• Comment - Vintagekits is undoing any edit made by ExNihilo or concerning ExNihilo on his talkpage saying it's a "witch hunt". I told him to stop, but as you can see, he has deleted my edit too. D.M.N. (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse as well. That edit was outrageously out of line, and I am disappointed (but not surprised) to see support for such an offensive edit summary. Horologium (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I should clarify that my endorsement is based on VK's prior history as well, particularly the large number of socks he has used to edit in the past. Horologium (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, with regret. The community's patience is not infinite, and frankly that appalling edit is actionable even without the probation and associated issues. Black Kite 17:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I am no friend of VKs and his political views are juvenile but I would not want him banned for an entry on his own page. On a narrow reading of his probation terms, it does not appear to be a breach. --MJB (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - at the moment Vintagekits is completely unapologetic about what was either an end run around, or a direct breach of, the arbcom restriction. Either way, an indefinite block is appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse permanent ban. He has been given more chances to bring his editing behaviour up to community standards than any other editor I've ever seen, and yet he still manages to show contempt for the conditions offered by the most recent probation. Enough is enough. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not endorsed - the guy has been excellent since his unblock, and I've been involved in watching him closely and monitoring for transgressions. He's been hard at work bringing articles like Michael Gomez and Wayne McCullough up to GA/FA status. In this case, I honestly think he goofed - he wasn't thinking, and went ahead and did his memorial thing, as he is wont to do. He's done that before. What he wrote, however, the "pest control" bit was sickening, highly provocative, and totally out of order. He doesn't get off the hook on this one, though, and I'm recommending a month-long block, not for punitive purposes but as a Arb-related sanction. Please also note that Vintagekits feels backed into a corner right now and is responding in the usual manner. Pretty soon, he's going to start telling people to 'fuck off', saying that it's 'bullshit', etc. He tends to lash out when he frustrated and feels picked on. Just so new folks know, and maybe cut the guy a little slack - Alison 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I feel ambivalent here. Again there is no way - none - the he couldn't have known what he did violated the agreement but we could block him for a month, and reset the trial period. 3 months of the same restrictions starting from July 28th 2008--Cailil 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

PS in such a situation we may also need to consider extending clause no. 8 of the restrictions to include User space--Cailil 18:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From his talk page, "I didnt know that the comment I made on my userpage was allowed - honestly I didnt. When User:John asked me to remove it I did straight away - I cant believe I am going to get banned for this especially as I havent edited one political article since my return" - looks like he just slipped up and forgot himself for a minute. Then he was pounced upon and things began to spiral - Alison 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If he can say "it wont happen again" and understand why we have a problem with it then I'd support alteration of the block length. That is on condition his editing restriction's clock is reset and starts off again after being unblocked--Cailil 19:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

See here - Alison 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I thought he was going to stick to boxing articles. I said if he removed the offending matter from his user page I would leave it at that, so I will keep my word and refrain from endorsing the ban. If he is banned he has nobody to blame but himself. --John (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment After having spoken with VK; I'm not overly convinced with preventing an editor from commenting on his own page (no matter what the topic). GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Could someone arrange to do that transclusion thing that allows VK to respond on his talk page and have his answers come up in this thread? It's a little beyond my technical know-how. Risker (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: This obviously was a serious error in judgment and most of us may disagree strongly with his opinions, but considering "As soon as John raised the concern that he thought it would breach the probation I removed the comment" I'm not sure that we need to indef ban for this incident. He does appear to be trying to abide by the probation. Shell 19:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm concerned about condition #8 of VK's probation (which he's accused of breaching). I find that 'condition #8' is vague; it doesn't say both public & Vk's page is off limits -doesn't make the distinction-. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Not endorsed - recommend Alison's solution. It should be noted, however, that VK is a POV warrior, and I don't believe he didn't know better (he seems to continue to push the envelope until he gets blocked, then say "oops"). However, on the stipulation that the probation be extended for a period of an additional 3 months. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not endorsed Yep, it was a stupid thing to do, and in the circumstances, if it had been me, I would have asked one of my mentors before posting. That said, he's stuck to the terms of his probation very well till now. Personally, per Cailil and Alison, I'd adjust his probation term #8 to explicitly include user pages, and restart the clock on his probation. Bastun 19:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Modify term #8 and reset the probation - Alison 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban per Allison. Her own commentary, while not supporting the ban, makes it clear he's not the kind of editor we need to be tolerating here. But, a seriously long block might is better than nothing, so that's my second choice. Friday (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment- this is what happends when admins allow users who support terrorism and murder to freely edit, and then punish and bully those who oppose them. I am surprised he lasted this long without some outrage or another. Astrotrain (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Not endorsed - for ban, but do endorse resetting the probation clock for three months from today, under the same terms, as per Alison and Cailil above. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Not endorsed I guess it is a case of VKs frustration at being unable to actually edit the article that leads to this. I also note that all those running to block and endorse the block of VK in the beginning have not edited the article (and it needed it for grammar etc), were making no effort to add him to Deaths in 2008 et al. Some people prefer drama to actual editing, it seems. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO a week long block would be appropriate but a longer one let alone an indef block is completely OTT. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (from AN)

Agree. Especially worrying here is that the nature of the comment (a perfectly valid view IMHO) appears to be a factor in the eyes of some; rather than whether or not this breaches the "conditions" and if so was that clear to Vk. Folk need to park their political POV when assessing this. Sarah777 (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with what most of Friday and Allemandtando say, we put up with far too much here. Last I checked, userpages were part of "anywhere on Misplaced Pages" and the edit may also violate term number 6 (that's a little more questionable as it would need to be determined if it was "seriously" offensive) but arguing that userpages don't count as "anywhere on Misplaced Pages" because they weren't explicitly mentioned is just silly. Mr.Z-man 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If we're going to nit-pick and wikilawyer about the phrasing of clause #8 and whether or not user talk space is included, how about this edit in the main article space, where he created a redirect to the McWilliams article? Without dispute, that would be a violation of clause #8 #1 if we're looking for technicalities. The point is that Vintagekits cannot stay away from Irish political articles, and he cannot refrain from making inappropriate comments. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He's done this sort of thing before, said he won't do it again, so how do we know he won't. He's had multiple chances and blown every one. He also seems to fail to understand the callousness of what he said. He knew the terms of his probation and keep pushing the limits to see what he can get away with. He violated the terms and terms clearly say a ban is what the result is. A three-month probation obviously isn't getting his attention. So what will? More probation? I don't. He's not very convincing in his sincerity. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Billy Wright was hardly a nice chap himself, I am afraid. I think VK thought this was outside the probation conditions, hence something like a week is a correct block but an indef is completely OTT and generally disruptive to the encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If there were no probation in question, maybe, but the probation terms are very clear-violation=ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the ban. DustiSPEAK!! 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I endorse a ban as well, his comments above certainly didn't help his case. Mr.Z-man 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly... putting that on your userpage violates the probation terms (yes, the terms don't specify userspace, but that's a technicality). You agreed that if you breach them, you get banned. Endorse Alex Muller 17:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, he knows that his views on this subject are controversial; he knows he's not supposed to inflame things about them; and he did something that was clearly designed to provoke a reaction. Endorse. Dr. eXtreme 17:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not endorse: What can one say? Yet again Vintagekits proves himself to be his own worst enemy. I fought hard for him to be allowed to return under strict provisions. I thought they has been fully explained to him, clearly not. The only thing I can say in his defence is that this does seem a minor transgression, and I know that he though it was OK to make the edit in what appears to be grey area Bearing in mind his many good edits and attempts to land his first FA, he has proven his potential. So perhaps the clock could be reset. Giano (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not endorsed I can't believe I'm agreeing with SqueakBox, but he and Alison have a point. VK has been really well behaved recently and I think we shouldn't be so hasty to kick him off again. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

