out when a group decision has been made. ONiH was one of a series of editors topic banned for misconduct both in the WP:Troubles topic area (specifically tag teaming editwarring at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997, but also issues relating to 7 July 2005 London bombings and at AE itself). The ruling took into account the apparent use of AE to "win" content disputes (by multiple parties ONiH being only one). Initially I was of a mind that FergusM1970 was the only problematic user, other sysops disagreed and wanted to see where DRN discussion would go - they explicitly cautioned all articles to engage in a constructive fashion. After the DRN discussion failed Steven Zhang sent the case back to AE. At that point on examination I came round to other sysops POV that stonewalling and/or process gaming was occurring on both sides of the content issues. No constructive attempts at reaching/building consensus were being made by either side and the dispute originating at Corporals killings spilled over. Instead of following dispute resolution policies (ie disengaging for a start) multiple involved editors tried various brute force mechanisms: tag teaming edit warring; reversion without discussion; immediate reporting to AE; 'tit for tat' AE reports; 'tit for tat' reverts. The crux of the sanction was due to the tag teaming at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 while the case was open. It is not acceptable for a party to bring a case to AE for stated misconduct and then engage in such misconduct themselves - that is the definition of unclean hands. Parties as well as previously uninvolved editors (e.g DagosNavy) jumped into an editwar in breach of WP:Editwar and circumventing the single revert restriction by tag teaming -this was noted at the AE thread, perhaps ONiH doesn't see his edit was tag teaming 4 sysops disagreed (if Arbs see it otherwise I'd appreciate a note on it so we don't make the same decision again elsewhere). At that point and in this context those involved in the worst of the issue were considered for topic bans. FergusM1970 & SonofSetanta were given longer bans for recidivism and abuse of AE respectively. I did argue for Flexdream to be banned (after he had been formally notified of discretionary sanctions days previously) but other sysops disagreed. There was no 'lumping together of editors'. I'll also note that contrary to policy ONiH has blanked the topic ban notification. I understand his wish not to have this on his talk page but how he treated it is against policy--Cailil  talk 14:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @ONiH: I understand you're angry but it's going a bit far to describe AE as a cabal - and it's a bit unfair to target me when this is a group decision. Furthermore slow editwars and tag teaming should be obviously inappropriate behaviours and are and have been covered by WP:TROUBLES's rulings since the imposition of the 1rr & probation. In the midst of an edit war at the Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign article where the same edit was contested multiple times you involved yourself ONiH in that dispute - yes your edits were days apart but the behaviour of you all was unacceptable. This kind of conduct uses the revert function to impose a group's preferred version without a constructive attempt at consensus, in a way that circumvents 1RR. Furthermore Slp1 raised the issue of the 7 July 2005 London bombings of which your conduct was slow editwaring as she mentioned (no perhaps we didn't single you out by name but that should be obvious by the article history and your edits) You were only 1 part of that issue and you were not singled out, others (ie OldJacobite) did the same thingThe discretionary sanctions issue was raised within the AE discussion on foot of your question on my talk page - 4 *other* sysops disagreed with your interpretation (Seraphimblade at AE, Tim Canens, Ed Johnston and KillerChiuahua at Tim's page). I belive Seraphimblade dealt with this in detail and an AE appeal by Domer48 was already closed on these grounds as declined. For this appeal to be completely upheld the Arbs would have to exhonerate your actions at both articles ONiH. If the Arbs feel that the discussion at AE was not explicit enough and that that is grounds for appeal, fine - we can learn from that, but the grounds for action seem clear to me and if Arbs disagree fine but I'd like a note on why so similar decisions are not made--Cailil  talk 15:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: At the IRA campaign artile ONiH you reverted twice - your second revert is the current version made on April 14th. Your First revert was April 7. In the intervening period the same edit was reverted an re-added multiple times. You were all in breach. On the 7/7 bombings article you reverted the same edit 5 times in concert with others against a group of reverters. Again you were not singled out. If it had been down to me alone Flexdream WOULD have been banned too for his conduct there & that was my proposal--Cailil  talk 15:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Cailil 

message: I do not have time to analyse this case, but would like to note that User:One Night In Hackney is a long-term editor of articles relating to The Troubles, and one of the most scholarly content-creators in that field. His prolific contributions include the 1981 Irish hunger strike, which he massively expanded in 2007 and brought to featured article status.
It is a serious loss to Wikipedia that a contributor of this calibre should be banned from the topic where they have made such a significant contribution. I would ask all concerned to examine whether this can be avoided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by BrownHairedGirl 

