This underlying dispute is related to Troubles in a way, so I feel like the remedies there could be useful. One user (TharkunColl) adds the term "British Isles" (referring, in general, to the area on the map that is primarily of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland) to articles, and the other user (HighKing) opposes the term completely and utterly, and they've fought battle after battle for months about this issue. They both have tried various parts of dispute resolution in the past, and it hasn't stopped them. The latest war at Wikipedia:WQA#TharkunColl shows how intractable the two are in this matter, and the sheer vitriol and argumentum ad nauseum shows that things won't change unless they're made to change. Therefore, I propose the following two remedies:
A) Both TharkunColl and HighKing are placed under 1RR on any article that has to do with the area of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and the related geographical area.
B1) In addition to A), HighKing is hereby restricted from removing the term "British Isles" or any such related term from any article. TharkunColl is hereby restructed from ADDING the term "British Isles" or any such related phrase to any article.
B2) Any new account or IP address that starts these battles up can be placed under the restrictions in remedies A and B1.
I think we have a strong case for both.. A) seems to be necessary no matter what, we've gone through edit after edit war, because these two people can NOT agree with each other.. and quite frankly, the reason I am calling for B1, is to be quite even handed, to take away the reason to edit war between the two of them SirFozzie ( talk) 12:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This ArbCom case has been opened in a very one-sided non-neutral way, and I would like to ask SirFozzie to provide, with diffs, the evidence of his accusations. Stating that HighKing opposes the term completely and utterly is wrong and I vehemently strongly disagree with this assertion. It is a bald lie. I don't, and I'm working at the British Isles terminology taskforce to create guidelines to usage of this term. In addition, I supported the use of the term during a recent edit war over the river Shannon. All of my edits are being reverted and being made the subject of controversy as a tactic. I have not edit warred over the recent articles, remained civil, and followed policy. I find it disconcerting, odd, and also one-sided that the WQA opened, to discuss Tharky's behaviour on reversals and personal attacks, has been let slide - effectively his behaviour is being sanctioned and condoned. If SirFozzie is referring to edit-wars, I believe other editors should also be asked the same questions - namely User:Blue Bugle, User:MidnightBlueMan, User:LemonMonday, and the numerous anon IP addresses - perhaps a checkuser would shed some light on why this has occurred. I'm very happy to be reasonable, but these accusations against me are the result of "marketing" and false claims by other editors, not based on fact. -- HighKing ( talk) 12:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I wish the articles to remain stable & I don't want to see Tharky & HK getting blocked over this issues. The 1RR solution? will save them from themselves. GoodDay ( talk) 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Although I have always been loath to make official complants about anyone - I value freedom of speech too much for that - this has now gone too far. I would like to inform HighKing that I've just done precisely that at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#British_Isles_and_User:HighKing. ðarkun coll 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
So I'm not even allowed to complain now, am I? Well this is what I said, anyway: For months and months now, both under the name User:HighKing and User:Bardcom, this editor has been systematically removing the term British Isles from as many articles as possible, and is virtually a single-issue account. Any reversions are greeted with cries of vandalism, plus a large number of spurious and time-consuming official complaints. He says take it to talk, but as this example will show Talk:Alexander Thom no amount of references are good enough for him, and he will continue to revert regardless. And when people tire of discussing it with him, he accuses them of breaking the rules. I have many times tried to engage him in discussion, to suggest compromises, and to enquire after his reasons for this campaign of removal, but on no occasion has he ever acceded to such requests. In my opinion his campaign is a form of serious vandalism, because by removing this information the articles - many dozen at least so far - have been degraded, sometimes ridiculously so. Furthermore, those of us who have been trying to revert him have ourselves been accused of edit warring. Those who revert serial vandals don't usually get this sort of treatment. ðarkun coll 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
e/c - I'm not sure if this is resolving itself, but I'm going to add it as I've written it, and I wan't to defent HighKing regarding Wikialerts etc:
I'm going to offer my experience of each editor and make a couple of points on the background of this. I think all this is borne out of frustrations elsewhere.
A few months back now, HighKing, when he was Bardcom, went through articles that used British Isles and removed many cases of the term - some of which did go too far, and others were, in my opinion (and the opinion of other users 'pro' the term, such as User:CarterBar) - a genuine service to Wikipedia: the term was indeed over-used in a number of people's opinions. Unfortunately, HK didn't initially 'get' the strong reaction against him making his changes on such an 'ordered' level, no-doubt as he saw himself as doing a simple service. He was far too defensive about his actions for a while, objecting too strongly to people's protestations. When a user called Crispness started to 'back up' his edits on the revert table, things got complicated, and a few people started thinking in terms of a taskforce. Around this time HighKing stepped back, and has supported the ensuing BI taskforce ( WP:BITASK) 100%. The taskforce is currently at a lull, and I'm sure the recent edit flurries are frustration with this. It seems that HighKing is testing the drafted guideline out (I think he has a right to at least try this), but Tharkuncoll sees the entire guideline as 'censoring' his notion of free speech.
In my interaction with Tharkuncoll, he seems to want to use the term whenever he sees fit, and have no form of guideline at all. It is very frustrating to argue with him as he used terms like 'censorship' and 'freedom', which I personally find a cynical convenience, and very weakly argued on the occasions he does argue it. IMO, we simple need some sensible guidelines, and Wikipedia is full of these: it is not an total anarchy where people can do what they want.
In my eyes HighKing has (thus-far) been the strongest contributor to the proposed WP:BITASK guidelines as they stand (excluding myself, as I broadly structured the proposal we currently have). DDStretch contributed significantly to begin with, and around 5 others have contributed to some degree. It has to be said Thurkuncoll 'backed out' of the taskforce before contributing at all, and steadfastly refuses to do so. But HightKing has been the most consistent and enthusiastic of the contributors - he has been continually positive, and has contributed a number of textual additions. Tharkuncoll has made no contibution at all, and has completely blanked various questions to him surrounding details of the guideline on perhaps a dozen occasions now - he is not easy to deal with at all, as he simply ignores what he doesn't want to address.
Tarkuncoll says that he has only inserted the term completely afresh on a few occasions, but his clearly calculated insertion of it at the River Shannon (the major Irish river) was a significant act for everyone involved - and was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and even Tharkuncoll signed up for the subsequent BITASK taskforce. As another BI-inserting act, he then immediately released an 'Islands of the British Isles' Template as his self-designated 'first act' of the taskforce, making it awkward for us from the very outset. So regarding Tharkuncoll's propensity to use the term, my argument is that if HighKing edits in a way that removes the term, and Thurkuncoll replaces it without actually improving HK's change in any way - then that IS an act of adding the term. I would add to this that HighKing is editing according the drafted proposed guidelines at the taskforce, while Tharkuncoll is typically doing as he sees fit.
So for me it's not a case of 'six of one and half a dozen of the other'. Tharkuncoll is very much 'pro' the term, and wishes to see it on Wikipedia to a far greater extent than HighKing wished to remove it. HighKing is trying to follow some rules, Tharkuncoll has shown (me at a least) a number of times that he simply doesn't care who he upsets, and will play the 'freedom' card to justify himself like the most cynical of right-wing tub-thumpers IMO - John Lennon he is not. On the whole I am for using the term (and class myself as a 'British' editor), but extremism on both sides simply makes life impossible. In my eyes Tharkuncoll is one of the extremists, HighKing isn't.
I think a real problem here is that people are loathe to get involved simply because Tharkcuncoll alone is so hard to deal with. He has a real-life friend called StickyParkin who often appears as an apologist for him, but he stands by himeself as far as I'm concerned.
