Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive16: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests | Enforcement Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:05, 10 March 2008 editGiano II (talk | contribs)22,233 edits →Sockpuppets of User:Vintagekits← Previous edit Revision as of 00:04, 11 March 2008 edit undoDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits →User:Astrotrain: commentNext edit →
Line 209: Line 209:
:::Images are supposed to be relevent to the content of the article, adding the Ulster Banner as you are doing is POV pushing and you have continously refused to provide ] to support your claims it a national flag, numerous sources have been provided to prove it isn't and never was a national flag. This is also the same claim you failed to support in the flag mediation when your idea of compromise is that you could add the Ulster Banner to any article or template in wikipedia, dispite failing to support its use with ].--] (]) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC) :::Images are supposed to be relevent to the content of the article, adding the Ulster Banner as you are doing is POV pushing and you have continously refused to provide ] to support your claims it a national flag, numerous sources have been provided to prove it isn't and never was a national flag. This is also the same claim you failed to support in the flag mediation when your idea of compromise is that you could add the Ulster Banner to any article or template in wikipedia, dispite failing to support its use with ].--] (]) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::::To Astrotrain: By continously re-adding these flags, you (rightly or wrongly) create the impression of having a political agenda behind your edits. The impression may hurt your chances of making your edits stick. ] (]) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC) ::::To Astrotrain: By continously re-adding these flags, you (rightly or wrongly) create the impression of having a political agenda behind your edits. The impression may hurt your chances of making your edits stick. ] (]) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
And if they persist?--] (]) 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===

Revision as of 00:04, 11 March 2008

Archive

Archives

Archive 1

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrenius (talk • contribs) 04:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is for enforcement requests relating to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles.

Shortcut
  • ]

ArbCom resolutions

ArbCom remedy
  • To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. The terms of probation, if imposed on any editor, are set forth in the enforcement ruling below.
ArbCom enforcement

Enforcement by block
1) Participants who violate the terms of the probation may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Log_of_blocks, bans, and probations

Terms of probation
2) Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.

Editors

Named in the ArbCom case

Added users

Users on probation

Community ban

Requests for enforcement

User:Sarah777

I think this is the most informed forum to address the completely unacceptable harassment in these posts. It is time to stop tolerating such behaviour from anyone. This user has been adequately warned and continues to be a disruptive presence:Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Sarah777 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. -- Tyrenius (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Tyrenius, but I cannot see any harassment in those two diffs. Incivility, perhaps, but please can you explain why you see those two comments as harrassment? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an ongoing thing because the consensus went against her at Talk:List of massacres. Thanks Tyrenius for removing the derogatory comments; let me be clear that I do regard this kind of thing as harassment and would like to see something done about it. Sarah needs to learn how to disagree without it becoming a vendetta each time. --John (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I personally don't see them as "harassment". Unfortunately, it's a rather overused and much blunted term on WP. Incivility, yes. Rudeness, probably. Harassment, no - Alison 04:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. To me it is a textbook example of "Targeted personal attacks: Not all personal attacks are harassment, but when an editor engages in repeated personal attacks on a particular editor or group of editors, that's another matter." I can dig out diffs for you if you like but this editor has made a disproportionate amount of nippy comments about me recently. It does begin to feel like harassment. Of course YMMV. --John (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm. It's obviously quite upsetting to you and it's been going on some time now. We all kinda know what Sarah is like re. admins, though, but that's no excuse. Ty beat me to it and removed the comments with a warning. Trouble is, if you try something like civility parole, a certain someone will likely call it "censorship". What to do ... - Alison 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly frustrating. I'm happy with Ty's actions there for now; I have a lot of respect for Sarah's passion but her sniping on the list of massacres article, which Rock asked me to look in on, is getting wearing, as I mentioned a few days ago. I hope she will focus on harmonious editing from now on; I don't come here to be spoken to that way. Thanks for commenting. --John (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It is harassment per Misplaced Pages:HAR#Targeted_personal_attacks:

Targeted personal attacks: Not all personal attacks are harassment, but when an editor engages in repeated personal attacks on a particular editor or group of editors, that's another matter.