His probation did not say "If you behave well...we'll ignore the terms of the probation or if it's considered minor". It says a violation=ban. The terms also said "any area of wikipedia", and user pages are part of wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments like this (see his talk page) are not helping him: "Sickening to you - not to others - the man is a hero to many for killing "King Rat" the sectarian bigot and murderer. Crip is known as "the rat-catcher" by many hence the reference to pest control but if you have known what you were talking about before you jumped in then none of your drama causing would have been needed. John asked me to remove the comment and I did and that should have been the end of it but you have been gagging to block me for weeks and didnt need much of an excuse. --Vintagekits (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)"...Not to mention the email he sent me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Totally object, let alone endorse. The comments about the sentiments expressed being "outside the pale" on Wiki are pure POV and make the motives of the editors making those statements suspect. The only issues are:
• Was Vk in breach? - Questionable
• If so, did he realise he was? - Doubtful
• Is this (on his own talkpage) serious enough for a permanent ban? - Absolutely not.

Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriousness of the violation is not part of his probation terms, it says any violation=ban. His terms said anywhere on wiki and user pages are part of wiki. And yes, he did violate his terms. I wonder how the family deceased would feel this is minor. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The family of which deceased? Crips or Billy Wright? Or maybe Wright's victims? See - this type of comment is why this call for a ban must be dismissed forthwith. It is based on political POV. In my opinion. Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article on Billy Wright. he wasn't exactly a saint and it is not for wikipedia to take sides in any The Troubles dispute. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What's in that article is not germane to the issue. What is germane is VK's postings, that they violate his terms--that's almost unanimous--, and that the terms in such a case call for a ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You really need to lighten up and be flexibkle here. remeber iAR is about what is good for the prioject and judging VKs intemntions and what is best for the porject and indef block is completely inappropriate. And wikipedia is not subject to law and strictly legal interpretaions in the way government law is, it is there to help make the encyclopedia work. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the purpose of probation and sanctions if we're not going to enforce them? We may as well turn wiki over to the disruptors and POV pushers. This is last in a long line of problems with this user. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right Sarah777, POV doesn't come into it, it's simply down to the facts. And they seem to be quite clear:

• Was Vk in breach?/If so, did he realise he was? Yes, he referenced violence during The Troubles knowing full well that a condition of his ban was to not post about the Troubles anywhere on Misplaced Pages.
• Is this (on his own talkpage) serious enough for a permanent ban? You don't seem to understand the concept of 'probation' - the point is that this is apparently just the last in a long line of indiscretions. The entire point of the probation with it's explicit rules and explicitly having a single repercussion for any deviation from those rules was to signify that any such breach however small would be the straw that broke the camel's back. Yes, if you take any single thing on its own then of course it won't correspond to an indefinite ban, the probation seems to have existed to try and break a pattern of behaviour. Clearly it hasn't worked. Failing to follow through on the rules of the probation now would only serve to undermine all of that and encourage any would-be miscreants since they'll know that no matter what terms are placed against someone to prevent bad behaviour, WP will back down when push comes to shove and every 'last-final-ultimate chance' will be rolled over again and again and again. I was vaguely aware of some of Vintagekits' issues on WP but I must admit I've looked back and it's truly shocking how many "last chances" he's already had.

-- ExNihilo (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Having read the thread above I suggest that anyone who finds the comments unacceptable, (as distinct from disagreeable), should take no further part in this debate as they are clearly unable to abide by the Wiki principle of WP:NPOV. I saw this demonstrated by a variety of editors during my own block . The conflation of my views on The Troubles, with my views on Anglosphere POV, with incivility, reverting a totally unrelated area and alleged breach of Arbcom Rulings would have been a hoot has I not been the subject of so much bile, confusion and misinformation. We need to start dealing with these issues with much greater clarity and logic and common sense. And from a position of clinical respect for WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

ExNihilo, I think your comments point to inadequacies in wikipedia's way of dealing with political disputes and editors and not to do directly with VK. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how so many people who have never been on AE before are showing up here. And Sarah, I think anyone who finds his comments acceptable should cease discussion here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What is AE? And your basis for your statement (in Wiki policy) is...what? (As for his comments I don't just find them acceptable I fully agree with them). Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

AE is the page you're on, Arbitration Enforcement, WP:AE. And glad you admit you find glorifying murder acceptable, ergo admitting your bias here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only person who finds the glorifying of murderkilling disruptive? This would warrant a block even if it was not a user with such a troubled past and a direct prohibition from that subject. Come on folks, enough is enough. _{1 != 2} 23:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be the only person who reckons that welcoming the execution of a sectarian mass-murderer is "glorifying of murder". I don't really know. But I'd personally find attacking someone for expressing a positive view of such an action disruptive, enough being enough etc. (Really - best to leave the political POV and moral outrage at home - it has no place here). Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, most people would find a comment expressing a opinion on a murder as "pest control" sickening regardless of who it was about - I would've endorsed some sort of ban here whether it was VK or one of Lauder and his chums. Since you actually agree with the comment, it is clear that it is you that whose failure of WP:NPOV means you should cease commenting here. Black Kite 14:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when is the userspace the appropriate place to express political views? When banned from that very subject by the community? Since when is linking to "pest control" in reference to a killing a positive view? Such opinions belong on a blog. _{1 != 2} 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And you are not expressing a political view - right here?!!!! Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The only view I made was "Such opinions belong on a blog", not really a political view. _{1 != 2} 12:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya's may aswell end this little argument, it's only gonna be a stalemate. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I don't reckon it's a stalemate - we are both expressing political views but only one of us seems to be aware of it! (Back to the ole embedded Anglo-pov thingy again I guess). Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