Another reason I feel that so few people are getting directly involved in some of these recent burst of edits (apart from general worrying about edit wars), is that people could be generally waiting to see what happens at WP:BITASK. Some people want a BI guideline that uses only 'Ireland' (and not 'Republic of Ireland') for the Irish state. This 'Ireland' issue is the why the BITASK guideline is at a current lull. An Irish disambiguation taskforce ( WP:IDTF) was consequently made to try and find a conclusion over Ireleand disambiguation, which had a flurry of interest at the time across all the main Irish spaces. Unfortunately WP:IDTF is at a lull now too, as some users want Brown Haired Girl to chair the difficult opening debate, and she isn't answering her email and seems to have switched Wikipedia off at present. So it is extremely frustrating times for all of us who believe in these taskforces and guidelines. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 22:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
That is why I think both sides need to be brought to a realisation that the current state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, and that both sides should make real and positive steps to examine their own behaviour, carefully listening to what others say, rather than counter-attacking anyone who raises possible problems in their actions, or ignoring them, or accepting restrictions through gritted teeth (I'm not saying all or any of these have happened). Even a small move in this direction may well help even if all of it is not possible. DDStretch (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I would fully endorse Matt's analysis here and support a 1RR on both editors. HighKing does appear to be attempting to follow some form of guidelines while TharkunColl is a strong advocate for the BI term. So while I don;t think its a 50-50 issue we need some form of action as this has been going on too long. Looking above we have conditional statements not undertakings which would itself justify some action. -- Snowded TALK 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm very glad it has now been resolved amicably on all sides. ðarkun coll 09:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
(reduce indent) Perhaps you're right. However, that's how I read it. As I've said before, I have long ago stopped assuming good faith with TharkunColl. 79.155.245.81 ( talk) 08:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks as if edit-warring tactics are being used again on another article. I made a good faith edit at Provisional Irish Republican Army because I noticed something incongrous. Two editors thus far have stepped in to revert me without discussing the reasons I placed on the talk page for my changes here. This just appears to be a continuation of the bullish attitudes of some editors who prefer readers to believe politcal spin rather than be educated by the Wiki. Two reverts have been made by User:O Fenian despite my attempts to reason with him here and here. This appears to be a relatively new editor and perhaps he could be given the benefit of the doubt after a warning? Thunderer ( talk) 18:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
EditTors ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This new user has jumped in with both feet, legs, and assorted other body parts to the trouble. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is banned user User:Wikipiere, or another blocked/banned/reincarnated user but I'd probably get rejected for fishing. I am going to leave him a one and only warning that if he continues to jump in under these articles in a contentious way, he's subject to the enforcement of the principles of the ArbCom case. SirFozzie ( talk) 07:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invoke discretionary sanctions from Digwuren's case regarding the following defamation of my person in a very public forum (ANI) in a thread not involving my person, actions nor articles edited by me: Kuban kazak ( talk · contribs) on Oct 29 has slandered my name with the following remark: "However the biggest irony about him, is that unlike some active POV-pushers and stalkers like User:Piotrus..." ( link to current threaded discussion for context). I certainly hope that the community will take a stance against such slander.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I had appealed on this page on 11 October 2008 (now in archieve 28, here), regarding the persistent wholesale reverts of user Eupator (until the specified date) on the Hemshin peoples entry. In the mean time, this user has ceased to implement such wholesale reverts.
There has been no resolutions or comments from the Arbcom. Therefore, I want to bring this issue to attention again, as I really want to learn about the Arbcom's perspective and decision on this issue. Omer182 ( talk) 22:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is gaming on this page at the moment. Domer and BigDunc are again trying to introduce a false concensus to introduce political material. In addition BigDunc has just removed information which I included with reference to a notable member of the regiment who has published a book. This was not discussed on the talk page. I have already reverted once on the page today and am unable to take further action however with two editors against me it looks as if I am again being gamed. I request admin support and decisions please. Thunderer ( talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the AE every single edit I’ve made has been reverted. There has been no dispute. Rather than revert, I’ve gone to the talk page and initiated a discussion. Currently there is a discussion titled “Proposal, History section.” Editors, bar one, have agreed that the information is relevant and should be included. Despite an open discussion, and no feed back, the information was reverted, and only then was the discussion resumed. In an attempt to avoid the editor again breeching the WP:1RR I’ve opened a discussion titled “Options for Change and amalgamation” rather than simply putting the information back in the article. The flip side of this has seen major edits, with the removal of whole sections, without any prior discussion on sections to be removed. This is despite being asked to slow down. The article is now blocked with the rational “Edit warring.” Only to be then informed that there is no actual edit war? I have again been reverted, suggesting that their was no prior discussion, however, no discussion was considered necessary for its removal. No discussion for example on what sections should be moved? I being informed that this discussion was held on a completely different talk page? I’d welcome some advice and opinions, because I’m at a lose to understand what is happening? -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
(Undent)Two notes. One, the relevant article page is protected. Two, the involved editors managed to escape personal sanctions last time because they implied they had found a way to move forward, work together, fairness issues, etc. It would probably be a good idea to start showing a commitment to working together (perhaps using dispute resolution) instead of continuing the comment about each other on here. -- Tznkai ( talk) 20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Everyone listen to SirFozzie here. He is making the most sense to me on this one. I was going to full protect the article and found SF had already done so. Editors need to chill out and think of what brought these sanctions into being in the first place. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Domer48 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The Thunderer (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
BigDunc (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
For continued disruption and arguments on articles related to The Troubles, the above three editors are hereby topic banned from any article relating to The Troubles, broadly construed, for one month. They are allowed to contribute to talk pages, but must relate any and all edits to the topic at hand.
Quite frankly.. everyone here has had enough of all sides here. Thunderer has let his temper slip. He's admitted such to me via email. He says, and I agree with it (to a point), that he's being provoked and stonewalled at every turn. Therefore, I'm removing the disruption at the source. At ALL sources. This is a mininum, not a maximum. The two sides will either get along with each other, or the temporary topic bans will become permanent. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone show me were I’ve been disruptive on this article? Can someone explain to me how you can have an edit war on an article with a WP:1RR restriction? Why is it all Troubles articles included in sanctions? This only affects two editors, as one is a SPA, and no disputes on any other Troubles articles? -- Domer48 'fenian' 07:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)PR you again say that I opposes the majority on the Sinn Féin article, did you even read the post I made. An editor implied that 11 editors had given consensus for a move I pointed out that in fact that was not the case. So please tell me what you are refering too because I can not see my opposition to any majority on that article. BigDunc Talk 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I've read various messages by the belligerents and in the case of BigDunc and The Thunderer specifically, I think the application of Hanlon's razor is illuminating. It really seems at the moment, no matter what the restriction, they can't seem to help themselves but fight, as a result of differencing perspectives an emotionally charged subject. That having been said, I believe both of them really are doing their best to improve Wikipedia, but the lack of assumptions good faith, spirit of cooperation and so on has made this impossible. I think its past time the two of them were put into a structured mediation process, because attempts at discouraging poor behavior have not produced harmonious editing. I argue that we have essentially two choices: to ban or severely restrict them from those sections of the project (their areas of major contribution, a difficult area needing editors), or to put some sort of structured guidance in place. Domer48 on the other hand, seems to have exhausted any trust or faith the community put into him. So, I have the following proposals, others feel free to offer suggestions:
"Domer48 on the other hand, seems to have exhausted any trust or faith the community put into him." Now Tznkai since the AE, please provide me with a supporting diff for your remark above. Show me a diff which shows incivility, disruption of any actions contrary to the agreed sanctions. -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, for that. -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Well here are some editors who considered placing personal sanctions on me alone wrong the last time you suggested them. Names familiar to this topic, and who I in no way endear my self with in the previous discussion (apologies). I do not feel I let any of them down since, however I can't speek for them. I can only find two Admin at the moment who have suggested I'm a benefit to the project and have some confidence in me, one is Alison and possibly the other is Rockpocket. I don't believe I have let either of them down on this occasion, but again I can’t speak on their behalf. Now I notice you have again put forward proposels to have sanctions placed on me, despite the fact you have still not catalogued every negative action I've made or comment someone has made about me. So I will ask again, with all due respect, please provide me with diff's which support the accusations you have made against me on this occasion, and warrent sanctions. -- Domer48 'fenian' 12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone clarify if myself, Thunderer and Domer are banned from Troubles releated articles as of yesterday. BigDunc Talk 16:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Domer has asked me to clarify a bit.