However, it doesn't matter what it is called, it is still unacceptable. It is a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, which are policies. It is demoralising and humiliating for an editor to be subjected to this kind of abuse. We have come down hard on other breaches of policy re sockpuppeting, and the air seems rather clearer as a result. There is no reason to treat this case any differently. There is no reason to exercise restraint, because it's going to be called "censorship": that would be giving in to emotional blackmail. Many people who transgress throw counter-accusations to get themselves off the hook. It doesn't work like that. Abusive comments about other editors poison the atmosphere and do not address the issues. There is no excuse for them, especially with consistent offenders, which Sarah 777 is. I suggest a one week block in the first instance, with increasing lengths for further offences. That is better than doing nothing for a year and then imposing a community ban when it gets unbearable. Tyrenius (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The comments on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18 are worth looking at as well. One Night In Hackney303 14:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Remarks by Sarah777 from the above deletion review discussion:

  • Could this be related to the involvement of some editors in "an article I couldn't give a sh*t about" (List of massacres) by some Anglo editors, one wonders?
  • I also (personal view) think there is an element of typical British anti-Irishness involved here; the nationality of most of those attacking the project is very clear.

Tyrenius (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777's response on my talk page: "Kindly sod off." Tyrenius (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

... and blocked for 24 hours. That's more than enough - nobody needs to put up with that sort of abuse - Alison 15:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This is worth a look too - under a heading of "Another daft decision" she said "PSB, I see you moved "football" in Ireland to some weird name rather than to a disamb page as was the clear consensus on the matter. Have you ever made a sensible call as an Admin? Please reverse this asinine decision". One Night In Hackney303 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
An outsiders recommendation: 1)I think Sarah should personally apologize to the editors who accuse her of harrassment. 2)If no apologies are forthcoming? Then the Sarah VS Troubles committee should go to Arbitration. Good luck everyone. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the 24-hour block was justified: the sod-off comment to Tyrenius was definitely out-of-order. However, I think there is a danger here of missing the other side of the story: that John's role as an admin in Irish-related articles has long been regarded as highly partisan by Sarah and some other editors. I don't believe that John is intentionally biased or that he is acting in anything other than good faith, but it's also very undesirable to have ongoing admin involvement from an admin is so strongly perceived as partisan. That perception may be unfair, but it is not without some reasonable basis, and I don't see any reason to believe that John's well-intentioned involvement in these matters is helpful.

Not for the first time, Sarah has lost her temper when frustrated, which is not acceptable: all the old rules of online communication (walk away from the keyboard if angry etc) apply even more on wikipedia than elsewhere. But at the same time as noting the unacceptability of Sarah's outbursts, please can I appeal to John to reconsider his involvement in these issues, because although he clearly intends to help, the reality is clearly that he's not helping, and his involvement is raising tempers rather than cooling them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree slightly. Anyone who disagrees with Sarah is accused of being anti-Irish, including me who gets accused of being pro-Irish and anti-British by certain other editors. One Night In Hackney303 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with ONIH, also Sarah can act very petty at times in disputes when she fails to get her way.--Padraig (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but an unreasonable person can still have a genuine grievance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Given good faith and good communication skills, genuine grievances can be solved. A user who exhibits neither will seldom have a good time editing here. What in your opinion is Sarah's "genuine grievance", or were you just being hypothetical? What exactly do you mean by "these issues" which in your opinion I should reconsider my involvement in? Please focus your criticism of me a little so I can understand it well enough to agree or disagree. At the moment I really don't understand what you are trying to say. --John (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
(inserted here after edit conflict) John, I haven't had many dealings with you, and I haven't formed any view for myself about your actions, so naturally I still assume good faith. The point I was making was that I have seen several editors (Vk, Sarah777, other too I think tho I may be mistaken) objecting to your admin involvenent in disputes relating to Irish topics, and that your name seems to have become like a red rag to a bull for some of these editors. Pls forgive me for not going off on an immediate diff-hunt, but you must be aware of this too.
As I say, I have not done the research to allow me to form my own view on this, but just as I assume good faith in your actions, I also assume that the complaints by Sarah and Vk may have been made in good faith (which is why I wrote that "an unreasonable person can still have a genuine grievance"; note can, not does -- I might have been better to use the word may, and sorry that my intended meaning was unclear). I don't want to take a view on the substance without doing lots of research, and I haven't the energy for that right now ... but what I would like you to consider is that whether it has arisen through conscious or unconscious bias or simply through some editors misunderstanding you, the perception has become firmly entrenched in some editors that you have a bias on these issues ... and that even if this is entirely false, it makes your involvement in Irish-related disputes unhelpful.
That's all. The purpose of admin involvement is to resolve conflicts and get things working smoothly again, and sadly your involvement in Irish-related disputes does not seem to have the calming effect that others such as Alison and SirFozzie can bring. This may be a very unfair state of affairs, but that's how it looks — that your efforts to help don't produce the desired effect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your motivation to pour oil on troubles waters, but for my reasons stated below, I do not think we can go down the road you suggest. It is an easy way out, but only a short term solution to the detriment in the longer term. Tyrenius (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think BHG makes a fair point in that people can have a genuine grievance, of course, but still be utterly unreasonable in their approach. Hence the current block, etc. What exactly is the problem that Sarah has with John here, and can it be sorted here (whatever it is)? - Alison 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 2) There is no doubt that Sarah777 perceives John as biased. That is every reason for John to continue to edit in these areas. Every miscreant user makes that accusation when an admin enforces policy. It has been made about me by both sides of the Troubles on occasion, which is an interesting situation to be in—being biased against both sides. It has been made about Alison. It has been made about Rockpocket. It has been made about MrDarcy (now departed). If I recall correctly it has been made about BHG. It is not an accusation made by balanced, reasonable editors, but by those who have an axe to grind, who are themselves biased, and who violate wiki policies. We cannot allow this form of emotional blackmail to create "no go" areas.