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

message: The following report was filed by ONIH on 2 August and was considered at the time by two Admin’s EdJohnston and Cailil on 3 August to be fairly cut and dry with Cailil noting that “…content is not relevant to ArbCom enforcement.” It was Heimstern here who suggested they “hold off on sanctions, let's find a way to resolve the content dispute via actual consensus first." NuclearWarfare asked did Admin’s “see anything by any party that looks like it would be called poor editing (POV writing, misrepresenting sources, etc.) by any objective observer?” and Seraphimblade asked “if there's clear POV editing, baiting, nastiness during discussions...” Heimstern said “no, nothing is blatantly obvious.” 
While Slp1 makes the point that ONIH had filed two reports in 9hrs which becomes irrelevant as Slp1 noted that  Flexdream "acknowledged that they had broken 1RR" and "the report closed as a warning" however, with two Admins having already seen a clear cut violation, and accepting that "FergusM1970 has broken 1RR" Slp1 makes the bizarre statement that "the 1RR rule as written and applied rewards editors who have a big gang to revert and who use battleground approaches to get their way in a topic area." Apart from the massive assumption of bad faith both these editors had violated 1RR and have been found by AE to have done so. Simple rule, don't edit war on a 1RR article, "they made me do it" is not a defense. Even Cailil noted what Slp1 was saying  vis-a-vis gaming but don't see it here, and correctly pointing out that "FergusM1970 has already been topic-banned a breach of WP:TROUBLES is recidivism." and that the "openning of a DRN thread may have had the aim of forestalling this thread - if that were the case that would be a gaming issue." 
It was EdJohnston at 16:35, 4 August who suggested holding off on closing while the DRN thread was open. With a number of Admin's agreeing Seraphimblade at 16:39, 4 AugustHeimstern at 20:40, 4 AugustThe Blade of the Northern Lights at 20:46, 4 AugustSlp1 at 22:01, 4 August. The times and dates are important because at 22:35, 4 August, Steven Zhang actually closed the DNR. This makes these comments by Cailil all the more bizarre along with the agreement of John Carter. The DNR was over before it began and the claims of "stonewalling" are without foundation. You cannot find a "source based consensus" if the editor will not provide the required sources.
It is now that the editing history of editors is called into question. We still have a group of editors who insist on violating the 1RR even with threads already open on them , and continuing to add un-sourced POV laden text and nothing is done. I do agree with the comments by AGK, "Topics subject to AE are demonstrably problematic areas of the encyclopedia, so misconduct reported here needs to be dealt with swiftly and effectively." In this case it was not! Admin's failed to act on this, and exasperated the situation by sitting on their hands failing in the one task they were assigned to do and have shifted this mess onto editors who have to deal with these editors. ONIH has ably demonstrated this with diff's and I've attempted to do the same. The more one looks at this, the more I question the fact that I have, along with ONIH been topic banned? I'll put up some diff's on my edits and request that Admins point to the ones that justify such a decision. --Domer48'fenian' 10:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Domer48

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

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

message: *Recused, although I do think the filer has a pretty good point here. SirFozzie (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Decline. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: :Original discussion
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
; Appealing user :  – SonofSetanta (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is to be edited only by Arbitrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
*Decline appeal. The idea behind discretionary sanctions is that we trust admins to exercise their judgement in a sound manner; as a result of that trust, I believe that, when dealing with an appeal against a restriction, we should not substitute our own opinions to those of the admin(s) who originally imposed the sanction de qua, but, rather, we should see if there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the imposing sysop(s). In this case, the sanction seems reasonable and, so, it should not be lifted.   Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta (September 2013) 

message: It would be my feeling that the ban was imposed incorrectly because the sysops involved did not take me at my word.  The detail of the complaint clearly shows I was having difficulty with a process, receiving help from others, engaging in discussion and most importantly, reverting edits which I clearly thought were vandalism.  I made no alteration to the text of the article and my decision to nominate it for deletion wouldn't have taken effect immediately but would have required discussion which clearly could have resulted in another method of dealing with my concerns over the article.   The situation wasn't helped by the intervention of an editor called Mo aimn.  I believe his alterations were designed to invite reverts from me as he knew I would be under preessure and make mistakes.  He wold have observed this from previous (unhappy) interaction with me.
 
From the text of the complaint you can see that sysops and some other editors argued for a ban because I had been consistently disruptive since 2008 and should have known by now how to nominate a page for deletion.   They claim I have hidden two previous identities to avoid scrutiny by sysops.   They appear to ignore the representations made by the other editors who were involved and who speak in support of me being confused but discussing.    I am accused of causing a "Battle Royale" over image copyright.  This is far from true.  I was accused of deliberate copyright violation yes, but after several weeks of activity was able to prove that I had never violated copyright but had made mistakes in the pretty complicated area of Crown Copyright on images uploaded in 2008.
The facts are:
 
1.  I have not edited constantly since 2008.  I had a username for 2 months in 2008 before retiring under pressure from edit-warring gamers.   A second identity was created in 2008 which lasted for around four months.   My current identity was created in 2010 but used sparingly until May of this year with only a handful of edits in 2010, 2011 and 2012.    The truth is my editing history spans 12 months since 2008 with substantial breaks.
 
2. My issues since 2008 have always revolved around articles concerning the Irish Troubles and my unsuccessful attempts to edit out POV where I saw it.  A dedicated cabal was roaming the wiki ensuring that all of these articles were guarded and kept with their particular POV intact.  My opposition to this was noted and I became a target for "gaming" to get me off the wiki.  It sounds bizarre but it has happened to many people who have dared to edit these articles with a neutral POV.  Why don't I just leave these articles alone?   I am from Northern Ireland and am of very moderate views.  I also have a passionate interest in the military of Ireland, our police forces and  the British Military.  Why should I not edit the articles?   In my opinion, after examining what happens and being part of it, the thing to do is to stay involved and to try and assist admins in identifying what can be done to prevent this type of gaming.  
 