After reviewing Domer's contributions, I think a topic ban from Irish articles may be the best thing for both him and the articles and would support sanctions to that end. MBisanz talk 12:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, and in reply could I point you to my comment here and Alison’s comments here. As to this diff here I would point you to my comments here. Now after reviewing my contributions, you will agree that every one of my edits on the UDR were reverted, without discussion. Just to clarify, could you possibly point me to were I said anything about consensus on the UDR talk page or this discussion? Since I know I haven’t could you possibly strike out your first point? In light of the comments of both myself and Alison could you possibly strike your comments on the second point, since they are without foundation. I did not revert to my version, I reverted to the consensus version, I’m not happy with this version but I accept it. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
(delurking for a second) - MBisanz, the Kevin Barry article is a bit of a special case, IMO, where the usual edit-warriors are working in relative peace. However, there's a persistent IP editor who's been warring on there for months now, inserting the same stuff again and again, switching IPs and repeating the process. The other editors are driven to distraction at this stage. While I appreciate that the article is under 1RR, I would consider Domer's reverts above to be under the clause of 'simple vandalism' for this one case only. It's not so much a content dispute (all the other editors dealt with that months ago on the talk page), but a disruptive, IP-socking editor - Alison ❤ 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of this issue appears to have stalled with only one set of proposals to resolve this on the table. This is a fragment of a longstanding highly intractable dispute and we need to make sure that whatever we do this time sticks. I'm wondering whether we should simply delete the article and start over with swinging penalties for any user who does not play nice on the new article. Alternatively we need targetted topic/article bans and a new set of eyes to work on the article untainted by the dispute. I'm also extremely disappointed that the attempt to broker discussion leading to a comprehensive RFC has been completely ignored by one side of the dispute - this is extremely unwiki and does not show any evidence of these editors wanting to work colaboratively. I'm only juts back from a business trip and have a lot to catch up on. I'll comment more soon with more concrete proposals but I'm putting some first thoughts out for discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion - the best solution is action against the source of disruption. However, if that's too difficult, another possibility is to ask both parties to re-write the article " Ulster Defence Regiment" from top to bottom on a Sand-box page. It would be relatively easy for the uninvolved to look at the different versions and judge which one was "more encyclopaedic". We might also discover useful things about the writing ability of different editors. PR talk 14:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Could you possibly show through diff's were I have behaved "in a way that fosters disharmony and discourages uninvolved editors from contributing to an article?" I can provide just one, but the uninvolved editor is not talking about me? -- Domer48 'fenian' 15:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
From my limited experience of this article I suggest the following solutions to solve the ongoing arguments at UDR. The proposals are not designed to be fair and are simply there to ensure that an environment exists to allow progress to be made on the article. My limited experience is that The Thunderer is mostly trying to edit towards wiki-norms and is striving to produce an NPOV product. Occasionally their temper gets the better of them and they are also liable to make newbie mistakes but appear to quickly acknowledge and learn from them. There is no reason why direct mentoring will not ensure that they edit appropriately from now on and I am willing, so far as my time allows, to keep an eye on them. Neither BigDunc nor Domer48 made any attempt to engage in my proposal to document the differences in the article to allow for a comprehensive RFC to settle this dispute. I was very disappointed that BigDunc chose to use my posting as an excuse to undo all of The Thunderer's recent edits and this seems to have lead to the current impasse. On the other hand they also shosed a great deal of patience and a willingness to give The Thunderer time to work on disputed sources that was above and beyond the call of duty. I strongly feel that progress will only be made while discussion takes place. We desparately need unaligned editors to work on the article but this will not happen while a poisonous atmosphere exists over the article. My experience is that of the two Domer48 is responsible for the majority of the agression in the article and their editing to add long laundry lists of opinion and commentry is effectively using the article to further a particular POV. This view is supported by their failure to properly adress reasonable concerns raised about this on the talk page by The Thunderer. I therefore have the following proposals to sort out this mess:
The article Ulster Defense Regiment should remain locked for a period of 1 week to force the editors working on the page to agree the scope of the dispute and map out how the article should be improved. The article may be relocked at any time by any uninvolved admin if, in the opinion of that admin, the article is being edited in a combative or uncollaborative manner by any editor.
If, in the opinion of the involved editors, having a neutral admin appointed to adjudicate on content disputes would help, then this should also be supported. I'm certainly not the person for this for reasons I elaborated to BigDunc off-wiki and I will happily expand on this privately to anyone who wants to know what I'm on about.
Please feel free to flame, oppose or improve any of these suggestions. Spartaz Humbug! 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your considered proposal. The only thing it lacks is the supporting diff’s for your views on my conduct. Could you please provide the diff’s to support you opinion. In the absence of diff’s your proposed ban on me is unsupportable. However, I would be perfectly willing to accept the same sanction of WP:ORR, like everyone else as it would possibly help. I would support any admin involvement, such as both your and Rockpockets intervention to clarify policy and to insure that WP:TPG is adhered to at all times. While I'm under no obligation too, I would voluntarily agree to not place any edits on the article until it had been agreed to on the talk page. -- Domer48 'fenian' 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I can be a sarcastic bugger. It's mostly intended as humour but can be used as a barb sometime. I am guilty as charged sir. Thunderer ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Rock for the constructive positive and productive proposals, they have move this discussion towards a more constructive approach which can only reduce some of the current tension. However, in light of Fozzie’s comments above, supplemented by Tznkai, I would respectfully like to withdraw my support for any and all proposals put forward in this discussion. That Fozzie made a conscious decision to continue to put forward allegations with no supporting diff’s, and Tznkai's being very selective, is in no way conducive to a productive resolution. I would however like to put forward a proposal of my own for consideration.
This is just a proposal, based on common sense and logical sequence. That the current system, as it stands is based on comment, opinion and assumptions and attempts to apply solutions without first having identified the problems makes no sense. AE applied sanctions, lets find out why they did not work before devising new ones.-- Domer48 'fenian' 21:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering if everyone's made their minds up yet what's to happen? Thunderer ( talk) 11:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Just wondering
With all due respect to the editors in this discussion, I like to make a couple of points here. First, I did not start this tread, I made no accusations, and I did not propose or breech any AE sanctions. I was subjected to a number of accusations however, and have yet to see any supporting diff’s which would result in me being placed under any sanctions. To suggest then, that I am holding up concluding this discussion is quite bizarre. In fact I’m at a loss to know what this whole thing is about now.