An anglo POV I, SB, pretty broadly support, but that does not mean I do not want those who think differently, like VK and 777, to be unable to edit. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse The terms were clear and a last ditch effort, he broke them and so the consequence is pretty clear. A promise that he will not break his promises again is fairly worthless. It was tried, it failed. Lets move on to better things. EDIT: If there is a view that the cost of keeping VK around is worth the gain, then at the least we should look at lengthening his probation rather than a short period ban? A short period ban would be punitive and gain nothing. Lengthening the restrictions on the troubles seem like a sensible choice, though I would say at this point you just ban him from mentioning the troubles full stop, indef. Just block him from editing those articles and getting involved in trouble discussions and be done with it. Heck, providing admin were willing to police it, I'd even prefer such a lenghtening of the topicban instead of an indef ban. Narson (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Edited: Narson (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not endorsed Agree with Sarah I very much doubt VK realised that this would breach his ban and at any such rate a short term block would be more suitable not an outright ban.Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to say endorse or not endorse as I'm not totally clear what I would be endorsing or not, but the facts of the issue seem fairly plain to me: 1) Vintagekits has been on good behaviour since his return and has done some excellent work in article space. 2) Vintagekits cannot have been unaware that the comment in his Userspace was provocative, disruptive and totally in violation of the spirit of his parole, whatever the technicalities of the case may be. 3) McWilliams and Wright's actions during their lives are totally irrelevant to this discussion - no matter how much Vintagekits liked McWilliams and disliked Wright, he knows full well that a comment such as the one he made is inappropriate from any user and especially inflammatory from someone with his block and edit history. 4) Long term editing bans imposed on Vintagekits have twice failed before and are unlikely to succeed in this instance. On the basis of this, I endorse Alison's suggestion of a short week/month ban and a reset of the probation clock to the day of his return. --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like clarification of the comment above: Not to mention the email he sent me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC) before offering an opinion. Rockpocket 00:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse – He made a reference to The Troubles, thereby breaking Stipulation 10 of his probation, which nowhere mentions giving leeway if there is a precedent of good behavior. We're debating whether or not he violated the terms of his probation, not if the community approves of banning him. —Animum (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Per Alison above and Ryan Postlethwaite below; this is the last second chance he's going to get. I strongly encourage him not to engage in anything relating to The Troubles whatsoever. —Animum (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, no, we are discussing whether to endorse the indef block or not, that is the issue at hand. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest that change; this page is for Arbitration enforcement, not attempts at redrafting the conditions that the Arbitration Committee set forth. —Animum (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not the arbcom who set the conditions. That was reached by consensus by all interested parties. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that does indeed change things. Above comment amended appropriately. —Animum (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• VK was already been banned once under the terms of the RfAR. While that ban was being discussed, he was apparently offered an unblock if he'd agree to very specific terms governing his return.User:Vintagekits/terms The first provision is: He may edit only sporting articles and their associated talk pages... He agreed to those terms, and was unblocked. The terms say, in bold lettering, that he will be banned indefinitely if there is any violation, "in any way whatsoever". While still under that agreement VK broke it by creating a redirect concerning a figure in the Troubles and by postings on his user page. If the user did not have the contribution hsitory of KV, if he had not already been blocked so many times, if he had not agree to be blocked indefinitely for any violation whatsoever, or if he had shown contrition, then the situation would be different. However, given the entire chain of events and agreements, and weighing the net benefits to the project, I believe that the right course of action is to enforce the indefinite ban that VK agreed to when he was unbanned recently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorese ban - after seeing the rest of the discussion and given the additional issue with the creation of the redirect, it doesn't seem that he's going to be able to stay out of the issues voluntarily. Shell 01:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. I have never had any interaction whatsoever with the user in question, nor participated in any way in articles related to the topic(s) for which he was sanctioned, therefore I consider myself to be entirely neutral in this AE. As I see it, the user has clearly violated the explicit and agreed terms of his probation, by creating the redirect page and userpage comment aforementioned. To avoid enforcing the ban because it was his userpage and not mainspace is a thin reed given the all-encompassing nature of the original probation terms. An action in direct violation of probation is altogether different that a problematic edit as an isolated occurrence. To fail to enforce would erode confidence in the entire ArbComm process. JGHowes - 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• I was going to say Endorse, but having read Alison's response, I'm saying Not Endorse, but block until August 1st, 2008. D.M.N. (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Not endorsed: Alison summed it up pretty well. Vin loves to edit, and the articles on boxing would be at a loss without him. --Domer48 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse (assuming us normal editor can vote); not solely for the offensive talk page comment; but for the creation of Crip McWilliams, which surely counts as a troubles article. (disclosure: I'm one of those on the other side of the troubles; or rather that's my historical viewpoint.) --Blowdart | 13:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • To be fair to VK, he made that in Dec 2006, long before the probation. Narson (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • He's talking about the fact that Vintagekits made the redirect for Crip McWilliams yesterday. -- ExNihilo (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't even notice it was a redirect. Yes. My mistake. Definatly a blatant breach, not in user space...I can't see it being defended. Have we been given any explanation? Narson (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per JGHowes. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment My support for a ban is for a topic ban, not for a total ban from WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • VK is already under a topic ban which he violated despite his explicit agreement to be banned indefinitely if he should violate it in any way whatsoever. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - This editor would be no loss, countless hours have been wasted discussing this editors behaviour, time which could have been spent constructively editing wikipedia. Snappy56 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment; I notice that yet more editors are expressing support for a ban based on their POV rather than any breach of any Wiki-policy. This is so reminiscent of my own recent experience - I really do think that such opinions should be disallowed in procedures such as this. It tends to trivialise the whole AE process and undermine its credibility. And they seem incapable of even seeing their pov for what it is - eg Black Kite for example. Also folk who point out that I (who make no bones about it) also have a POV are not understanding the central issue here. WP:NPOV clearly demands that such loaded language and POV be kept out of articles and, indeed, due process such as this. It does not refer to talkpages. Remember the phrase "terrorist" is outlawed in Wiki-articles because it is recognised to be POV-laden and in conflict situations "murder" isn't necessarily a word compatible with WP:NPOV. Just try stating that the US soldiers in Iraq or British soldiers in Afghanistan "murdered" somebody and you'll get a crash course in how "loaded" some folk regard that term. "This editor would be no loss" (by Snappy) is a comment I find in breach of WP:CIVIL and is a judgment on Vk's work in boxing articles - a totally separate issue to what is being discussed here. Again, in my "trial" I had many editors with very skimpy contribution histories and of highly questionable value feeling that the "trial" gave them licence to denigrate me in all sorts of ways unconnected to my alleged crimes. These type of comments should also alert the community to the motives and POV of the hardliners calling for Vk's head. Sarah777 (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Making bad faith accusations doesn't help Sarah, and is exactly my concern for these things. We don't need more editors in trouble over this. Narson (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making "bad faith" accusations. (1) I have identified issues raised by editors here that should play no part in these proceedings (2) I said certain editors were not able to recognise their own POV; that isn't an accusation of bad faith (3) I have identified what I beleive is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL (4) I think 'motive' is very important to consider in these type of politically charged situations and the discussion here certainly indicates to me that much of the endorsement of the banning of Vk is based on political POV which should play no part here - I thought I have demonstrated that clearly in my arguments? Sarah777 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That others have POV is a given. Assuming others have made their decisions based purely on that POV and thus dismissing them does seem rather bad faith. Leave it up to whoever has the unpleasant task of deciding on this. I'm sure we can all find something to edit rather than this. Heck, we could always do with more Pokemon articles! Narson (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