3. I am not guilty of copyright violation or disruption but this is used against me by sysops and those supporting a call for me to be banned.  All I did was to stand my ground, discuss, learn and save the images which were tagged for deletion.   Why is this wrong?
 
4. The most important point is that I was not disruptive.  I tried to nominate a page for deletion.  Several AfD patrollers came at me from nowhere and so quickly that the situation was developing whist I was responding to them on the talk page of the article, their own talk pages and mine.  
 
5. After the ban was applied I adjusted the licencing on image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:5_UDR_Record_Sleeve.jpg.  I was not aware that such an action was a violation of the ban and pointed this out at Sandstein's talk page.  Without warning I was then blocked.  Was that fair?  
 
Summary:
 
The real meat of the issue is at the article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland#Tags  The edit history will show me putting in headers including the 1RR Troubles Restriction before opening a discussion as required to debate the possible deletion of the page.  I am experienced in 1RR and wouldn't have engaged in an edit war.  My belief was that I was reverting vandalism and that can be seen in my edit summaries.  The issue to me is that sysops are claiming I'm being disingenuous when all the evidence says otherwise.   I think it has to be examined why an uninvolved user (Psychonaut), who is a copyright enforcer, came to file the complaint at AE and why Mo aimn became involved.  Both of them excacerbating an issue which was by then under control and clealry needed no further intervention as an admin was already involved.   If the admin didn't feel it necessary to file a complaint why did Psychonaut?  
 
I request that the ban be overturned and my name cleared.  If possible the block that was applied to my user name because I did not understand that image pages were not part of the ban should be expunged.  
 
Only since May this year have I been able to edit at any pace on Wikipedia.   My success in doing so had me feeling for the first time that I was a real and active part of the Wikipedia community.  I brightened up my talk page for the first time ever by putting in colour and infoboxes.   I want to stay as part of the community and I believe the outcome of my learning when I was thrust into copyright issues proves that I am willing to work hard to remain and be productive.  Where I think the problem lies is that some editors still want to play games and sysops are too prone to looking for past demeanours to prove a knee jerk feeling that someone is being disruptive - that people like me can't learn to avoid being gamed.  The central issue is that the content of an article wasn't the cause of my error.  I was learning a new process, made mistakes, and thought what I was doing was subject to vandalism (for a short period).  No credit has been given to me for backing down and following instruction given by other, concerned and helpful editors and admins.
*I wish to correct the statement by Sandstein (below) where he says that "several administrators had declined the speedy deletion request".  This is untrue.  One administrator was involved, the other three people who tried to help were ordinary editors who could see I was having trouble and were trying to assist, as is evidence on the article talk page.  The fourth editor who joined in was Mo ainm whose motives I doubted.  The "speedy deletion" request was never declined.  The tag was removed by several people, three of whom joined in the discussion.  I think Sandstein's statement is testament to the fact that he did not in fact apply logic to his rationale or examine what happened closely but rather based his decision (and persuaded others to do likewise) on the track record of the identity The Thunderer which I ceased to operate on 28 November 2008.  The previous identity GDD1000 contains only 1 block on 27 April 2008.  My current identity has been operated since October 13 2010 and I had little difficulty until recently with 1 block in 2010,  3 in 2012, one of which was lifted and nothing since until quite recently when I was (incorrectly in my opinion) blocked because I would not accept the removal of : File:The Yellow Card.jpg from the article at Ulster Defence Regiment.  I insisted the card could be the subject of discussion at NFCC whilst remaining at the article and as it transpires I was correct.  The file was deemed to be valuable enough to be kept and is still there, proving I was correct all along.  It was I who Cailil banned for 48n hrs however, not the copyright enforcer who made the error.  The learning curve I went through as a result however improved my knowledge of copyright to the extent that I am currently (and have been all week) assisting copyright enforcers in the removal of dozens of copyvio images and replacing them on Commons with correctly licenced version.  SonofSetanta (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by SonofSetanta

message: I refer to the rationale I provided for the topic ban in the AE thread that led up to the ban on  24 August 2013, and to the conclusions reached by my administrator colleagues when they declined an appeal of the ban at WP:AE on 26 August 2013. 
The appeal does not address the disruptive conduct by SonofSetanta identified in these proceedings, notably, edit-warring to reinstate a frivolous speedy deletion nomination of a "Troubles"-related article after several administrators had declined the speedy deletion request, as per the evidence provided in the AE request linked to above. In imposing the topic ban I considered that SonofSetanta  has a relatively long record of blocks for disruption in the "Troubles" topic area, under three accounts:
*
*
*
In this appeal, SonofSetanta does not recognize that the sanction is a result of their own conduct, and instead assigns blame to others. For this reason, the topic ban is still, in my view, a necessary and proportionate measure to prevent further disruption by SonofSetanta in this topic area. Accordingly, I recommend that the appeal be declined.  Sandstein  16:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Sandstein