To be told that I’m still to be subjected to a topic ban on all Troubles articles, can only prompt one question, why? I have asked a number of editors to address a number of questions I had and the answers have been few and far between.
Now I will agree there is a problem with the UDR article, and that it resulted in an AE. That the AE proposed a number of remedial measures, and despite this were all back here. For my part I made a proposal above to identify what the problem was and to date there has been no response. I see fellow editors propose and suggest alternative measures in the absence of any review since the date of implementation of AE sanctions and page protection. What I suggest now is that if editors wish, I can compile a review of the conduct and contributions of the edits in this narrow time frame, though it would be wholly inappropriate as an involved party.
So the question to be asked now is, who initiated this AE and why? Why was the UDR article page protected? Why are three editors currently under a topic ban on all Troubles articles when this is confined to just one? Who is going to review the UDR article since the AE to identify what the problem is? Thanks, -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Your comments are quite inflammatory which can only increase tensions and are therefore in my opinion disruptive. You should consider rescuing yourself from this discussion, as your continuous accusations relying only as they are on your opinions have no place here. The time frame in which we are dealing is quite narrow, from AE till page protection. That you are still unable to provide any diff’s to support your opinion or proposed sanctions is quite informative. Your comment “no one seems to be willing to give Domer the time of day” I find to be quite offensive, and grossly uncivil, and so far removed from reality as to raise questions as to your competence to hold the position you now enjoy. Therefore, in an effort to remove your opportunity to continue to insult me, I will decline to respond to your taunts and hope that someone with more experience can address your unacceptable behaviour. That you have chosen to personalise this to such a degree as to become personally offensive should in my opinion raise concerns among the wider community, who you continually suggest to speak for. -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I have now accepted mentorship for the UDR page from User:PalestineRemembered. Thunderer ( talk) 13:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'd be very grateful if somebody could make the decision for me here please. Thunderer ( talk) 16:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
PR speaks - it seems strange that people who've had content disputes with me would suggest that Thunderer would somehow suffer harm. Whether I'd be a good mentor for another editor is of course not for me to say - but people who examine my edits (you'll find 5 of them on this page) will know I'm either pretty careful or very, very, very careful indeed. PR talk 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
. As someone being mentored, you do not seem well suited to the role of a mentor yourself. NoCal100 ( talk) 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)PalestineRemembered has gained for himself over the years a "cloud over his head", whereby he is clearly not regarded well by substantial volumes of the community. Indeed, that may be for good reason -- PR's past conduct has not been exemplary, to say the least, and the fact he has recently ran through 4 mentors (one of whom has actually filed for a community ban) is not exactly heartening.
It seems that we're in fairly broad agreement on what to do with BigDunc and The Thunderer, that they are at least TRYING to work together in a collegial manner. It's what to do with Domer that's the bone in everyone's throat at the moment. Here's some thoughts on what to do here.
A) Remove the Topic Bans on Thunderer/BigDunc (replaced with some combo of 0RR/mentorship), leave 1 month topic ban on Domer. I know polling is evil, but other then the participants, does anyone think that we WOULDN'T be back here in one month once it ends?
B)Remove the Topic Bans on Thunderer/BigDunc (replaced with some combo of 0RR/mentorship),extend topic ban on Domer. The ban can be extended for a set length of time or made indefinite, and we can see if Thunderer and Dunc can work together with out worrying that the balance would be upset in a matter of weeks.
C)Remove all sanctions applied in this thread Which is what Domer seems to be asking for here, but I don't see much, if any, support outside of his arguments.
D)Apply to have Ulster Defence Regiment and Criticisms of the Ulster Defence Regiment placed under flagged/sighted revisions. Sounds like this could be a good first test case for using flagged/sighted revisions. Not sure the developers would be sanguine about bringing a new wikipedia feature on EN-WP for use only on a single article, but it's an idea to consider with any of the other options.
E)Status Quo I'm not sure this would be a way to solve the situation, it seems like more all it would be doing is postpoining the situation. It seems more like punishing Thunderer/Dunc for others actions.
I welcome other options, and thoughts to this. But my general thoughts on this is that at least with Domer, the general consensus of the community is that he's exhausted community patience with regards to these articles. Wikipedia's editors (both administrators and content editors alike) as a whole has had to deal with Troubles articles being made a Battleground for over a year now, (at least I've been trying for at least 18 months to get these sides to fully work within Wikipedia's rules and policies).
If Domer thinks he is harshly done by in whatever suggestion is finally followed, he is free to bring it to the attention of the Arbitration Committee, of course. I wouldn't recommend it, as we all remember the drain on all editors from the first Troubles ArbCom case. Also, ArbCom would be just as free to ADD to the sanctions as to soften the sanctions as they see fit... but it wouldn't seem fair not to remind him he does have that option. SirFozzie ( talk) 22:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | I support retaining the topic ban on Domer48. Their aggressive and combative approach to this AE shows that they are not well suited to editing collaboratively in a disputed area of this type. The longer the better as far as I am concerned because its obvious that the problems will resume as soon as any ban ends. I also support releasing Dunc and The Thunderer from their topic bans. I suggest that 0RR restrictions and absolute requirements to seek agreement on disputed edits on talk pages be the minimum condition for their continued participation. | ” |
That's what I endorse. Traditional unionist ( talk) 18:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
"Their long list of diffs clearly designed to blame The Thunderer for the trouble is a case in point." Spartaz, that is clearly a conclusion you have drawn, I however have made no such conclusion. That none of you have provided anything to support your opinions is very telling , and still suggesting sanctions? -- Domer48 'fenian' 18:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I perfectly amenable to both mediation and mentoring and see it as one possibly solution to the current impasse. 0RR on the UDR article would also help along with a third party referee agreeable to all, would also be another avenue worth exploring. -- Domer48 'fenian' 22:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Adding this lot to the discussion in this format is unhelpful as the page is already too long. I have collapsed it before the page self destructs. Feel free to put this on a su¨-page or somewhere in user space and link to it. Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Domer48 'fenian' 18:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The edits have now been provided for you all, why not use diff's now to support your opinions? -- Domer48 'fenian' 18:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I have infringed none what so ever. -- Domer48 'fenian' 18:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I have placed the edits on the Ulster Defence Regiment here to be reviewed by Editors.