If admins are indeed acting in a biased way, there are proper means to redress this, but one of them is not by an editor shrieking "bias" when something happens that they don't like. The first step is a reasonable approach to that admin, giving a rationale for what they feel is unjust. This will undoubtedly attract attention from non-interested parties, and, if just, the admin is likely to take note and adjust accordingly. The key here though is that the accusation has to be endorsed by such non-interested parties achieve validity. I have always found John ready to admit to any mistakes in the past. Should that fail, then there are further measures, such as RfC, as happened effectively not all that long ago with RFiend.

In the present case, it is clearly not John's involvement that is raising tempers. It is simply that Sarah777 is a problem editor and has a long track record of abusive posts. I have had very little to do with her, yet she was abusive to me. Soon I will also be perceived as biased and encouraged not to interact with her. Thus the editors who violate policies get to dictate the activities of editors/admins who are upholding the policies. This cannot be allowed. It is up to admins and experienced editors to pull together to make sure it does not happen.

BHG, as has been pointed out, says that Sarah777's perceptions are "not without some reasonable basis", implying wrong-doing on John's part. It may have been an unfortunate turn of phrase, in which case that needs to be clarified and amended. If it is a statement that John is acting in a biased way, then we need to see the proof of that, and to discuss it further. I am sure in that case John will be receptive to any conclusions. I have no evidence of that myself, but there may be matters that have escaped my attention.

What has not escaped my attention—and has been brought home strongly in other cases on this page—is that positive contributions do not make up for disruptive behaviour. The latter consumes huge amounts of community energy which could otherwise be directed to (let us not forget) creating an encyclopedia. We should not molly-coddle users who are not prepared to work through differences in a collegiate fashion. The project is stronger and more effective without them.