message: I see that SonofSetanta's appeal contains a request for investigation into my conduct (though I was never notified of same).  I had hoped to avoid any further discussion of this user, but as he seems to have dragged me into this one I'm not sure it's avoidable.
I endorse Sandstein's conclusion that SonofSetanta seems unable to recognize his own disruptive behaviour, and that it was this behaviour (and not others' reports of it) which is the reason for his current and past sanctions.  This lack of awareness is demonstrated most saliently by points 3, 4, and 5 of his appeal:
In (3) he flatly states that he is "not guilty of copyright violation or disruption", though this is precisely what he has been repeatedly blocked for; one needs only consult his various accounts' block logs and user talk pages here and on Commons to appreciate the scope of the problem.  I was one (but neither the first, nor the most prolific) of several users who tagged his infringing images for deletion.
In (4) he claims he was "not disruptive" in the incident that led to his latest topic ban, which flies in the face of his next claim that "several AfD patrollers" had to engage with him in order to get him to stop edit warring over the deletion tag.
Finally in (5) he claims his latest block (for violating the topic ban) was unfair because it was without warning; however, he had been conspicuously notified of the topic ban on "everything related to The Troubles" (emphasis in original) on his user talk page on 24 August.  The notice made it clear that noncompliance would result in blocks.  In fact, a quick check over SonofSetanta's recent contributions shows that he still may not be complying with the topic ban.  He's made a number of edits, for example, to Northern Ireland Security Guard Service, who according to the article are best noted for their controversial defence of a post-Good Friday attack by the Real IRA.
I have no opinion or recommendation concerning the outcome of this appeal; I just wanted to voice my support of Sandstein's observations and to rebut some of the claims made in the appeal. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Psychonaut

message: :This section is to be edited only by Arbitrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
*Decline appeal. The idea behind discretionary sanctions is that we trust admins to exercise their judgement in a sound manner; as a result of that trust, I believe that, when dealing with an appeal against a restriction, we should not substitute our own opinions to those of the admin(s) who originally imposed the sanction de qua, but, rather, we should see if there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the imposing sysop(s). In this case, the sanction seems reasonable and, so, it should not be lifted.   Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta

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

text: DDStretch asserts that there is a long-standing consensus about the status of the Northern Ireland flag. I'm relatively new to the topic myself, but from what I can tell it is more accurate to say that this has been a simmering content dispute for over a decade, that boils over periodically. However, DDStretch's making such an assertion is effectively them taking sides in that content dispute, as they seem to openly acknowledge in this  comment on the talk page of an editor who has been involved on one side of the dispute. DDStretch is of course entitled to take sides in any content dispute, but it is surely inappropriate for them to coordinate use of administrative tools with other editors on one side of the dispute, to advance their common POV, as they seem quite clearly to be doing in that comment. Miles Creagh (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see the problem here. You seem to to be under the impression that User:Snowded is "another administrator", which may explain why you sought his opinion and advice on the use of administrative tools in this matter. In fact, Snowded is not an admin, but is an editor involved on one side of the long-running content dispute in the matter of the Northern Ireland flag. Does this information change your view of your conduct in this matter? And here, by the way, is an undoubted Wikipedia:Reliable Source that says "'The flag of the Government of Northern Ireland is often called the 'Ulster flag', but we have called it by its 'official' name, the 'Northern Ireland Flag"  (My emphases). Finally, your request to me is declined. Miles Creagh (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what is going on here.  however if you check the sources (and the article concerned) you will see that the Ulster flag is (per the sources) explicitly no longer the flag of Northern Ireland.  This is well established and long standing.  We have periodic (over a decade) attempts to insert it in multiple articles and I and other editors with experience of British Isles issues regularly revert those changes.  The insertions tend to be Unionist editors trying to make a point.  There is no "long running content dispute", there is a clear position supported by the quoted sources.  Experienced editors on the pages regularly change notes as we also deal with multiple sock farms and meat puppets.  Whether DDStretch thought I was an admin or not is irrelevant.  Experienced editors collaborate to deal with vandalism or political motivated edits.  The fact that you quote a 1994 book as source indicates your lack of familiarity with Irish history.  The Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998 and became effective 1999.  That and the associated work on peace and reconciliation meant that the Ulster Banner was removed as the official flag of Northern Ireland and replaced with the Union Jack.  A cursory reading of the sources on the Flag of Northern Ireland page would have shown you this.  I suggest that you withdraw the accusation against an admin who has done more than their fair share of work to manage a difficult and contentious area of wikipedia.   I also note that your own page has a prominent picture of King Billy at the battle of the Boyne so I rather suspect you know all of this anyway, but lets give you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to retract. ----Snowded TALK 19:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume the IP editor above is Snowded? Miles Creagh (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You caught me in the middle of an edit - I was checking your user page so see additional comment and signature ----Snowded TALK 19:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Yes I am interested in Irish history, and the depiction on my user page of a key event in the early modern history of Ireland reflects that interest. Anything else you read into it is your POV. This probably isn't the place to rehearse the whole argument about the Ulster banner, commonly known as the Ulster flag, officially known as the Northern Ireland flag, but anyone who is interested could start with the discussion at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland which if nothing else should make clear that any claim of consensus on the topic is spurious. Miles Creagh (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are interested in Irish History then you know the significance of a prominent display of King Billy at the Boyne on your user page and you also know full well what happened (against some loyalist wishes) to the official use of the Ulster Banner in the peace settlement. Your recent edit warring on Patrick Pearse also makes it clear that you are pretty much involved in this subject and hardly "relatively new to the topic" as you assert.  To be clear it is explicitly not known officially as the Northern Ireland Flag. The discussion at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland is largely asserts that the Ulster Banner is official but todate no one has cited any source to establish this or contradict the sources already on the page which say it is not.  You still haven't withdrawn your accusation against DDStretch by the way.  Hopefully with the matter raised here a non-involved admin will address that issue.----Snowded TALK 19:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the Good Friday Agreement didn't address the Ulster Banner at all. It is generally asserted by folk on your side of the argument that the undoubted official status of the Flag of the Government of Northern Ireland, otherwise known as the Ulster banner, the Ulster flag or simply the Northern Ireland flag ended when the Stormont assembly was prorogued in 1972, and abolished in 1973, not when the GFA was signed in 1998. That's why it's interesting that the Queen's University, Belfast source above, published in 1994, shows two academic researchers in the Centre for Irish Studies stating that they intend to refer to the Ulster banner by "its official name, the Northern Ireland flag." As to DDStretch, I am perfectly willing to allow that it may simply have been his honest, if mistaken, belief that you were an admin that caused him to conduct himself in a manner that looked as if he was coordinating the use, and threatened use, of administrative tools to advance one side of a content dispute. I'll wait to see what he has to say on the matter before commenting further. Miles Creagh (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the best thing for you to do, is to open an Rfc on whether or not the Ulster Banner should be implemented throughout Wikipedia, as Northern Ireland's official flag. The result will likely be no flag, but at least it will put an end to these continuing edit spats. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, GoodDay, which does seem to indicate that there is no existing consensus on the topic. However, I am not sure that it would be appropriate to use the Northern Ireland flag in every instance across Wikipedia, and I'm not arguing for that. In any case, I reckon we should finish the RfC at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland first. Miles Creagh (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