| ||
---|---|---|
AE case closed on 5 October 2008 at 18.02 by Rlevse. All Troubles Articles placed under 1RR. The template below was posted on the Ulster Defence Regiment on 5 October 2008 at 20.00 [23] by SirFozzie. >
Editors will note: If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first. Article was Page Protected on 14 October 2008, 20:10 by SirFozzie [24]
User:Domer48Inserting text: [25], [26] [27] [28] [29], [30], [31], [32] [33], [34], [35], [36] Removing text: [37] Reverting text: [38], [39]
User:BigDuncInserting text: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] Removing text: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] Reverting text: [56], [57]
User: The ThundererInserting text: “Belfast and other urban settings” [58], “Battalions and locations” [59], [60] “Politicians (order by rank, where known)” [61] “Criticism” [64], note, [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72] “Infiltration by paramilitaries” [73] [74], [75], [76], [77] “The Subversion in the UDR report” [78], [79], [80], [81], [82] “Subsequent Catholic recruitment” [83], [84] “Options for Change and amalgamation” [85] “Rural ambushes and attacks” [86], [87], [88] “Mortar attacks” [89] “Uniform, armament & equipment” [90], [91], [92], [93], [94] “Duties” [97] “Attempts to prevent paramilitary infiltration” [100] “Politicians (order by rank, where known)” [101], [102] “Formation” [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111] “Annual training camps” [112], [113] “Awards, honours and decorations” [114] “Comparison with the Irish Citzens Militia” [115], [116], [117] “Bibliography” [118] “The Men” [119] “Training” [120], [121], [122]
“The role of ex-B-Specials in the UDR and the effect on Catholic recruitment” [133], [134], “Options for Change and amalgamation” [135], Max, [136], [137], max, [138], [139] “Battalions and locations” [140], [141], [142] “Attempts to prevent paramilitary infiltration” [143], [144], [145], [146] “Targeting by the IRA” [147], [148] “Rural ambushes and attacks” [149], [150] “Formation” note “Intimidation” [153] “Infiltration by paramilitaries” [154] “Subsequent Catholic recruitment” [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161] “Uniform, armament & equipment” [162] “Structure” note
Reverting text:
“Options for Change and amalgamation” [166] “Criticism” [167], [168], [169] “History” [170] “Rural ambushes and attacks” [171] “Subsequent Catholic recruitment” [172] “Battalions and locations” [173] “Belfast and other urban settings” [174] “Loyalist Intimidation” [177] “Uniform, armament & equipment” [178] “The Greenfinches” [179] “Attempts to prevent paramilitary infiltration” [180] “Aftercare” [181] “The whole article” [182], note edit summary “Male personnel” [183]
[184], [185], [186], [187], 2nd revert
I will put together some diff’s on talk page contributions, on how they relate to main space edits. I have refrained from putting forward any analysis, until this has been reviewed. -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
This looks to have stalled out yet again, so I'm going to do my best to unstick things and move it forward. I'm enthused that Thunderer has accepted Ryan as a mentor as well as PR. That's a good step towards resolving this. I do add to the voices urging Dunc and Thunderer to seek formal mediation on UDR and elsewhere. I am therefore modifying my placing Dunc and Thunderer under the topic ban, to the following:
The topic ban placed on both User:BigDunc and User:The Thunderer is now in abeyance. Instead, they are placed on a strict 0 Revert Rule, specifically on Ulster Defence Regiment, but this remedy can also be applied to any other article in which they find themselves in conflict, by any administrator.
Domer's topic ban is still in effect.. I don't see any suggestion that lifting it early (if at all) would be a good thing at this time. SirFozzie ( talk) 10:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"Domer's topic ban is still in effect" yes when you have explained a) Why it was imposed, and b) if you are entitled to impose it? You have been asked often enough now. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No you provided no valid reason, and the question was directed at the editor who imposed this. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
When Rockpocket above suggests that I “can be caustic in some circumstances,” I find I can accept this from someone whose advice I have followed and whose opinion I have come to respect. Because while offering this opinion, they also accept that my motivation is to improve Troubles related articles. Since the last AE, I have consistently used the talk page, and followed the advice offered by Rock. To now find myself in a situation were I’m been topic banned on the one hand, and denied the justification for it on the other; it can only lead to frustration, which I believe I have managed to keep in check. So without sounding “caustic” I find this block to be both unjustified and unjustifiable. -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Dunc, I've never had a problem with mediation. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to let this situation lay fallow so long, but things needed to be duly taken care of. So, what I'm proposing is these things, in concert:
Not part of the proposal per se, but the article specific 1RR restrictions as applied by previous AE thread are continued, but should be revisited later-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Like the previous suggestions, it lacks one crucial ingredient which is justification. What is it I’m supposed to have done? I have gone to the trouble of providing all of the edits of three editors which would facilitate discussion. Now I have breeched none of the AE imposed sanctions, nor have I breeched any of the terms of the Troubles ArbCom, and no one has illustrated otherwise. So until we return to ArbCom, as the only body capable of applying such sanctions, I suggest we deal with what is acceptable, that being mediation, mentorship, or comprehensive RfC. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not have an extensive history of disruption. In the last AE all personal sanctions on me were lifted as they were seen as unfair. Being subject to the Troubles ArbCom ruling, like everyone else, likewise the recent AE, any and all sanctions will be applyed equally. Since I have abided by all recomendations outlined on the AE, I have a real problem with the logic "proactive consensus driven administration to protect encyclopedia from disruption." There has been no disruption on my part, and to ignore all rules, and the application of common sense to suggest sanctions I suggest is being very disruptive. -- Domer48 'fenian' 16:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course Fozz will not have a problem; they are the one who started this tread. Fozz are you going to justify this with diff’s or ignore all the Wiki norms. Now Fozz who gave you the authority to issue Topic bans over hundreds of articles. Tznkai raised this and Giano also on your talk page? I asked also on this discussion and you ignored it. Now are you going to justify this Topic ban or is ArbCom the only route? -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
So basically you’ve have not got the authority, and are looking to Admin’s like you who could not support such a block to back you up? I don’t think I’m being unfairly treated, that would be too mild a notion. Administrators are granted a range of discretionary ways to deal with disruption, but they also have to show good cause. Now consensus is not good cause, and none of the Admin’s has been able, like you to show any. All normal methods have not been tried previously, as you suggest, and because of a lack of enforcement by Admin’s like you are a rather spectacular failure. Now show “good cause,” why a Topic Ban is justified you have been asked often enough by more than just me. -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Now Fozz, I think you are walking on thin ice! -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed Proposals:
-- Domer48 'fenian' 09:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that The Thunderer in making edits like this are far from helpful. What he has done is as soon as Domer gets blocked he immediately begins by taking advantage of the block to remove reliably sourced information. And it appears to be a whitewash of the article plus removing Farrell's claims is a breach of NPOV. When sources disagree you cant cherrypick the one you dislike and remove it. BigDunc Talk 14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Mentor response - perhaps BigDunc needs reminding that he has another channel opened for settling this matter, and it's a lot better than trying to do so at this "Arbitration Enforcement" page. This other avenue was opened specifically for this purpose - indeed for his benefit. Thunderer opened a mentorship page for precisely this kind of discussions. Dunc knows of this arrangement because he's already participated there. It is difficult to understand how Mentors can possibly do their useful work at this location here instead. Naturally, Dunc is free to bypass the arrangements that were set up to avoid disruption to articles if he feels they're not working. But he's given them no chance - worse, his appeal to "the mentors" here (without informing me) seems calculated to discredit a process even while he apparently seeks to undermine it.
I regret to say that, when, previous to me offering (and Thunderer accepting) mentorship, Dunc challenged my analysis of a previous editing (not content) dispute here, he failed to provide me anything to indicate I'd made a mistake. My own re-investigation, at his behest, only confirmed what I thought I'd seen first, a rejection by him of an established consensus. (To anyone reading this, please see here and tell me if I'm wrong). At the current time it would appear that Dunc needs to change his contribution style if wishes to contribute usefully to a collegiate working relationship with other editors. There is no benefit to fomenting more of this drama, least of all on this page. PR talk 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This underlying dispute is related to Troubles in a way, so I feel like the remedies there could be useful. One user (TharkunColl) adds the term "British Isles" (referring, in general, to the area on the map that is primarily of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland) to articles, and the other user (HighKing) opposes the term completely and utterly, and they've fought battle after battle for months about this issue. They both have tried various parts of dispute resolution in the past, and it hasn't stopped them. The latest war at Wikipedia:WQA#TharkunColl shows how intractable the two are in this matter, and the sheer vitriol and argumentum ad nauseum shows that things won't change unless they're made to change. Therefore, I propose the following two remedies:
A) Both TharkunColl and HighKing are placed under 1RR on any article that has to do with the area of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and the related geographical area.