Tyrenius (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Tyrenius makes some good points. I would like to point out that I've worked with John for some time so perhaps there is some bias there but what I see as an outsider is John trying very hard to be helpful in the face of others applying the bias label unjustly. I think he's far from partisan, but of course I may be biased there as well. But fundamentally, I have a lot of trouble with the notion that because some (but not all) participants in a debate view someone as partisan that we somehow then have to exclude that someone from helping resolve things. We absolutely have to avoid that notion. It's way too easy to game. I rather say that the problem lies with those unjustly viewing other as partisan when they are not. In this particular instance, to this outsider's perception, that appears to include Sarah777, unfortunately. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I thank Tyrenius and Alison for their actions in sanctioning Sarah there. Lar, your outside opinion is appreciated as always. BHG, there are valid difficulties which arise in any admin action in an area where they know and are known by the people they are dealing with. We have to be aware of the danger of admin abuse and provide avenues for actual abuse to be righted where it occurs, without allowing problem users to create no-go areas for admins.
There is a very interesting discussion to be had, maybe at AN, about the ethics of an admin exercising functions with users they know already. I didn't block anyone in this instance, though I did warn two users mentioning the word block. Sarah was one of them and I warned her for edit warring when we had agreed that none of the regular editors would edit-war on the article while we were discussing on the talk page. I don't know why, prior to that, Sarah would regard me as biased against her; we were on good terms fairly recently. The only thing I can think of is this business with the list of massacres page. I know how unhappy she was with the criterion we adopted, but it seemed to most of the participants that it was the best way forwards.
I was asked to get involved there, did my best to treat everyone equally to address the problems of bad faith and edit-warring that were consuming time and energy. We had a wide-ranging and mostly very civil discussion of what the article should include, at the end of which a straw poll seemed to me and to Rockpocket (who had not participated in the debate beyond an initial endorsement of my approach) to establish the legitimacy of the approach. Sarah (who took little constructive part in the talk page discussion either) has since made a number of very barbed comments about me and my approach in the matter, some of which do cross the line into harassment, focused and serial incivility, or whatever. I certainly don't find it conducive or helpful in terms of working environment. If she, or anyone else has specific suggestions or criticisms to make regarding my approach, I would welcome them, at my talk page in the first instance. Insults help nobody and are strictly to be avoided, please. --John (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
For what its worth. Here are my thoughts. I like Sarah, I think she is a remarkable contributor on Irish geography. She also clearly has strong left leaning, anti-Establishment perspective and has a real issue with the strong Anglo-American influence on Misplaced Pages. I would go so far as to say that there is an inherent Establishment bias in our polices (in what what we consider to be reliable sources, for example). I have discussed this with Sarah in the past and I think we share a similar appreciation of it. However, how we respond to it is very different. I simply accept that as part of Misplaced Pages is and whether I like them or not, enforce our policies. Sarah sees it as her mission to enforce change. I believe that she seems admins as people enforcing bias, rather than people enforcing WP's policies, which may reflect inherent bias.
I came to the List of Massacres article as a complete outsider and have (purposely) declined to offer any opinion on any content whatsoever. Instead I tried to guide the editors to work together in a very hands-off manner. That didn't work, the edit warring continued, with Sarah primarily complaining of the lack of a "policeman". So I asked John, whom I know to be fair and reasonable, if he would bring a different perspective in an attempt to stop the edit warring. Personally, under the circumstances, I think he did an excellent job in that. The solution is not perfect, but I personally believe it better to have a imperfect article that is at least stable, than in imperfect article that is in a perpetual edit war.
I believe it would have made no difference whatsoever which admin had driven the current solution, Sarah would have seen it as a willful act of bias. Therefore suggesting John recuse himself from such work is completely missing the point. If anyone else came in and came to the same conclusion, then they would be accused of being biased and would then join the ranks of myself, John, Tyr, Alison, BHG, Fozzie etc, etc, etc in the Pro-Republican or Pro-Unionst admin cabal.
Regarding Sarah's comments. I have been tolerant over he accusations about me in the past, mainly because she is reasonable and on discussion and reflection will often apologize. But she is also persistent and I agree that being on the receiving end of such comments time and time again is a form of harassment. I do think Sarah has to appreciate that she cannot continue to comment on the contributor in the way she does, and that attributing ulterior motive to every admin action is unacceptable. I'm not sure what can be done to encourage Sarah to begin to appreciate this, when an Irish editor takes issue with ONiH's editing, you know it is going to be a challenge! Rockpocket 00:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll take that as a compliment.....I think?! One Night In Hackney303 00:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL! The more serious issue to take forward is whether we can sustain long term having an editor who likes to edit controversial articles (nothing wrong with that), who has a strong and passionate POV and a mission to bring Misplaced Pages into line with it (nothing, in itself, wrong with that), and who openly dislikes admins, dislikes and disrespects what we do to try to enforce this project's principles, and is prepared to make allegations of bias to avoid sanctions. I like Sarah too, and I have sympathy with her goal, to address the western bias of Misplaced Pages, but it is this last which is a show stopper. Like her, I am a volunteer here and I do my best. If Sarah dislikes something I do, she knows full well the legitimate avenues to address her complaint. I've been hoping for some time she would mature into a more positive Wikipedian. I still hope she will as I know she is a good person with good ideals. Bottom line; I am loath to avoid editing in areas she edits which are on my watchlist and have been for a long time. I am equally loath to accept that any allegations of "admin bias" she has made against me or other admins would be regarded as having any weight. I look forward to continuing to work together to improve articles in whatever area I choose, as we all can. --John (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The answer may be to dish out more (escalating) blocks more readily, particularly for breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. An accusation of bias is breach of both. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
An accusation of bias could simply be a shrewd observation. I have read the exchanges above and, frankly, I have formed two opinions:
(1) (Censored by the Admin who is named and who'd like to impose draconian bans on me)
(2) You folks put way too much store on civility and nowhere enough on establish Wiki NPOV Sarah777 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you for not reposting the comment. I want to make it quite clear that I would not like to impose blocks or bans on you or any user. My perception is that you are an intelligent, lively and committed contributor. However, you do unfortunately make derogatory comments about other editors. When this happens to someone, they obviously feel aggrieved and the natural tendency is to respond in kind. Those respecting wiki policies, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, impose restraints on themselves to not hit back. Constantly having to do this creates an emotional stress for those people and it is not right they should be subjected to it. So by all means, put your case by addressing issues—sometimes you will win the day, sometimes there will be a compromise, sometimes you will lose—sometimes this may seem unjust to you. That's something that happens to everyone at times. If you restrict yourself to the issues and the edits, and refrain from saying what you think about the editors, then there won't be a problem. If there is a genuine grievance with editors then go through the WP:DR process. But if you do continue to make derogatory comments about editors, I will support escalating blocks, and, if needs be, a ban on editing. I hope that will not be necessary. Tyrenius (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of personal attacks