text: DDStretch it is big of you to apologise for your mistaken assumption about Snowded's admin status, and to acknowledge you wouldn't have posted your message on his page had you been aware of the actual situation. I took your message as you essentially offering to use your administrative tools to support a particular POV in an on-going content dispute. I now accept that it was simply a misunderstanding based on mistaken assumptions, and I am happy to apologise in turn for any implication that you were acting in bad faith in this matter. I would note, however, that I haven't imputed any political motivation to you here, as I have no idea what your politics may be - although that does seem to be what Snowded has done to me and other editors engaged in this dispute when he says above that we are "Unionist editors trying to make a a point". He should probably apologise for making such an assumption. Otherwise, as to the content question, there is an on-going RfC at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland which may be the better venue to advance this? Miles Creagh (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Apology accepted. I must also say that I really feel too many allegations of political issues just obscures things here. I do see that some discussion is happening now, and I hope people can concentrate on the reliable sources and weighting of any to arrive at the best solution. But a failure to do this and just game the system by the slow-motion edit warring is really not good for anyone here.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles concerning anything to do with the flag of Northern Ireland 

message: My question is two-fold:
#Would edits like ,  and  fall within WP:TROUBLES? In each case, the cited source does not link the incident to the Provisional IRA.
#If they do fall within WP:TROUBLES, what action should be taken?
Other similar edits have been made by , but since I am not an expert, I do not wish to take unilateral action except in the most blatant cases of non-verifiability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that these changes aren't adequately sourced, you could make that argument on the respective talk pages, and notify the editor of those discussions. Anyone may leave an alert of the Troubles sanctions via WP:AC/DS#Alerts on the editor's talk page but it is best to try normal negotiation first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope question 

message: Original discussion
Initiated by Swarm at 00:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
* (initiator)
=== Statement by Swarm ===
Greetings. So, WP:TROUBLES#Guide to enforcement contains a 2011 provision that places all pages in the topic area under a blanket 1RR page restriction that is specifically enforceable without warning, provided  has been placed on the talk page. This directly contradicts the current awareness criteria for enforcing page restrictions, and it's unclear to me whether that provision is exempt from, or has been superseded by, the modern awareness criteria that were implemented in 2014 and 2018. In spite of the contradiction with standard practice, it continues to be advertised as an active sanction on many articles, which is apparently validated on the case page. However, there's no apparent record, anywhere, of an intentional exemption to ArbCom's now-standardized procedure regarding awareness. It also claims to derive its authority, at least in part, from a community decision, but there is no record of such a restriction at WP:GS or on the case page, so it's unclear as to whether the "no warning" provision is actually the will of the community. Thanks in advance.
* I thought this was clarified based on the initially-unanimous response that warnings/alerts should be given. But now there are Arbs coming in, saying that the "no warning" provision still stands. So, I don't know how these things go. Will someone assess the consensus in this discussion, or should I file an amendment for the Arbs to vote on? Swarm ♠ 20:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