B1) In addition to A), HighKing is hereby restricted from removing the term "British Isles" or any such related term from any article. TharkunColl is hereby restructed from ADDING the term "British Isles" or any such related phrase to any article.
B2) Any new account or IP address that starts these battles up can be placed under the restrictions in remedies A and B1.
I think we have a strong case for both.. A) seems to be necessary no matter what, we've gone through edit after edit war, because these two people can NOT agree with each other.. and quite frankly, the reason I am calling for B1, is to be quite even handed, to take away the reason to edit war between the two of them SirFozzie ( talk) 12:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This ArbCom case has been opened in a very one-sided non-neutral way, and I would like to ask SirFozzie to provide, with diffs, the evidence of his accusations. Stating that HighKing opposes the term completely and utterly is wrong and I vehemently strongly disagree with this assertion. It is a bald lie. I don't, and I'm working at the British Isles terminology taskforce to create guidelines to usage of this term. In addition, I supported the use of the term during a recent edit war over the river Shannon. All of my edits are being reverted and being made the subject of controversy as a tactic. I have not edit warred over the recent articles, remained civil, and followed policy. I find it disconcerting, odd, and also one-sided that the WQA opened, to discuss Tharky's behaviour on reversals and personal attacks, has been let slide - effectively his behaviour is being sanctioned and condoned. If SirFozzie is referring to edit-wars, I believe other editors should also be asked the same questions - namely User:Blue Bugle, User:MidnightBlueMan, User:LemonMonday, and the numerous anon IP addresses - perhaps a checkuser would shed some light on why this has occurred. I'm very happy to be reasonable, but these accusations against me are the result of "marketing" and false claims by other editors, not based on fact. -- HighKing ( talk) 12:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I wish the articles to remain stable & I don't want to see Tharky & HK getting blocked over this issues. The 1RR solution? will save them from themselves. GoodDay ( talk) 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Although I have always been loath to make official complants about anyone - I value freedom of speech too much for that - this has now gone too far. I would like to inform HighKing that I've just done precisely that at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#British_Isles_and_User:HighKing. ðarkun coll 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
So I'm not even allowed to complain now, am I? Well this is what I said, anyway: For months and months now, both under the name User:HighKing and User:Bardcom, this editor has been systematically removing the term British Isles from as many articles as possible, and is virtually a single-issue account. Any reversions are greeted with cries of vandalism, plus a large number of spurious and time-consuming official complaints. He says take it to talk, but as this example will show Talk:Alexander Thom no amount of references are good enough for him, and he will continue to revert regardless. And when people tire of discussing it with him, he accuses them of breaking the rules. I have many times tried to engage him in discussion, to suggest compromises, and to enquire after his reasons for this campaign of removal, but on no occasion has he ever acceded to such requests. In my opinion his campaign is a form of serious vandalism, because by removing this information the articles - many dozen at least so far - have been degraded, sometimes ridiculously so. Furthermore, those of us who have been trying to revert him have ourselves been accused of edit warring. Those who revert serial vandals don't usually get this sort of treatment. ðarkun coll 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
e/c - I'm not sure if this is resolving itself, but I'm going to add it as I've written it, and I wan't to defent HighKing regarding Wikialerts etc:
I'm going to offer my experience of each editor and make a couple of points on the background of this. I think all this is borne out of frustrations elsewhere.
A few months back now, HighKing, when he was Bardcom, went through articles that used British Isles and removed many cases of the term - some of which did go too far, and others were, in my opinion (and the opinion of other users 'pro' the term, such as User:CarterBar) - a genuine service to Wikipedia: the term was indeed over-used in a number of people's opinions. Unfortunately, HK didn't initially 'get' the strong reaction against him making his changes on such an 'ordered' level, no-doubt as he saw himself as doing a simple service. He was far too defensive about his actions for a while, objecting too strongly to people's protestations. When a user called Crispness started to 'back up' his edits on the revert table, things got complicated, and a few people started thinking in terms of a taskforce. Around this time HighKing stepped back, and has supported the ensuing BI taskforce ( WP:BITASK) 100%. The taskforce is currently at a lull, and I'm sure the recent edit flurries are frustration with this. It seems that HighKing is testing the drafted guideline out (I think he has a right to at least try this), but Tharkuncoll sees the entire guideline as 'censoring' his notion of free speech.
In my interaction with Tharkuncoll, he seems to want to use the term whenever he sees fit, and have no form of guideline at all. It is very frustrating to argue with him as he used terms like 'censorship' and 'freedom', which I personally find a cynical convenience, and very weakly argued on the occasions he does argue it. IMO, we simple need some sensible guidelines, and Wikipedia is full of these: it is not an total anarchy where people can do what they want.
In my eyes HighKing has (thus-far) been the strongest contributor to the proposed WP:BITASK guidelines as they stand (excluding myself, as I broadly structured the proposal we currently have). DDStretch contributed significantly to begin with, and around 5 others have contributed to some degree. It has to be said Thurkuncoll 'backed out' of the taskforce before contributing at all, and steadfastly refuses to do so. But HightKing has been the most consistent and enthusiastic of the contributors - he has been continually positive, and has contributed a number of textual additions. Tharkuncoll has made no contibution at all, and has completely blanked various questions to him surrounding details of the guideline on perhaps a dozen occasions now - he is not easy to deal with at all, as he simply ignores what he doesn't want to address.
Tarkuncoll says that he has only inserted the term completely afresh on a few occasions, but his clearly calculated insertion of it at the River Shannon (the major Irish river) was a significant act for everyone involved - and was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and even Tharkuncoll signed up for the subsequent BITASK taskforce. As another BI-inserting act, he then immediately released an 'Islands of the British Isles' Template as his self-designated 'first act' of the taskforce, making it awkward for us from the very outset. So regarding Tharkuncoll's propensity to use the term, my argument is that if HighKing edits in a way that removes the term, and Thurkuncoll replaces it without actually improving HK's change in any way - then that IS an act of adding the term. I would add to this that HighKing is editing according the drafted proposed guidelines at the taskforce, while Tharkuncoll is typically doing as he sees fit.
So for me it's not a case of 'six of one and half a dozen of the other'. Tharkuncoll is very much 'pro' the term, and wishes to see it on Wikipedia to a far greater extent than HighKing wished to remove it. HighKing is trying to follow some rules, Tharkuncoll has shown (me at a least) a number of times that he simply doesn't care who he upsets, and will play the 'freedom' card to justify himself like the most cynical of right-wing tub-thumpers IMO - John Lennon he is not. On the whole I am for using the term (and class myself as a 'British' editor), but extremism on both sides simply makes life impossible. In my eyes Tharkuncoll is one of the extremists, HighKing isn't.
I think a real problem here is that people are loathe to get involved simply because Tharkcuncoll alone is so hard to deal with. He has a real-life friend called StickyParkin who often appears as an apologist for him, but he stands by himeself as far as I'm concerned.