I took out personal attacks by Sarah777 on John from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) and they were replaced. I've removed them again. Tyrenius (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should note the the kernel of the remarks were correct: there was no consensus and the Admin referred to kept claiming that there was. Sarah777 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, you need to learn to express yourself without resorting to insults. If you disagree with something someone has done, you need to say so, and why, citing policy, consensus or whatever, without insulting the person on the other end. I'm keen to see your contributions continue as I find you (sometimes) to be a breath of fresh air, so I hope you do manage as it is very much how we do business here. --John (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked Sarah777 for continued abusive posts. Please see also Misplaced Pages:AN/I#User:Sarah777. Tyrenius (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Counter-revolutionary

According to this his unblock was under the condition that he does not proxy for the subsequently community banned User:David Lauder. Today, he made this edit where he openly admits posting an email on behalf of David Lauder, when both he and David Lauder are fully aware that if David Lauder wants to appeal his community ban he must do so to ArbCom. As before Counter-revolutionary is not an "innocent bystander" in all this, the account has edited from the same computer as David Lauder et al and has a clear connection to the situation based on photos, articles edited etc. So would someone like to remind Counter-revolutionary of the exact terms of his unblock please? One Night In Hackney303 18:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a bit of overkill. I made no secret of the fact I was doing this for DL at his request on a technical point (not a wikipedia article). --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely the meaning of the agreement is that CR not act as a proxy for DL in the main space or even article talk, it surely isn't about discussing DLs own indef block, it seems completely outside the terms of said probabtion. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
DL's community ban isn't up for discussion, except by ArbCom. His talk page is protected for a reason, and DL is well aware of how to appeal his ban as is CR. One Night In Hackney303 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been following any of that. I was asked to put it up, I did. That's all I know. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You need to keep your nose clean or you'll get blocked again. Tyrenius (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That is unquestionably true but I suggest CR is just warned this time. CR, if you have any doubts about the nature of your probation I suggest you get your doubts clarified, and that you act cautiously and conservatively, especially in relation to DL. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that it's technically incorrect and largely irrelevant. If this nonsense persists, I shall apply to ArbCom for publication of the relevant data per privacy policy, clause 6. The technical evidence of this case is incontrovertible and CR, of all people, knows *exactly* who did what here - Alison 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No need to do any further work on this. It's a waste of time and energy which can be put to better use. If anyone has a problem then they can take it to the Ombudsman. Tyrenius (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It won't happen again. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If anything likely to be at all problematic occurs in future, the best thing is to consult someone about it before acting, probably one of the admins knowledgeable about this area, either on wiki or by email. That way you keep yourself in the clear. Tyrenius (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Pleased to here it, CR. And well done all you admins who ahvent gone to teh in def block button. I encourage openness of current process, not necessarily of past process, which has much less interest. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain

Why is nothing being done to stop this editor continuing to edit war and POV pushing, he was named in the arbcom but instead of answering his case there he decided to disappear until the arbcom was ended, he was also involved in mediation on the same issue, and dispite being unable to provide WP:RS to support his edits he continued to edit war throughout the mediation which resulted in the mediation process being abandoned.

He has recently started to edit war again on the issue in breach of principles#2 and principles#3 of the arbcom ruling. I have reported him in the past couple of days to two admins, to date neither have done anything about it. Some of the articles and templates he has been disruptive on include:

Astrotrain has a been blocked numerous times for both edit warring on this issue and making personal attacks on other editors and myself, he also came back as a possible for using anon IPs to continue evade 3RR in edit wars.--Padraig (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The integrity of an article's stability? must be preserved. Thus 'two' options - 1) Page protections or 2) Blockings. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Astrotrain seems to be going back into SPA mode, starting edit wars by adding the Ulster Banner without consensus, making no attempt to discuss things, adding flags in needless provocative ways - eg 1801 in Ireland. This disruption should be nipped in the bud really. One Night In Hackney303 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not overly familiar with the (apparently) lengthy debate that has been had about this issue, but there does appear to be a number of different editors reverting Astrotrain's additions of the Ulster Banner. Given the fact that it isn't currently an official flag, its difficult to see why its additions to these articles is particularly germane. In addition, the addition of flags to pages is over-used generally. I have already asked Astrotrain to stop edit-warring over the addition of the Union Flag to 1801 in Ireland. I extend that request to include these other articles too. If he continues then I guess we can look at other options. As other editors have found out, there is a rapidly decreasing tolerance for this sort of behaviour though, I'm hopeful he will appreciate that. Rockpocket 23:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have also noticed that Black Kite has also warned him that he will be put on probation should this continue. So, I guess we wait and see. If there are further flag related reversions without prior discussion, please note it here. Rockpocket 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be delighted to see 99% of the flags removed from wikipedia, but however tedious the little national emblems are in list entries, Astrotrain has been busy adding huge flags to articles where they are barely relevant and — as he well knows — highly provocative. As well as the addition of the Union Flag to 1801 in Ireland, he also added the Ulster Banner to 1953 in Ireland (in this edit), which seems to me to be nothing gratuitous mischief-making. There is a separate 1953 in Northern Ireland article where it might have some relevance (though it seems pretty marginal to me), but I can't see any useful purpose its addition to 1953 in Ireland. The whole Ulster flag debate is a minefield, and it took a lot of effort by many folks to achieve some stability there, and trying to reopen it like this is disruptive (his comment here of "how can a flag be POV?" is thorougly unpersuasive faux-naivety). I'd support a crackdown on this, and I am glad that Astrotrain has been warned of possible probation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I note that you didn't mention cases where I added the Tricolour, or are you ok with that one as you are Irish? Is this just another case of a set of articles that no one can edit in case one of the Irish editors is offended? Misplaced Pages is not censored for images of prophets or the human body, so why are flags different? In each case, there was a good reason for adding flag images. Astrotrain (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said, flags a ridiculously overused on wikipedia, and there is for example guidance against the use of {{flagicon}} beside place of birth. This isn't a matter of censorship, it is matter of not going around looking for opportunities to splat a huge flag on pages where it is at best marginally relevant, and you would be in similar trouble if you were going around adding huge pictures of Jesus in articles making a brief mention of him. In the cases where the flag is relevant, such as the first use of the tricolour, a small icon will do fine, with a link to the article on the flag explaining its design and history. You are trying to use wikipedia as a device for nationalist flag-waving, and I deplore that whatever flag is being waved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Astrotrain in this edit here you inserted the Ulster Banner saying it was the unofficial flag of Northern Ireland, it was never the official flag of Northern Ireland not even during the period 1953-72, so can you explain why you feel its necessary to include a image of a governmental banner that has been defunct for thirty-five years in the portal for Northern Ireland today.--Padraig (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As normal, you bring nationality of editors into it. Is that the be all and end all of your arguement? Your looking to edit war, simple as and if things quiten down too much you can be counted on to start thing up again. --Domer48 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is different nationalities is a good thing. However, it seems to me that people are being too sensitive. We should not be a situation that we cannot use images in case it offends one nationality. Describing the national flag as "POV" is one example of this sensitivity. Astrotrain (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Images are supposed to be relevent to the content of the article, adding the Ulster Banner as you are doing is POV pushing and you have continously refused to provide RS to support your claims it a national flag, numerous sources have been provided to prove it isn't and never was a national flag. This is also the same claim you failed to support in the flag mediation when your idea of compromise is that you could add the Ulster Banner to any article or template in wikipedia, dispite failing to support its use with RS.--Padraig (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
To Astrotrain: By continously re-adding these flags, you (rightly or wrongly) create the impression of having a political agenda behind your edits. The impression may hurt your chances of making your edits stick. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And if they persist?--Domer48 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Traditional unionist

This editor is a self-admitted member of the Ulster Unionist Party and Young Unionists, and his recent editing to the latter article is giving me cause for concern. In particular edits like this where he claims everything is referenced by these two sources:

  • 'The Ulster Unionist Party, 1882-1973 : its development and organisation' (1973), J F Harbinson
  • 'A history of the Ulster Unionist Party : protest, pragmatism and pessimism' (2004) Graham Walker

This is complete nonsense. As can be seen, the former was published in 1973, and the latter in May 2004. After checking the latter on Amazon Online Reader (only available on the UK site, not the US one) there are only three mentions of "Young Unionists" in the entire book.

  • The first is on page 251, where it talks about Trimble giving a speech to the YU.
  • The second is on page 262, where it says the YU and Orange Order "adopted strident anti-Agreement stances", and accounted for 154 seats of the 860 strong UUC body.
  • The last is on page 282 (which is actually a footnotes page giving various details) and says Jeffrey Donaldson has a strong background in the YU.