text: The Committee has been trending toward requiring more warning – see, for example, PIA 1RR, where the Committee has in the past said 1RR could be enforced "without warning ... even on a first offense" (March 2012, January 2016, December 2016) but explicitly took out the "without warning" wording (May 2017). I think an unequivocal statement that no page restrictions, whether imposed by discretionary sanctions or by the Committee itself, may be enforced without warning would be very helpful, if that's what the Committee intends. Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 16:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

text: This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*Moved to above section. Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 21:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Enacted - Miniapolis 14:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

text: That’s why I phrased this as a clarification. I personally think all of this is true already, but I don’t want to debate whether it is or isn’t when we can just quickly confirm this is how it should be and move on to issues of greater substance. ~ Rob13Talk 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request: The Troubles (June 2018)

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

message: The 1RR restriction originated from an AE discussion in 2008 and was clarified in an ANI discussion in 2009. It's not clear whether the 2011 motion superseding "all extant remedies" actually superseded these restrictions, since these aren't actually arbcom remedies, but looking at the history of User:Coren/draft this appears to be the intent.
Additionally, it is not clear whether and how the later changes to the DS system impact a page restriction imposed in 2011 given the provisions in WP:AC/DS#Continuity ( and ). T. Canens (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by T. Canens 

message: *By its own terms, the motion applies only to page restrictions placed as discretionary sanctions and does not apply to restrictions directly imposed by the Committee, such as 1RR from The Troubles or the General Prohibition from PIA3. As far as I remember, comments from arbitrators from the original motion supported that interpretation. Similar interpretation at the ACN talk thread. Best, Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 01:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Committee has been trending toward requiring more warning – see, for example, PIA 1RR, where the Committee has in the past said 1RR could be enforced "without warning ... even on a first offense" (March 2012, January 2016, December 2016) but explicitly took out the "without warning" wording (May 2017). I think an unequivocal statement that no page restrictions, whether imposed by discretionary sanctions or by the Committee itself, may be enforced without warning would be very helpful, if that's what the Committee intends. Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 16:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by L235 

message: From the earlier statements by arbs and other admins, it is evident that we don't yet agree on whether the existing sanctions on The Troubles-related articles are subject to the awareness principle or not. Hence this clarification request is valid and necessary.
Gnomish editors are prone to falling foul of 1RR restrictions if there isn't an awareness clause. I often make reverts on articles I pass by, only to find out afterwards that the article is subject to 1RR. The recent fiasco with the block against seasoned administrator User:Jorm, which could have been averted if there was an explicit requirement to warn before blocking, also springs to mind. I strongly recommend ArbCom to amend this case and other old case with bespoke 1RR sanctions, to enshrine the awareness principle and standardise them to standard 1RR discretionary sanctions. Deryck C. 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Deryck

message: :This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*Moved to above section. Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 21:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Troubles: Clerk notes 

message: *The general 1RR in the area was placed as a discretionary sanction by an administrator, so it is subject to the awareness criteria while enforcing it. This includes the requirements for page restrictions, as individual administrators cannot supersede the awareness requirements set by the Committee. (They could theoretically make them more stringent, but not less.) ~ Rob13Talk 16:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: The Arbitration Committee clarifies the following: All sanctions placed under remedy 3.2 of The Troubles prior to its replacement with remedy 5 are considered discretionary sanctions. Specifically, the 1RR sanction affecting the topic area is considered a form of page restriction placed as a discretionary sanction, and the additional awareness requirements regarding page restrictions apply.
:
Enacted - Miniapolis 14:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s why I phrased this as a clarification. I personally think all of this is true already, but I don’t want to debate whether it is or isn’t when we can just quickly confirm this is how it should be and move on to issues of greater substance. ~ Rob13Talk 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The Troubles: Motion