Another reason I feel that so few people are getting directly involved in some of these recent burst of edits (apart from general worrying about edit wars), is that people could be generally waiting to see what happens at WP:BITASK. Some people want a BI guideline that uses only 'Ireland' (and not 'Republic of Ireland') for the Irish state. This 'Ireland' issue is the why the BITASK guideline is at a current lull. An Irish disambiguation taskforce ( WP:IDTF) was consequently made to try and find a conclusion over Ireleand disambiguation, which had a flurry of interest at the time across all the main Irish spaces. Unfortunately WP:IDTF is at a lull now too, as some users want Brown Haired Girl to chair the difficult opening debate, and she isn't answering her email and seems to have switched Wikipedia off at present. So it is extremely frustrating times for all of us who believe in these taskforces and guidelines. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 22:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
That is why I think both sides need to be brought to a realisation that the current state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, and that both sides should make real and positive steps to examine their own behaviour, carefully listening to what others say, rather than counter-attacking anyone who raises possible problems in their actions, or ignoring them, or accepting restrictions through gritted teeth (I'm not saying all or any of these have happened). Even a small move in this direction may well help even if all of it is not possible. DDStretch (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I would fully endorse Matt's analysis here and support a 1RR on both editors. HighKing does appear to be attempting to follow some form of guidelines while TharkunColl is a strong advocate for the BI term. So while I don;t think its a 50-50 issue we need some form of action as this has been going on too long. Looking above we have conditional statements not undertakings which would itself justify some action. -- Snowded TALK 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm very glad it has now been resolved amicably on all sides. ðarkun coll 09:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
(reduce indent) Perhaps you're right. However, that's how I read it. As I've said before, I have long ago stopped assuming good faith with TharkunColl. 79.155.245.81 ( talk) 08:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks as if edit-warring tactics are being used again on another article. I made a good faith edit at Provisional Irish Republican Army because I noticed something incongrous. Two editors thus far have stepped in to revert me without discussing the reasons I placed on the talk page for my changes here. This just appears to be a continuation of the bullish attitudes of some editors who prefer readers to believe politcal spin rather than be educated by the Wiki. Two reverts have been made by User:O Fenian despite my attempts to reason with him here and here. This appears to be a relatively new editor and perhaps he could be given the benefit of the doubt after a warning? Thunderer ( talk) 18:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
EditTors ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This new user has jumped in with both feet, legs, and assorted other body parts to the trouble. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is banned user User:Wikipiere, or another blocked/banned/reincarnated user but I'd probably get rejected for fishing. I am going to leave him a one and only warning that if he continues to jump in under these articles in a contentious way, he's subject to the enforcement of the principles of the ArbCom case. SirFozzie ( talk) 07:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invoke discretionary sanctions from Digwuren's case regarding the following defamation of my person in a very public forum (ANI) in a thread not involving my person, actions nor articles edited by me: Kuban kazak ( talk · contribs) on Oct 29 has slandered my name with the following remark: "However the biggest irony about him, is that unlike some active POV-pushers and stalkers like User:Piotrus..." ( link to current threaded discussion for context). I certainly hope that the community will take a stance against such slander.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I had appealed on this page on 11 October 2008 (now in archieve 28, here), regarding the persistent wholesale reverts of user Eupator (until the specified date) on the Hemshin peoples entry. In the mean time, this user has ceased to implement such wholesale reverts.
There has been no resolutions or comments from the Arbcom. Therefore, I want to bring this issue to attention again, as I really want to learn about the Arbcom's perspective and decision on this issue. Omer182 ( talk) 22:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is gaming on this page at the moment. Domer and BigDunc are again trying to introduce a false concensus to introduce political material. In addition BigDunc has just removed information which I included with reference to a notable member of the regiment who has published a book. This was not discussed on the talk page. I have already reverted once on the page today and am unable to take further action however with two editors against me it looks as if I am again being gamed. I request admin support and decisions please. Thunderer ( talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the AE every single edit I’ve made has been reverted. There has been no dispute. Rather than revert, I’ve gone to the talk page and initiated a discussion. Currently there is a discussion titled “Proposal, History section.” Editors, bar one, have agreed that the information is relevant and should be included. Despite an open discussion, and no feed back, the information was reverted, and only then was the discussion resumed. In an attempt to avoid the editor again breeching the WP:1RR I’ve opened a discussion titled “Options for Change and amalgamation” rather than simply putting the information back in the article. The flip side of this has seen major edits, with the removal of whole sections, without any prior discussion on sections to be removed. This is despite being asked to slow down. The article is now blocked with the rational “Edit warring.” Only to be then informed that there is no actual edit war? I have again been reverted, suggesting that their was no prior discussion, however, no discussion was considered necessary for its removal. No discussion for example on what sections should be moved? I being informed that this discussion was held on a completely different talk page? I’d welcome some advice and opinions, because I’m at a lose to understand what is happening? -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
(Undent)Two notes. One, the relevant article page is protected. Two, the involved editors managed to escape personal sanctions last time because they implied they had found a way to move forward, work together, fairness issues, etc. It would probably be a good idea to start showing a commitment to working together (perhaps using dispute resolution) instead of continuing the comment about each other on here. -- Tznkai ( talk) 20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Everyone listen to SirFozzie here. He is making the most sense to me on this one. I was going to full protect the article and found SF had already done so. Editors need to chill out and think of what brought these sanctions into being in the first place. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Domer48 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The Thunderer (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
BigDunc (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
For continued disruption and arguments on articles related to The Troubles, the above three editors are hereby topic banned from any article relating to The Troubles, broadly construed, for one month. They are allowed to contribute to talk pages, but must relate any and all edits to the topic at hand.
Quite frankly.. everyone here has had enough of all sides here. Thunderer has let his temper slip. He's admitted such to me via email. He says, and I agree with it (to a point), that he's being provoked and stonewalled at every turn. Therefore, I'm removing the disruption at the source. At ALL sources. This is a mininum, not a maximum. The two sides will either get along with each other, or the temporary topic bans will become permanent. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone show me were I’ve been disruptive on this article? Can someone explain to me how you can have an edit war on an article with a WP:1RR restriction? Why is it all Troubles articles included in sanctions? This only affects two editors, as one is a SPA, and no disputes on any other Troubles articles? -- Domer48 'fenian' 07:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)PR you again say that I opposes the majority on the Sinn Féin article, did you even read the post I made. An editor implied that 11 editors had given consensus for a move I pointed out that in fact that was not the case. So please tell me what you are refering too because I can not see my opposition to any majority on that article. BigDunc Talk 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I've read various messages by the belligerents and in the case of BigDunc and The Thunderer specifically, I think the application of Hanlon's razor is illuminating. It really seems at the moment, no matter what the restriction, they can't seem to help themselves but fight, as a result of differencing perspectives an emotionally charged subject. That having been said, I believe both of them really are doing their best to improve Wikipedia, but the lack of assumptions good faith, spirit of cooperation and so on has made this impossible. I think its past time the two of them were put into a structured mediation process, because attempts at discouraging poor behavior have not produced harmonious editing. I argue that we have essentially two choices: to ban or severely restrict them from those sections of the project (their areas of major contribution, a difficult area needing editors), or to put some sort of structured guidance in place. Domer48 on the other hand, seems to have exhausted any trust or faith the community put into him. So, I have the following proposals, others feel free to offer suggestions:
"Domer48 on the other hand, seems to have exhausted any trust or faith the community put into him." Now Tznkai since the AE, please provide me with a supporting diff for your remark above. Show me a diff which shows incivility, disruption of any actions contrary to the agreed sanctions. -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, for that. -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Well here are some editors who considered placing personal sanctions on me alone wrong the last time you suggested them. Names familiar to this topic, and who I in no way endear my self with in the previous discussion (apologies). I do not feel I let any of them down since, however I can't speek for them. I can only find two Admin at the moment who have suggested I'm a benefit to the project and have some confidence in me, one is Alison and possibly the other is Rockpocket. I don't believe I have let either of them down on this occasion, but again I can’t speak on their behalf. Now I notice you have again put forward proposels to have sanctions placed on me, despite the fact you have still not catalogued every negative action I've made or comment someone has made about me. So I will ask again, with all due respect, please provide me with diff's which support the accusations you have made against me on this occasion, and warrent sanctions. -- Domer48 'fenian' 12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone clarify if myself, Thunderer and Domer are banned from Troubles releated articles as of yesterday. BigDunc Talk 16:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Domer has asked me to clarify a bit.