As the first source cannot source anything post-1973, this leaves the following information unsourced, despite TU claiming it was sourced by the book.

  • "The body re-emerged under the Chairmanship of David McNarry and continued to thrive throughout the 1980s"
  • "It lost members at a greater proportion and sooner than the rest of the party"
  • "and by the 2004 AGM only the outgoing Officers could vote due to a voting system designed for a much larger organisation"
  • "A new body has again emerged, under the UUP's new Constitution. This means that it is no longer a loosely affiliated body, but an integral constituent part of the UUP, with enhanced representation at the levels of party governance and greater integration"
  • "Their website contained the first party political weblog in Northern Ireland"

Some sources were added in an additional edit, but they seem to be sourcing events at the 2004 AGM, when the first source is from January 2004 and states the AGM will take place in March, and the second source was published a few days later and still pre-dates the AGM.

Given the COI and what seems to be a clear misrepresentation of what a source says (in this case - not much!) I welcome further discussion about whether his editing to that article is compatible with an acceptable standard. One Night In Hackney303 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a particularly mischievious and disruptive form of POV-editing, because when citing books it is often the case that other editors don't access to them, so to a largely degree use of such sources is taken on trust.
Given the long history of edit-warring etc by Traditional unionist (talk · contribs), I don't feel inclined to treat this sort of thing at all lightly, but I suggest that we should first hear what TU has to say about your evidence (which is very persuasive). May I suggest that you notify TU that you have raised the issue here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll do that shortly. I've discovered there's some more coverage in the book, after a search for "Young Unionist". Details for completeness are as follows:
  • Page 148. Brookeborough spoke at a YU dinner
  • Page 185. Following the 1970 general election, party dissidents including the YU Council turned up the heat on the leadership.
  • Page 206. Footnotes page, mentions 1971 proposal to cut YU representation on the UUC.
If by some miracle the information is sourced in the book without mentions of the phrase "Young Unionist" or "Young Unionists" I'd like to know exact page numbers, and I can quickly verify it myself. I did search for McNarry for the 1980s information, and there was nothing relevant on that search either. One Night In Hackney303 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Young Unionists is a more modern form of the orginisations name. The more formal Ulster Young Unionist Council was more common in these publications. Harbinson's book covers the formation of the orginisation fully. I have to say I didn't realise that Brian Faulkner's memoirs and David Hume's Phd thesis (as published) wern't listed as sources, I though they were. Please read ] and ] for some context to my reluctance to take the users edits constructively.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As above, a search for "Young Unionist" provided no relevant information either. Faulkner died in 1977, and Hume's thesis was published in 1996, so the only thing that could be sourced by them is McNarry. So there's still unsourced information outstanding that you claimed was sourced. Who tagged the information isn't relevant (and I know quite a lot about this situation), you claimed it was sourced. One Night In Hackney303 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It's always a wise thing to never reveal one's politics (at least on one's home page). Why? It compromises one's standing in editing & discussing political articles. I give this advice to all Wiki editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Vintagekits