message: In The Troubles arbitration case the committee authorised a remedy that was effectively discretionary sanctions (this was before standardised discretionary sanctions as we know them today had evolved) and as part of that a general 1RR restriction was imposed. Later, the old remedy was replaced by discretionary sanctions, incorporating the 1RR restriction. However, because of the way these sanctions have evolved the scope of the DS topic area is stated differently in different places and this is causing confusion (see for example Talk:#DS notice). What I believe to be the full history of the scope(s) and where I found them  is detailed at User:Thryduulf/Troubles scope but what I understand to be the differing scopes presently in force are (numbered for ease of reference only):
#Pages relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner, broadly interpreted
#[A]ll articles could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland
#Pages relating to The Troubles and the Ulster banner (The Troubles)
#[Page template:ArbCom Troubles restriction is transcluded on] along with other articles relating to The Troubles.
#All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
British Baronets were formerly part of some of the scopes, but that was unambiguously removed by a previous committee.
I am asking the committee to: 
# Clarify this whole mess by defining a single scope for the discretionary sanctions and sanctions placed under its authority (the general 1RR is the only one I know that will be affected). 
# Formally and explicitly end the restrictions imposed in the related Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine as superceded by the discretionary sanctions authorised in The Troubles case. This is de facto the case anyway, but while tidying we might as well spend another 2 minutes to tidy this as well. (note that the Great Irish Famine article was moved to Great Famine (Ireland) after the case concluded)
Request 1 does lead to the need to determine what the scope should be. In my view, formed following some discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland and Talk:Great Famine (Ireland) and looking at various articles and talk pages is that there are only two that need considering:
:A "Pages related to The Troubles, broadly interpreted."
:B "Pages related to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland." with both geographical and political meanings of "Ireland" being within scope.
The Ulster Banner does not need to be separately mentioned - the Ulster Banner article is quiet and is not even tagged and while the Flag of Northern Ireland article would benefit from continued inclusion in the discretionary sanctions regime it is firmly within either scope suggested above.
The Easter Rising topic area is unquestionably within the scope of suggestion B and is reasonably interpreted as also being within the scope of suggestion A as crucial background to it. 
Whether the Great Famine (Ireland) is within the scope of either A or B is less clear, nor is there clear consensus whether it should be - more input than I was able to attract prior to the request is needed here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while since I've been involved with any disputes regarding the term "British Isles" but I can't imagine anything serious that wouldn't be covered by a reasonable interpretation of B. Whether it would be covered by A would be more dependent on the exact nature of the disruption, but if it is completely unrelated I don't think we should be using the sanctions of this case to solve that problem. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

text: While the topic area is relatively quiet at the moment discretionary sanctions are still desirable for at least as long as Brexit is an active political issue as any changes to the status of Northern Ireland or the Irish border could get quite messy quite quickly (history shows that the heat of conflicts on Wikipedia related to real-world geopolitical issues correlates pretty well with the heat of those issues in the real-world). Whether the specific 1RR restriction is still needed is a different question that's independent of what the scope of the DS authorisation is. It could be made narrower, but what that narrower scope should be is not clear (it's tricky to predict what the flashpoints will be), although when this ARCA is resolved I will be (proposing) removing the notification template from the talk pages of most of the few Northern Irish footballer articles it is currently transcluded on (from memory only one of those articles even gave any indication of any political or nationalist activity by the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are conflating two separate issues here (1) the scope of the topic area discretionary sanctions are authorised for, (2) the scope of the 1RR restriction imposed under that authorisation. The aim of this clarification request is solely to clarify what the scope of (1) actually is, not whether the DS regime is still required: it is, and because Brexit is on the horizon now is a good time to clarify it. (2) is a question that cannot be usefully answered until after (1) has been clarified (because the scope of any restrictions imposed under DS must be equal to or wholly contained by the scope of the DS authorisation) and in any case is not a question that requires arbcom - the purpose of discretionary sanctions is to allow administrators additional flexibility to make, adjust and remove remedies without needing to consult the committee each time. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  While a review might be useful it cannot sensibly happen until after the scope of the DS is clarified, and it doesn't require the Committee to do it - it can be done at AE or even a relevant WikiProject page, while the DS scope clarification does need to happen here. FWIW though I think it would be silly to remove the 1RR at the current time and that setting the scope to A or B above (to match the DS authorisation) would be about right. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

text:  The most recent confusion I'm aware of is at talk:Great Famine (Ireland)#DS notice (this is where I intended to link above but I see now I forgot to include the page name, sorry!), and I've seen other confusion previously but cannot immediately recall where. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

text:  Indeed, I'm not proposing to remove the 1RR at all (that's BU Rob13's confusion), simply clarifying the scope of the discretionary sanctions it's authorised under and, if necessary, adjusting the scope of the 1RR to match it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

text: My reading of the intent of Timotheus Canens's statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#One revert rule is that the 1RR is a standard discretionary sanction appealable in the normal manner but a statement making that explicit certainly wouldn't harm. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

text: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Thryduulf (re The Troubles)

message: Per SilkTork's request, here is my suggestion for the salient points of a clarification motion. It needs some introductory text and may need some wordsmithing
Note to the clerks: If this (or some similar motion) passes the scope of the DS authorisation will need to be updated at Template:Ds/topics and Template:ArbCom Troubles restriction as well as the case pages linked. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested motion re The Troubles

message: (B) would be better, in my opinion ... one could argue for the second section to specifically include the use of the term "British Isles", but that will probably be sufficient. 
If I remember correctly, the issues with the Ulster Banner weren't particularly on that article itself, but edit-warring to include the Banner instead of the Irish flag / Union Jack (depending on context) and vice-versa on BLPs and other articles that included flags and flagicons. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Black Kite 