At least I admitted mine; can you honestly claim that you have no POV in this matter; given your background and upbringing? I don't mind being accused of POV, however I find your attempt to paint yourself whiter that white disingenuous. --Blowdart | 23:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, all comments should be removed from this AE case. Leaving just the endorse & no endorse votes in place. That way, there's no room for arguing. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that only comments specifically referring to the matter at hand and not irrelevant issues should feature. No comment at all would make the debate rather difficult to evaluate! (We already know that vastly more editors are closer to "mainstream" pov than to Vk's; a simple vote would only appear to confirm that - rather than the merits of the case) Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that every time I make a comment on Misplaced Pages a certain editor accuses me of breaching WP:CIVIL, well what I should have added to my original comment was that calling a killing - pest control - and congratulating the killer and expressing condolences on the death of the killer is clear breach of the terms of Vintagekits parole. Snappy56 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Reading most of these comments, it's obvious that the objectionable part was the reference to "pest control". At first glance it appears wholly inappropriate, but I now understand that it is a term used even by Loyalists. It is dubious if this sentence is taken to be in breach of (the spirit of) the ArbCom ruling - it is VK tipping his cap at the death of a Republican, which is something I believe he frequently does. However objectionable the comment, it should be referred back to ArbCom for clarification if this is in breach or not. Knee jerk reactions from uninvolved/uninformed editors are not helpful. --Bardcom (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Sarah, rather than get bogged down in the POV issue, lets remain focused on what this discussion is about: whether Vk was in violation of his terms of probation. According to the terms that he willingly signed up to, Term 10: If he breaks the terms of these conditions, in any way whatsoever, he will be banned from editing indefinitely. The community could decide to to implement an alternative consequence at its discretion (and indeed some have made that proposal), but there can be little argument over what the default consequence is. So then, the question is has Vk broke the terms of these conditions, and perhaps also, since it is important to some editors, was this done in a manner that is POV dependent?

• Term 6: He will not use any obscene, blasphemous, racist, seriously offensive or threatening language. Well, clearly some editors have deemed his comments to be offensive. That is understandable. But it ultimately comes down to a POV.
• Term 8: He will not make any reference or comment anywhere on Misplaced Pages (in article, talk, image or project space, edit summaries or via links off-site) concerning The Troubles. He clearly made a comment in reference to the Troubles on his user-page. The problem here is that there is a list of qualifiers and that list does not include user-space. That was my oversight, because I drafted that sentence. I certainly intended user-space to be included (which was why it was preceded by "anywhere on Misplaced Pages"). But nevertheless, it comes down to a POV whether or not the absence of it mentioned expressly would mean that this term was broken or not.
• Term 8: He will not make any reference or comment anywhere on Misplaced Pages (in article, talk, image or project space, edit summaries or via links off-site) concerning The Troubles. Unfortunately, he put the words RIP CRIP in the edit summary of the aforementioned edit. Therefore in doing so he technically did break term 8. No POV issue here.
• Term 1: He may edit only sporting articles and their associated talk pages, excluding any article with connections to The Irish Troubles. Vk created the redirect Crip McWilliams That is not a sporting article and it clearly has connections to The Irish Troubles: a pretty clear, albeit perhaps minor, violation of term 1 and no POV issue.

So, these are the issues as I see them. Is there any serious doubt that Vk technically broke at least 1 term of his conditions? I can't see how there can be. The question then, I guess, is does the community wish for term 10, which was written to follow automatically, to do just that? Or would they prefer an alternative consequence commensurate with the seriousness of the breach (such as a reset of the parole +/- a lengthy block)? Alternatively, some may prefer no consequence at all to supersede term 10, because they feel it was merely a technicality. This comes down to a personal opinion and appears to be the basis by which people are endorsing or opposing. I am not going to !vote either way, because I tried to stay neutral during the drafting and presentation of these conditions, and thus I would rather try and state the issue under debate without bias one way or the other. Rockpocket 23:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reset parole terms - agree that it was 'clear' (Term 1), but minor and perhaps accidental breach. Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Accidental? Creating a comment he knows would tweak multiple editors, an edit specifically related to the troubles? If that's accidental then he has serious bad luck. --Blowdart | 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If VK had apologized for his actions and said he'd made a mistake then it would be easier to regard this is as an accident. Instead, he has deleted posting on his talk page asking for clarification. He isn't calling it an accident and seems to feel that he was within his rights to do what he did. I see no indication that he would act differently in the future if unbanned (again). If I've overlooked his expressions of remorse please correct me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a key point. Clearly VK was guilty of an error of judgment, for which he's being - I think rightly - criticised. The question is whether he is willing to take responsibility for his error. Has he done so? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The terms did not specify minor/major, but any vio. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to close

I move to close this report. Clearly there is no consensus for a permanent ban; yes, VK made a stupid mistake but I am sure that by now he will understand that next time he makes such a mistake a permanent ban from WP will be a done deal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is going to work, because Vk is currently indef blocked (which, technically speaking, was the appropriate admin action proscribed by the probation terms.) The question is: is there any consensus that we should consider an alternative course of action. Rockpocket 01:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The only consensus here is that if look at who is not actually involved in the dispute, there is a consensus for the ban. The probation clearly specified a vio=ban, with no leeway. The terms clearly said "anywhere on wiki" and user pages are part of wiki. How he could not understand that is baffling to me. He was obviously on his last chance. This thread is chock full of The Troubles editors from both sides, all but a few of whom have not participated at AE before. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, it seems that this was a mistake by this user, and he has been making good edits on unrelated articles. I would argue for a second chance here on that basis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me how he misunderstood "anywhere on wiki". His attitude during this hasn't been exemplary either -on and off wiki. I got a less than polite email from him. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm staying out of the discussion, and could if this was ready close it. However, I don't think it is ready. It will be ready to close when one of the following statements is true: 1) there is a consensus of uninvolved editors and admins about the future course of action, or 2) discussion has died away after an adequate discussion period (which will not be before July for this item), or 3) VK has been blocked long enough that a significant fraction of administrative commentators believe he should be immediately unblocked. If you think there is a consensus about the future course of action, you should be able to positively describe that conensus, not merely say there is no consensus for option "X" - that option X is not consensus is certainly not evidence that consensus exists. GRBerry 02:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support closing per Jossi, with unblock of Vintagekits. Let's look at the chronology. In real life, someone Vintagekits knows dies. This person has an article on Misplaced Pages. VK, as he has done in the past (for example, when a Misplaced Pages editor involved in editing The Troubles passed away), clears his pages and posts a "RIP" message, linking to the WP article. He notes that there is no redirect from one of the names the WP article's subject is commonly known by, and creates the redirect. (That's not exactly editing an article, it's such a routine task for experienced editors that it comes as second nature. Vintagekits has made dozens of such redirects, as he historically has worked in articles where the subject is known by more than one name.) When he is told that the way in which he has linked his friend's name could breach the editing restrictions, he immediately modifies the link. He doesn't argue about it. He has been remorseful on his talk page. It's doubtful that anyone considered routine encyclopedic maintenance such as redirects as being problematic when developing the editing restrictions - either VK or those who wrote up the restrictions. Clearly, that will not happen again. Risker (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Amended to specify that desired outcome is unblock, per Rockpocket's comment below. Risker (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You left out the insulting the deceased part. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is totally irrelevant and that is why this block should be lifted asap as being basically unsound and unfair. Sarah777 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's at the heart of the matter, ie, re the "seriously offensive " (item 6) part of his terms. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To describe this remark as "seriously offensive" is pure POV. I didn't find the remarks offensive at all, and I'm easily offended. And as you are (I think) the blocking Admin that Rockpocket reckons has the final say in this we have a serious problem here. Sarah777 (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. The problem is that the phrasing "seriously offensive" is calling for a POV conclusion from outsiders. It doesn't specificy to whom the remark is seriously offensive, and, not saying that is the case here, even the slightest sourced disparagement of somebody's hero would likely be seen as seriously offensive to that person's fan. On that basis, I would have to say that that particular term should either be discounted and if possible avoided in the future. But I do not think it would be at all useful to seek to apply that term of probation as sufficient cause here. Regarding the redirect, if it is a reasonable redirect, offensive or not, and I don't know the subject well enough to say anything one way or another, I would have to say it would be at best a minor matter. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If we close, Vk will very likely remain indef blocked as he is currently. The blocking admin is content with the block and there is certainly not a consensus to reverse it. Closing does not appear conducive to the outcome you are advocating. Rockpocket 03:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Rockpocket, I have amended my comment above. Risker (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sarah777, it is not totally irrelevant. See item 6 of Vintagekits' probation. Specifically the term "seriously offensive". It has nothing to do with POV, surely even someone who agrees generally with Vintagekits' sentiment such as yourself (I assume from previous comments) can see that the remark could be considered seriously offensive by anyone regardless of their opinions on The Troubles or the two men involved. That means decisions based on item 6 being breached are no less valid than any others. -- ExNihilo (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To describe this remark as "seriously offensive" is pure POV. I didn't find the remarks offensive at all. Sarah777 (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And to dismiss it points to your own pure POV attitude; especially given your upbringing. I can at least admit my bias; I'd like to see you do the same. If the comment had been racist would that be POV too? Probably by your arguments. Does that excuse it? No. --Blowdart | 10:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• "When he is told that the way in which he has linked his friend's name could breach the editing restrictions, he immediately modifies the link." Not immediately. The entire reason I had to bring this probation violation up in ANI in the first place was because I attempted to point out to Vintagekits on his talk page that the edit breached his probation and he persistently deleted my comments until I had no choice but to bring it up there. It was only later (after I had posted to ANI) that John also told Vintagekits he should remove the edit and he complied. In other words this isn't a case of Vintagekits forgetting himself or not thinking that the edit conflicted. Even if he miraculously didn't know it when he made the edit, he certainly knew it when I pointed it out - and his decision was to delete my comment and ignore it. That paints a very different picture of the situation in my book -- ExNihilo (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