Can someone please explain to this user what "Community ban" really means? Per a discussion on my talk page, he doesn't seem to understand that he is permanently banned this time. I have been deleting pages creating by his recent string of sockpuppets (per WP:CSD#G5) and will continue to do so as any additional sockpuppets appear. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also please note that he is soliciting User:German.Knowitall to edit for him by proxy , so German.Knowitall's contibutions ought to be monitored for violations of WP:Banning policy. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Vk was kicked out of the community - and asked 'not to return'. However, he keeps returning in disguises. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in two minds about this. On one had reverting his perfectly good content edits seems to harm the project rather than help it, but on the other permitting him to edit with socks in this guerrilla fashion perpetuates the disruption he has, and continues to cause, which harms the project. Reverting them is one way to get the message across that he is not welcome. I also note that he isn't actually listed at Misplaced Pages:List of banned users, so I'm not sure that Vk is technically banned. Rockpocket 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I first had personal conflicts with this part of the banning policy about a year ago, when I was dealing with an editor who was banned for far less disruption than Vintagekits was. But the policy worked — after deleting/reverting all this person's edits, even the "good" ones, he finally gave up wasting his time creating content, knowing it wouldn't last for more than a few hours, and he left Misplaced Pages completely. That's the idea, isn't it, for Vintagekits to leave Misplaced Pages with pride and dignity intact (to quote WP:BAN). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is. I'll drop you an email, Andrew, since there is some stuff you should probably know. Rockpocket 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Very commendable, if a little Draconian and negative for the encyclopedia, but what intereste me more is how do you know he has gone? or do you check user every new editor who touches certain pages? Are you suggesting we do that? Giano (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case, the banned user was hitting articles on my watchlist (same areas of interest) but those edits ceased after a while. Maybe he's back somewhere else — I don't care — but the disruption caused on the subset of articles I was interested in ceased. This only happened as a consequence of deleting all edits from confirmed sockpuppets, I believe. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
and what's more I'm going to revert you here because I have no idea who that editor is, but your edit is plain wrong. Giano (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert all your edits, but give you the opportunity to do them yourself, you can begin here . Giano (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to restore any content made by User:An Ugly Thief, confirmed by checkuser as a Vintagekits sock, regardless of the quality of the content. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So are you telling us, we have to leave pages full of mistakes, because you have re-inserted them, and don't want them removed? That seems rather silly to me. Giano (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it used to seem silly to me too, until I saw the effectiveness of the banning policy. Delete everything, without prejudice, and the banned editors go away. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What happens to the mistakes when the banned editors go away? Can you revert the banned editor, and replace the mistakes yourself?--Domer48 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If I changed the mistakes I'll be told I'm acting as a proxy? This is someone having a laugh, leaving in mistakes. --Domer48 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I've already reverted the first two, one was a mistake, one was useful information. I honestly can't see the harm with re-adding it. It's Misplaced Pages's loss to leave these things as they are, and up to "others" to sort the problem out.Giano (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If you see a mistake on Misplaced Pages and can make an edit to improve it then do so. If you follow admins around an continually and persistently re-revert their removal of a banned user's contributions then you may be considered to be acting as a proxy for that banned user. There is a gulf between those two, both of you are smart enough to appreciate that. Rockpocket 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Aha! but this is all becoming one great came of "follow the leader" and under these rules VK seems to be leading. So we return to a chicken and egg situation, which lead me neatly back to saying: This need sorting properly. Giano (talk)
As sockpuppeters go. One doesn't have to be 'blocked' to use sockpuppets. I'm increasingly concerned about Vk's recent behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I'm more concerned about Vintagekits' offer to email his contributions for another editor to post them for him. That would clearly be a "proxy" issue. As for the mistakes, you may note that I haven't completely reverted every last edit of every one of Vintagekits socks. I've certainly speedy deleted every single new page created, and I've reverted most of the major edits (i.e. new content). But I'll also remove enough of the minor edits for him to reconsider whether he wants to make even that level of contribution, knowing there is a chance his work is gone shortly thereafter. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
And who exactly has appointed you to this position of authority on this matter. I don't recall seeing you here before. I personally regard your edits as vandalism, and fail to see any benefit to them. Giano (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I'm an admin simply enforcing WP:BAN. Didn't realize I needed permission to join your little party. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't see any admins willing to put your plan in place and become his probation officer, which is hardly surprising since Vk poisoned that particularly chalice when he viciously turned on those willing to give him a chance. Andrwsc appears to be one of those "uninvolved" admins that everyone was demanding become involved, and he appears to have his own strategy for dealing with banned editors (one that has worked in the past). I guess that means to get this "sorted properly", Giano, you will need to call in some favors with your chums over at ArbCom. I'm sure the only thing they would welcome more than a Troubles MkII ArbCom, would be a Troubles MKII featuring Giano. Rockpocket 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact Rockpocket I have a far better idea. I shall leave you all to your own devices, then I shall sit back and watch the fun, as the chaos descends. You are completely inept at sorting these matters out for yourselves, and if you think this solution is going to work, let me assure you it will not, quite the reverse in fact. You are heading straight back to square 1, and this time you have no-one to blame but yourselves. Every admin trying to make a name for himself is descending, while VK is not beloved, eventually the Irish editors will not stand for this, because these Admins having despatched VK will then move on elsewhere and you will have bigger and better battles than ever before. On your own head be it. Giano (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, thanks for that cheery prediction, Nostradamus. I love a good insurrection as much as the next man, but I give the so-called "Irish editors" a little more credit than that. Rockpocket 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Huh? I'm an admin simply enforcing WP:BAN. Didn't realize... — Andrwsc" and with that terribly helpful and astute comment Rockpocket from your admin-extraordinaire, I shall leave you to your fate. Giano (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be getting a little bit personal here if you don't mind me saying? Andrwsc has his own strategy for dealing with banned editors, but dose Wiki? --Domer48 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits would be the policy. Rockpocket 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee decision

I'm posting here to draw attention to this Arbitration Committee decision:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

A key issue here is use of administrative tools "on articles and in disputes where he (i.e., the administrator) was personally involved". Wanderer57 (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)