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

message: Per a motion passed this year, the 1RR which is currently in place for Troubles articles is due to the decision by an administrator to impose it under discretionary sanctions. (Most likely it is due to this log entry by User:Timotheus Canens in the fall of 2011. The idea of a blanket Troubles 1RR didn't originate with him, it used to be a community sanction before that). So, if anybody thinks that the blanket 1RR should be adjusted they could (in theory) appeal it at AE. Personally, I can see the advantages of single-page 1RRs that could be applied by individual administrators. 
According to Canens, the scope of the case is "..reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland.." In my view, this is an adequate description of the scope and I wouldn't advise the committee to get really specific as to which articles are in or out. Admins shouldn't take action unless the nature of the edits suggests that nationalism is at work in the minds of at least some of the editors. Modern nationalism can cause problems with articles that seem tangential, as when editors who are warned about WP:ARBMAC get into wars about Alexander the Great, since the word 'Macedonia' occurs there. Yet the ARBMAC decision did not mention our article on Alexander the Great, nor should it. Even so, the ARBMAC sanctions would reasonably apply to any nationally-motivated editing of that article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by EdJohnston 

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

text: Simplicity is the key to clarity. I suggest Ireland' refers to both the political entity (also known as the  Republic of Ireland) and the island of Ireland." I can't imagine anything that might be covered by "unless explicitly stated otherwise", so I think you should leave that out.  Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, your proposed wording does not have the word "Ireland" anywhere, so is it necessary to define it at all? It refers to "Irish nationalism", which is an unambiguous term. If you're going to define "Ireland" (for purposes of wikilawyering), should you not also define "Britain", which has even more possible interpretations?  Scolaire (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your revised wording nicely illustrates how adding layers of complexity can have the opposite effect to that intended. For many people, Ireland the island is Ireland the country – a country that is partitioned between two jurisdictions. Wikilawyers could have a field day with that! The point is, it's not needed. Your Remedy 6a says, "all pages related to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly interpreted" (emphasis added). Obviously, and by any standard, a broad interpretation of "Ireland" would include both the entire island and the 26-county state. Clear as day. 6b is not needed.  Scolaire (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Scolaire 

message: :
::Enacted - Bradv🍁 01:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The Troubles: motion

message: I would like to request removal of my Troubles restrictions because I do feel that the lesson has been learned. I feel I have shown in the past I am able to edit in these areas evenhandedly with John Brady (Sinn Féin politician) and Gerry Mullan (politician) being some examples. The crux of the ban was based on me allegedly trying to get Londonderry on DYK on a politically sensitive day which was not desirable to consensus. While I have been under the ban, 1831 Londonderry City by-election ran on DYK on Ulster Day so I feel its not been done consistently. As for the judicial review article, I already explained that was an unfortunate coincidence and I had not been thinking about it at the time I wrote the article. 
If removal is not acceptable, can I request then that it be amended to permit editing of sporting articles. The reason I ask is because I asked  if I could edit GAA articles and he said no because of the sport's political culture. But most players and clubs are not political and I have done work in there previously without concern (Seán Quigley, Killian Clarke, Ian Burke, Gerry Culliton,  Cillian O'Connor, PSNI GAA and Irish Guards GAA). So, if full removal is not desired,  I would like it amended for clarity and so I am able to continue working on sporting articles please.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that people are slightly misunderstanding my clarification request here  and . I do not want to edit the GAA article, what I would like to do is make it clear if I am permitted to edit on the sportspeople and clubs who play Gaelic football and Hurling.  Those aren't political if it is as  stated that it doesn't come under the sanction. The reason I said "GAA" because I had assumed people knew that it was an encompassing term for Gaelic football and Hurling (as opposed to the sporting/political body) but I was mistaken and for that I apologise.   The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  If GAA is off limits for its political associations, so be it. But I don't think sport as a whole is. Football and rugby for example aren't political.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  When I think of sports, I don't tend to connect them with politics even with GAA hence why I asked. I ask an honest question in good faith for clarification but now it looks like I am going to have the screw tightened for daring to ask. I could have just gone on and done the editing willy-nilly but I didn't, I tried to get it squared and understood fairly but it is upsetting when you try to do everything right and by the book and get pilloried for it again. As I see this may be how it is for this restriction, I formally withdraw my request  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by The C of E 

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

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

message: *AE doesn't exactly follow the same procedures as the full committee, but speaking only for myself, I'm not inclined to consider lifting a t-ban placed for such reasons, in one of our most contentious topic areas, after only three months. And while I do appreciate that they did ask  the admin who closed the original discussion if edits they were contemplating might violate the ban, the article in question has an entire section on "nationalism and community relations, so I should think the answer was rather obvious. While I am willing to be convinced, this does not fill me with confidence that lifting the ban is the right move. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Just re-iterating what was said below, the top article on the subject makes it clear that the overall topic of Gaelic football is closely related to Irish nationalism. Further it stretches AGF to the breaking point to imagine the appellant wasn't already perfectly aware of that. I would suggest waiting at least 12 months before even considering appealing this again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, sorry for the confusing wording. I think that sport in Ireland is definitely included in the topic ban. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course they are, as I think you're well aware. – Joe (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: :Original discussion
:Enacted - –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Guerillero, @Primefac, @Izno, @Barkeep49, FYI: I've copyedited the motion in Special:Diff/1180014953. Please revert if there's anything there you oppose. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a strong need to always put everything in a box, but it is fine if it makes you happy -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We all end up in boxes. That, and taxes... Cabayi (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion: Standardizing Unusual Remedies, The Troubles (October 2023) 

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