He should have his block shortened to a few days and then, and only then, close the thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I see no consensus to either ratify or overturn Rlevse's decision, so I do not support closure yet. As for the issue at hand, I note that the community agreed to the byzantine conditions for Vintagekits' current probation—as did Vintagekits himself—so it is utterly inconsistent for the community to change or ignore these rules after Vintagekits broke them. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point, and let's not forget what brought those conditions upon VK--long term problems (which I had no part in). And again, if you, for the sake of making a point, you disallow all the comments from both sides from those involved The Troubles, meaning look at those who are neutral, there is a consensus for the ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think you can eliminate the comments of all those involved! That would leave the decision to those with least appreciation of the circumstances around this and I certainly would continue to have issues with folk who keep introducing the "offensive" nature of the comments being involved in the decision. Sarah777 (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keeping this open, on the other hand, does no good for either VK or the community. The block was correct (That is technically, I'm not getting into the moral imperitives of right/wrong) per the terms of the probation. If I am correct, this does not preclude people from campaigning for VK to be unblocked under a fresh set of probation terms, ones which can be tighter and more obvious perhaps, so we don't end up with this situation. Not to say it wouldn't be more of an uphill struggle to get consensus for probation again, I do think VK has abused the trust the community put in him and I am disappointed, but it is by no means impossible. Or am I getting indef block and indef ban mixed up again and VK would be gone for good if this is enforced? Narson (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think he'd be gone for good. Could someone clarify this? Sarah777 (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BANNED. First, note people use the term 'banned' loosely when they really mean blocked. A ban, per WP:BANNED, means they can't edit wiki at all and can not come back, except with the slim chance arbcom permits it (doesn't happen very often). An indef block can, with wide community support, be overturned. There are also topic bans, where they can not edit a certain area of wiki or mention said area (sort of what VK's terms were). — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, the redirect. It's hardly a contentiously named redirect (unlike some that could be created to countless articles), and if anyone had gone to ANI and said that VK should be banned for daring to create that redirect then hopefully they would be laughed off the noticeboard. Now for the comments he made on his userpage, which are indenfensible. However many familiar with VK, including people who have strongly opposed him in the past such as Bastun and Maxburgoyne, are not in favour of a ban. Can VK be banned for this? Yes, but should he? We're not mindless drones, we can apply common sense and ignore all rules, even though there isn't a rule that says we have to ban him. There's no point in losing his many positive contributions to boxing articles especially with the upcoming Olympics over an ill-judged comment on his userpage.

And while I'm here, shame on the recent changes patrollers who didn't spot that the unsourced death of someone had been added to an article. Shame on the people who edited the article after that without adding a source for his death, which didn't happen until almost ten hours later. Shame on the people, especially admins, that argued about whether an indefinite block and ban should apply while McWilliams' death was unsourced. Shame on all of you. Shame on the people who preach from on high about the Troubles, while ignoring that the Pat Finucane article turned from this (which is relatively neutral, though far from comprehensive and in need of plenty of work) into this which is unbelievably still the current version of the article. Shame on the recent changes patrollers that didn't revert this addition to an article about a living person, which stayed in the article for about 36 hours. But I bet if VK had removed that you'd have the same people saying he should be banned as he'd breached his probation by editing that article too right? Shame on you all.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

VK has had multiple chances before and was on his last chance, and he blew it. Shame on all those who propose we waste even more of our time on him...he doesn't exactly have a track record that enables confidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the mindless drones who are arguing for a ban which isn't even permitted per WP:BAN (read the policy) that are wasting time. It's a pity you can't respond to criticism of your own shortcomings with an admission of error but instead attack the messenger, not much more needs to be said about your failings... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you're calling several people, including me, in this thread "mindless drones". Sounds like personal attacks to me. And yes, it is permitted by policy and his terms. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cry me a river. I see at least one uninvolved admin saying he should be unblocked (under certain terms), therefore he isn't banned. What you're suggesting is that a locally implemented consensus (VK's original unblock conditions) can trump the banning policy, when as everyone knows a local consensus cannot ever trump policy. So no, it isn't permitted by policy. If you want to talk about time being wasted, the comment was gone after John asked VK to remove it and said no more would be said about it, so everything else has been pointless drama. And who started it? The person who has the cheek to complain about other people wasting time. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hackney on the most part. Yes, VK made a mistake. Yes, VK has apologised. However, banning him is the worst possible solution. VK is a damn good editor, as a matter of fact a article he's been working on recently is about to become a Featured article, VK is a dedicated editor, however, like all of us, he made a mistake. He admitted it. I would prefer to see VK unblock and let all this drama go away before someone gets seriously hurt over it. Wear here to discuss - unfortunately at the moment it looks like we're beating a dead horse. VK has apologised, on reflection he knows what he's done wrong, so I say unblock and let us all get back to doing what we are all good and that is improve the encyclopedia. Too much time is being spent with this discussion when it shouldn't me IMO. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, not to argue with each other. D.M.N. (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a perception that Vintagekits is such a stellar editor on boxing articles? He has exhibited unacceptable behaviour in that topic space also, such as repeatedly calling another editor a "moron" for that editor trying to undo Vintagekits' own mistake (cut&paste move), while he was using a sockpuppet to make those edits. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

He is not a stellar editor. Most of his contributions are badly written, and need to be put into proper English by more experienced writers. He does provide images, but most of them sectarian in nature. He has caused nothing but trouble since he arrived here, his only supporters being those who share his violent anti-British views, or those deluded enough to believe he can change! Astrotrain (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. That is uncalled for, and I ask you to retract that. Risker (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, check his blocked log . — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A ban is overkill. Several of VK's boxing-related edits have been showing up on my watchlist since he was unblocked, all of them within what is expected of a contributive user, they are done in good faith, outside of that if he uses professional-level language is irrelevant. I personally reviewed Michael Gomez when it was taken to FAC. A single mistake doesn't justify a ban when weighted against his other contributions during this timeframe. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't a single mistake, just one of a series. The terms he himself agreed to are clear. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

As a battle is starting to break out, let's bring some order back into proceedings. We have some interesting ideas already in this discussion, and both sides certainly have weight. VK broke the restriction - we all agree with that, and that should lead to a ban per the original agreement. On the other side we have people suggesting that whilst he broke the terms, it was very minor and most probably a mistake. Also, he's been working hard on boxing articles and people can see a real change in character. So how do I see the consensus? Well - a number of admins oppose this and would be willing to unblock, so VK can't be banned. He could be blocked indef per consensus, but this just games WP:BAN because it is in effect the same conclusion. The way I see the "consensus" of this discussion, given the definition of a community ban and the fact that one can't be enacted now, is that the probation should be reset, VK counselled and told explicity that if this happens again, however minor, he won't get another chance. We can all get back to doing things we enjoy doing, and VK can get back to work on those boxing articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - although I think very definite terms regarding what is and is not acceptable on the user page and everywhere else in wikipedia should be spelled out. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the size of the support for a complete ban here, I'll make it clear to VK that where there's a restriction about commenting on a topic, or any other restriction that has undefined spaces for that matter, he should consider that it is a restriction for all namespaces within Misplaced Pages. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - I think this is a good summary and a good idea. Vintagekits and I have had our problems in the past, but he has clearly improved his attitude in recent weeks and I think a reset probabtion and a clear and unequivocal warning will be adequate in this instance. I would also support a short ban to allow this issue to die down, although it is not essential to my support. What must be made absolutely clear however, is that any further Troubles related shennanigans or aggressive behaviour towards other editors will bring an extensive if not permanent ban.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - No comments. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support No drama, no arguments, VK to be unblocked by the Olympics at the latest. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Sarah777 (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Support per Ryan. Bastun 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support per Ryan. I'll unblock him myself if there's consensus here. I'd also like the see the conditions around term #8 tightened a bit; both for his sake and that of the community. No more wiggle-room for mistakes - Alison 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support with modification to probation I'd prefer an extension of the troubles topic ban to indefinate, I think its pretty clear it brings out the worst in VK and the drama does not bring out the best in anyone else. I don't think in 3 months he will be a different VK and I don't think in 3 months the community will want to handle all this over again. Lets just nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem and the 'ban' hand is forced. Narson (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support No drama, no arguments. --Domer48 (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support sounds like the best plan. Shell 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support, agree with Alison that we can tighten up #8, and perhaps add a condition that he is strongly encouraged to remove any "Troubles" related comments placed on his talk page by other editors and that such removal will not constitute breaking the terms of his editing conditions. Risker (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think that makes sense too. He could even place a template on the talk page that no such comments are welcome there. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support per Ryan. The current block should be no longer than a week though. -Bardcom (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Support leaving blocked till 15th, then unblocking under the conditions listed, which should be applied strictly. _{1 != 2} 13:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Support – seems reasonable. —Animum (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Rudget (logs) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Concrete details

While I still think this is the wrong path to take and stand by my already-stated views, I also agree it is time to end this. Therefore, I will support User:Ryan Postlethwaite in his efforts to seek a resolution here. Therefore, I propose the following:

• The probation period be extended and end on Dec 31, 2008 (amend item 8 accordingly)
• The indef block I placed will end Jul 15, 2008 and shall only be removed by an arb clerk or clerk helper.
• The phrase "anywhere on Misplaced Pages" includes User:Vintagekits's user page and user talk page and redirects--anywhere on Misplaced Pages is included. If other editors place items related to "The Troubles", he may remove them from his page and this will not be considered an infraction. Disparging remarks about others, living or deceased are also not allowed. ]'s can post a memorial of a non-offense nature related to The Troubles (such as "In Memory of Joe Smith"--such a memorial shall not including disparaging remarks towards others.(amend item 8 accordingly)
• Any further infractions, however minor, will result in an immediate ban as soon as the indef block is placed, with no complaining, no "I'm sorry please forgive me again", "it's minor". (amend item 10 accordingly)
• If the community wants to make a list of articles User:Vintagekits is prohibited from editing, I suggest Ryan Postlethwaite and Alison work on that together and add it to the terms of probation.
• The final version of the terms be posted on User:Vintagekits's talk page, he agrees to them with an on-wiki statement, then User:Vintagekits/terms be adjusted accordingly.

Note: I agree with Will Beback that we should not make loopholes-such as reporting vandalism, as that would be a can of worms. If User:Vintagekits wants to report something like vandalism, he could email someone. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• This appears to be a practical and fair compromise. I'd support unblocking VK on these terms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that in general, (including the first sentiment - I don't think this is the right path but would like to be proved wrong!), but:

• I don't think the non-offensive Troubles memorials are a good idea - better that he avoid getting on to the subject entirely.
• He is only allowed to edit a certain set of articles, rather than banned from a certain set. He is not allowed to edit Terracotta Army or jellyfish, for example, during the probation - thus a list of those that he is banned from would be huge. In any case, the fact that Misplaced Pages is dynamic means that new sporting pages and new Troubles pages are frequently created, and as such, any list should only be a guide and not a definitive list. If in doubt or if challenged on an article, he should have someone to ask for a definitive yay or nay. Pfainuk talk 23:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have a few problems with some of Rlevse's statements here:

• "The indef block I placed will end Jul 15, 2008 and shall only be removed by an arb clerk or clerk helper." - this arrogates too much power to arbitration committee clerks. If you want arbitration clerks to have arbitration enforcement as part of their role, I suggest this is raised at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks and its talk page, and the community notified as appropriate. It is my view that clerks should concentrate on clerking and keeping pages up-to-date, and not get involved in arbitration enforcement. Rlevse's actions here, are, I believe, purely in his role as an administrator. If Rlevse (who is an arbitration clerk) would like to make clear that this is a procedural point only, and that the decision on an unblock remains with this board and the community of admins and editors, then he should do so.
• "Any further infractions, however minor, will result in an immediate ban as soon as the indef block is placed, with no complaining, no "I'm sorry please forgive me again", "it's minor"." - it is my opinion that this kind of inflexible statement (which was present in the original terms) is what causes drama, baiting and trolling. Hair-trigger clauses also encourage baiting and trolling. It is far better to trust the judgment of those dealing with any complaints during the probationary period as to what is minor or major (assign a group of people to deal with complaints during the probationary period), and then to have a review at the end of the probationary period. A "no defense" clause is inherently against natural justice (part of what is driving the OrangeMarlin/ArbCom issues elsewhere). The terms and conditions should protect Vintagekits as well as protect the encyclopedia. So I would suggest a relaxing of the language used here, and the appointment of a group of people to review future infractions.

Arbitrarily extending the probation period to December will, I think, only work if a better way is found to deal with future infractions or claimed infractions, hence my comments above. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with both those statements. I'm not sure why an arbitration clerk should remove the block - it's not even an arbitration decision that's being enforced. The more important point is the extension of the probation, with an indef block for any infringement. A better idea would probably to say that VK would be blocked for a week for any future infringements, moving upto a year after 4 such blocks. People would argue that he's had his chances already, but mistakes happen. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're proposing to re-write the terms and replace the part about being banned for any infraction with being blocked for a week? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that depends - some are arguing that the three month probation isn't long enough. If the probation was extended for a year/indef, I don't believe it's fair to block indef for one tiny infringement, so one week blocks could be an answer. If the 3 month paroles stays then so should the indef block cavaet if he crosses the line again. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsafe Document

I submit that "terms of editing" as laid down on Vintagekits user page be stricken out owing to the fact that the said terms are ambiguous and thus fatally flawed. Problem with the document is that under "rule 1", the document refers to "Irish Troubles", and the allocated reference points to "Irish/British Geo-Political Dispute". It is totally unclear as to what subject, or subjects the compilers of the document have generally in mind. Is it the "British Troubles", or is it the "Irish Troubles", or are both intended? The troubles in Northern Ireland would be deemed to be under British jurisdiction, and would therefore be classified as British. Does the document mean to include, or exclude, the over-spill of "the troubles" into "Sovereign Ireland". Terms of reference are quite hazy. The reference at the bottom of the document does not correspond to "rule 1", and therefore the document is ostensibly defective as it stands, and it is essential that the document be revisited and amended accordingly. McArt (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mabye a category could be created and added to articles that Vintagekits is not allowed to edit. That way everyone knows he cannot edit that article? Astrotrain (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe like Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland? The two problems with that, of course, would be that if for whatever reason an article weren't placed in that category, despite apparently "belonging" there, or potentially having someone else remove it from the category and then VK goes in to edit it (not likely, but possible), and (2) what about dab and redirects? I don't fault him for the recently created redirect, but neither would I want to set up a situation where he could add commentary to a dab page which would be problematic, and probably wouldn't be included in that cat or any of its subcats. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. That category and it's many sub-cats is pretty broad and if the terms included "articles related to the Irish Troubles, including but not limited to Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Category:Politics of Northern Ireland" - thoughts? - Alison 21:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, this thread was started by the twice-banned editor, User:Gold heart / User:Bluegold - Alison 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh Nooo; another sock. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? The previously agreed-upon terms say that he may only edit articles on boxing. Is that insufficiently clear? Are editors here proposing changing the terms? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To an extent, yeah. Can he edit his talk page, for instance, which is neither an article nor necessarily about boxing. Like, if he wants to go on break or wishes to report being unavailable for medical reasons, or wishing someone else a speedy recovery or to express sympathy for their difficulties? Neither of those possibilities directly relate to boxing, but presumably someone could try to enact a ban for him doing so if the terms didn't expressly permit them. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Management of his user and talk pages should probably be described in more detail, as John Carter says. I don't think it really occurred to anyone that other editors would come to VK's talk page and litter it with Troubles-related comments (as it is right now). Can he remove them? I would certainly hope so...but someone might find that to be a technical breach as well. Provided he removes them from his page with an edit summary such as "remove unwanted comment", it should be okay, but we should probably clarify such things. Risker (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of talk pages was discussed here User talk:Vintagekits/terms#11: If he breaks this agreement, he is indef banned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback, those were draft terms. The final terms are on VK's user page. They only go up to #10, and are found at User:Vintagekits/terms. Risker (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Some other numbered item was removed, since 11 in the draft is the same as 10 in the final terms. My point is that this discussion here is rehashing stuff that was already agreed upon in the first go around. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And we might want to allow him to express sympathy to another editor is they become sick, or something along those lines. Also, unfortunate but possible anyway, I wouldn't myself mind allowing him to post something on a noticeboard or to an admin if, for whatever reason, he saw that an article related to The Troubles were being vandalized. I wouldn't necessarily welcome finding out he were monitoring those pages while on probation, but couldn't complain if he did find something legitimately wrong happening to one of them and wanted to report that. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to create loopholes or sources of future confusion. If the editor wants to express sympathy to another editor he can send them a card. VK must not edit anything to do with the Troubles. Giving him a loophole to report vandalism just gives him a reason to keep monitoring those pages, which in turn will create temptations to edit them. Base on his inability to follow very clear terms, any ambiguity must be avoided. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Experessing sympathy is fine, but in this case he also made disparging remarks about another recently deceased person in the process. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And I wouldn't mind seeing making disparaging remarks about a recently deceased person as being grounds for a ban. But, right now, technically, he can't report to anyone a case of even flagrant vandalism on something relating to the Troubles, even a boxer who somehow was involved in the Troubles, and he can't express sympathy for another editor without being potentially banned. And, personally, I have real qualms about telling anyone they can't report vandalism, which right now he can't do. Maybe allowing him to leave messages on a noticeboard for others to act upon, if they see fit, could be permitted, even if it was limited to that. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a lack of editors watching articles about the Troubles? If so let's address that rather then sending the bull back into the chinashop. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We all agree that, in general, Vk was doing well with the terms that already exist. So lets not re-invent the wheel, when a little tinkering will do. I think all we need to do is inform Vk that user-space and redirects apply to the "anywhere in Misplaced Pages" aspect of his probation. He has no need to lament the death of someone associated with the Troubles on his user page, he can do that in a blog (and if Vk has an ounce of sense, he will not go there again anyway). The goal of this section, started by a banned user, was simply to cause trouble and derail the probation process. Don't feed the trolls, people. Rockpocket 01:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Who the fuck cares?!? Really, if he wants to write a bunch of crap in his userspace, let him and then speedy it a few days later when he settles down. Jeeze, why do you British greviers have to wage these petty vendettas? Looking at it from an American view point, all this fuss over some userspace schaudenfruede is completely absurd. Get over it already and join us in the 21st century. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the view from the colonies is always welcome, you are wrong in this instance. It is offensive and inappropiate to promote terrorism and violence on Misplaced Pages. Astrotrain (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

IRC

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Remedies applied and logged.

• Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC

Relevant remedy found here. Can someone explain to me the various reasons for why these edits don't represent a violation of the ArbCom remedy? Thanks, Avruch 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, Giano is already blocked for 3 hours for one of these diffs (the one directed at Avruch). I am entirely neutral about said decision to block, maybe even slightly in favour. Giano, could you not call people "very stupid" for no particularly good reason? It doesn't help your cause, and is logically fallacious. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are retarded. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The last diff is slightly uncivil, and appears to be assumming bad faith, so I guess a 12 hour block could be justified. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 3 hours. This is the 4th block for violating the remedy. Is 3 hours (the shortest so far) appropriate? It should be logged under the case. Avruch 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• It may not be appropriate, but it's the best length for avoiding drama. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (response to Avruch's original post) The only answers I could give to your question would be excessively cynical. I'll just say that for my part, I don't enforce "civility parole" on principle, because I find it to be a ridiculous and fundamentally flawed concept. If not for that principle, this edit in particular would unarguably merit a block under the terms of the ArbCom finding. MastCell  19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Superceded by events.

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC#Log_of_blocks_and_bans there has already been a 31 and a 48 hour block for incivility. -- Avi (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be a bit of a minority voice here but the remedy includes comments by Giano "which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil". This is nonsense. It is a licence for every crank and enemy of the sanctioned editor shoot on sight. Arbcom must become more logically rigorous and more transparently fair - in Catholic theology Bad Laws have no moral standing. Avruch why are you pursuing this? Are you really so offended? Sarah777 (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell - I was admiring you comment and then - zap. What events? Sarah777 (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah. Drama enhancement is the only value of the remedies from the IRC case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom decides on remedies that are enforceable by the community. They've found that certain types of remedies work better than others. If you'd like to request that the remedy be altered you may make a request on WP:RFAR. It is inappropriate to simply say that you disagree with the remedy and so it should not be enforced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting the arbs to admit they made a mistake with that silly sanction would be like pulling teeth. They don't seem to care that "incivility" is in the eye of the beholder. Tex (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support close - Administrative action has already been taken. Giano is blocked, and an edit has been reverted. No need to wheel war with William M. Connolley. Further drama is not required here. Risker (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support motion endorsed by Risker. Renew sanctions when new incivility occurs. Last chances are probably flung around here regardless, but wheel-warring is inappropriate. There is zero point in extending the block when it'll probably run-out by the time this discussion has ended. Block again when further evidence can be garnered. Rudget (logs) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support close - block was correctly applied. PhilKnight (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support close. It's been handled. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

SPA's galore on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

SPAs warned against 1RR per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher#Single-purpose accounts restrained. Article semi-protected to prevent return of new SPAs. No one is currently banned from article; however, Further escalations should be brought back here for remedies as per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher.

• Relevant case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

There have been recurring issues with single-purpose agenda accounts whitewashing this article, which covers a medical school which is considered unaccredited by numerous agencies. The ArbCom remedy provides that single-purpose accounts may be banned from the pages for disruption. Multiple batches of SPA's have been thus banned. Most recently, a brand new batch appeared, working in tandem to remove well-sourced information from the article yet again. I reverted this inappropriate but distressingly familiar editing and notified the accounts in question of the decision. I also chose to place a 1RR/24 hour restriction on each of these sock/meatpuppet accounts as a preliminary step. One of the accounts, Uponleft (talk · contribs), has challenged this. I would like outside attention to review the single-purpose accounts listed here, with an eye toward enforcing the ArbCom restrictions intended to prevent exactly this sort of abuse. MastCell  05:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

MastCell's bias shows through with the blatant and incorrect information he has provided here to try and bring about the resolution he desires. The ArbCom remedy provides a ban only for a week for multiple violations and then for a year after five 1-week violations for that specific page. If the accounts listed on the ArbCom page are reviewed you will see multiple accounts indef. banned from all of wikipedia which is not within the scope of the ruling by Arbcom. Most of the information removed from the article was synthesis, speculation and weasel wording. Anyone can easily check that. A significant amount of information was restored that was well sourced and verifiable but was stripped inappropriately at a previous point in time. Is there any proof that the accounts are sock/meatpuppets and not individual editors working by themselves? I believe it is inappropriate to say such things without any proof. I ask that this all be reviewed by uninvolved admins and if appropriate the ruling by Arbcom enforced (to the letter, not an inappropriate interpretation as has been done before). Thank you. Uponleft (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

SPAs can be indef banned without an arb ruling, using standard wiki policies. As for the arb ruling, it also says SPAs on this topic can be topic banned. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

SPAs can be indef banned without an arb ruling ?? I do not thing that this is a correct statement. What are the standard wiki policies you refer to? WP:SPA is a nice essay with some good advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

SPAs are usually socks and disruptive socking can be indef'd. Hope this clarifies. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the arb ruling, it also says SPAs on this topic can be topic banned, but only if disruptive. So, what we need is evidence of disruption in order to consider arbitration remedies enforcement. Diffs, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have some familiarity with this case from the OTRS side and I have to agree completely with MastCell here - this series of edits is almost identical to the problematic edits that first brought the Arb case. Note that they're using their older preferred version of the article which conveniently leaves out the overly well sourced paragraph on the multiple organizations that have pointed out their diplomas are bunk - instead, they put in a lengthy, misleading bit about being recognized as an entity by various states - this has absolutely nothing to do with accreditation and simply means they are registered to do business, but it does give the appearance of propriety. Given Uponleft's knowledgeable response above and his reverts to include the same information (with misleading edit summaries), I'd be tempted to indef him as a sock of one of the banned editors. Since Bluestrawsz, Luceey, Serologic, Stapler have been assisting (its the same series of edits and its interesting that they switch between accounts during each series) I see no reason not to ban the lot of them from the article - they are either socks or meatpuppets but very obviously coordinated and yes, whitewashing the article yet again. Shell 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

One way to curtail disruptive activity by new users, would be to simply place the article in semi-protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Avi (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Avi. If these SPAs engage in disruptive behavior such as multiple reverts, or adding same material again and again, these accounts could be indef-blocked for disruption. I move to close this report and open a new one if that happened. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bharatveer

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User blocked for 48 hrs. by [User:Moreschi

• Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer

Bharatveer is restricted to one revert per page per week (excluding obvious vandalism) and must discuss all reverts. He has reverted twice this week on Martha Nussbaum, the second time without discussion on the article's talk page.

• original edit:
• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Bharatveer has already been blocked once for violating his ArbCom remedy. I can't take action myself here because I have edited Martha Nussbaum recently. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him for 48 hours. The 1RR vio took place on Romila Thapar, though, not Martha Nussbaum. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User blocked for a week by Khoi

• Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's

Giovanni33 is under editing restrictions, such that he cannot revert more than once a week, and must discuss all reversions first. Despite this he has resumed a slow motion edit war on the New antisemitism page, removing an image he dislikes, and modifying the lead to a version he prefers (describing it as a "controversial concept"). As far as I can tell, he hasn't discussed his changes to the wording of the lead in weeks, yet he continues to revert to his version. He was blocked for this on January 8, and has responded by slowing down the pace of his reverts. Reverts include:

• January 8, 2008
• May 28, 2008
• June 9, 2008
• June 21, 2008

As his block log shows, he has perhaps the most lengthy block log of any non-banned editor in Misplaced Pages history, returning from his most recent 72 hour block just this month. I'm requesting a longer block at this point, as the shorter ones don't seem to make an impression, or just lead him to game his restrictions. Jayjg 03:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the article and its talk page, it appears that Giovanni has made any justification to his last two reverts to the lead since last month. I have blocked him for a week, and made note of this at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Khoikhoi 03:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)