After reviewing Domer's contributions, I think a topic ban from Irish articles may be the best thing for both him and the articles and would support sanctions to that end. MBisanz talk 12:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, and in reply could I point you to my comment here and Alison’s comments here. As to this diff here I would point you to my comments here. Now after reviewing my contributions, you will agree that every one of my edits on the UDR were reverted, without discussion. Just to clarify, could you possibly point me to were I said anything about consensus on the UDR talk page or this discussion? Since I know I haven’t could you possibly strike out your first point? In light of the comments of both myself and Alison could you possibly strike your comments on the second point, since they are without foundation. I did not revert to my version, I reverted to the consensus version, I’m not happy with this version but I accept it. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
(delurking for a second) - MBisanz, the Kevin Barry article is a bit of a special case, IMO, where the usual edit-warriors are working in relative peace. However, there's a persistent IP editor who's been warring on there for months now, inserting the same stuff again and again, switching IPs and repeating the process. The other editors are driven to distraction at this stage. While I appreciate that the article is under 1RR, I would consider Domer's reverts above to be under the clause of 'simple vandalism' for this one case only. It's not so much a content dispute (all the other editors dealt with that months ago on the talk page), but a disruptive, IP-socking editor - Alison ❤ 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of this issue appears to have stalled with only one set of proposals to resolve this on the table. This is a fragment of a longstanding highly intractable dispute and we need to make sure that whatever we do this time sticks. I'm wondering whether we should simply delete the article and start over with swinging penalties for any user who does not play nice on the new article. Alternatively we need targetted topic/article bans and a new set of eyes to work on the article untainted by the dispute. I'm also extremely disappointed that the attempt to broker discussion leading to a comprehensive RFC has been completely ignored by one side of the dispute - this is extremely unwiki and does not show any evidence of these editors wanting to work colaboratively. I'm only juts back from a business trip and have a lot to catch up on. I'll comment more soon with more concrete proposals but I'm putting some first thoughts out for discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion - the best solution is action against the source of disruption. However, if that's too difficult, another possibility is to ask both parties to re-write the article " Ulster Defence Regiment" from top to bottom on a Sand-box page. It would be relatively easy for the uninvolved to look at the different versions and judge which one was "more encyclopaedic". We might also discover useful things about the writing ability of different editors. PR talk 14:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Could you possibly show through diff's were I have behaved "in a way that fosters disharmony and discourages uninvolved editors from contributing to an article?" I can provide just one, but the uninvolved editor is not talking about me? -- Domer48 'fenian' 15:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
From my limited experience of this article I suggest the following solutions to solve the ongoing arguments at UDR. The proposals are not designed to be fair and are simply there to ensure that an environment exists to allow progress to be made on the article. My limited experience is that The Thunderer is mostly trying to edit towards wiki-norms and is striving to produce an NPOV product. Occasionally their temper gets the better of them and they are also liable to make newbie mistakes but appear to quickly acknowledge and learn from them. There is no reason why direct mentoring will not ensure that they edit appropriately from now on and I am willing, so far as my time allows, to keep an eye on them. Neither BigDunc nor Domer48 made any attempt to engage in my proposal to document the differences in the article to allow for a comprehensive RFC to settle this dispute. I was very disappointed that BigDunc chose to use my posting as an excuse to undo all of The Thunderer's recent edits and this seems to have lead to the current impasse. On the other hand they also shosed a great deal of patience and a willingness to give The Thunderer time to work on disputed sources that was above and beyond the call of duty. I strongly feel that progress will only be made while discussion takes place. We desparately need unaligned editors to work on the article but this will not happen while a poisonous atmosphere exists over the article. My experience is that of the two Domer48 is responsible for the majority of the agression in the article and their editing to add long laundry lists of opinion and commentry is effectively using the article to further a particular POV. This view is supported by their failure to properly adress reasonable concerns raised about this on the talk page by The Thunderer. I therefore have the following proposals to sort out this mess:
The article Ulster Defense Regiment should remain locked for a period of 1 week to force the editors working on the page to agree the scope of the dispute and map out how the article should be improved. The article may be relocked at any time by any uninvolved admin if, in the opinion of that admin, the article is being edited in a combative or uncollaborative manner by any editor.
If, in the opinion of the involved editors, having a neutral admin appointed to adjudicate on content disputes would help, then this should also be supported. I'm certainly not the person for this for reasons I elaborated to BigDunc off-wiki and I will happily expand on this privately to anyone who wants to know what I'm on about.
Please feel free to flame, oppose or improve any of these suggestions. Spartaz Humbug! 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your considered proposal. The only thing it lacks is the supporting diff’s for your views on my conduct. Could you please provide the diff’s to support you opinion. In the absence of diff’s your proposed ban on me is unsupportable. However, I would be perfectly willing to accept the same sanction of WP:ORR, like everyone else as it would possibly help. I would support any admin involvement, such as both your and Rockpockets intervention to clarify policy and to insure that WP:TPG is adhered to at all times. While I'm under no obligation too, I would voluntarily agree to not place any edits on the article until it had been agreed to on the talk page. -- Domer48 'fenian' 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I can be a sarcastic bugger. It's mostly intended as humour but can be used as a barb sometime. I am guilty as charged sir. Thunderer ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Rock for the constructive positive and productive proposals, they have move this discussion towards a more constructive approach which can only reduce some of the current tension. However, in light of Fozzie’s comments above, supplemented by Tznkai, I would respectfully like to withdraw my support for any and all proposals put forward in this discussion. That Fozzie made a conscious decision to continue to put forward allegations with no supporting diff’s, and Tznkai's being very selective, is in no way conducive to a productive resolution. I would however like to put forward a proposal of my own for consideration.
This is just a proposal, based on common sense and logical sequence. That the current system, as it stands is based on comment, opinion and assumptions and attempts to apply solutions without first having identified the problems makes no sense. AE applied sanctions, lets find out why they did not work before devising new ones.-- Domer48 'fenian' 21:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering if everyone's made their minds up yet what's to happen? Thunderer ( talk) 11:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Just wondering
With all due respect to the editors in this discussion, I like to make a couple of points here. First, I did not start this tread, I made no accusations, and I did not propose or breech any AE sanctions. I was subjected to a number of accusations however, and have yet to see any supporting diff’s which would result in me being placed under any sanctions. To suggest then, that I am holding up concluding this discussion is quite bizarre. In fact I’m at a loss to know what this whole thing is about now.
To be told that I’m still to be subjected to a topic ban on all Troubles articles, can only prompt one question, why? I have asked a number of editors to address a number of questions I had and the answers have been few and far between.
Now I will agree there is a problem with the UDR article, and that it resulted in an AE. That the AE proposed a number of remedial measures, and despite this were all back here. For my part I made a proposal above to identify what the problem was and to date there has been no response. I see fellow editors propose and suggest alternative measures in the absence of any review since the date of implementation of AE sanctions and page protection. What I suggest now is that if editors wish, I can compile a review of the conduct and contributions of the edits in this narrow time frame, though it would be wholly inappropriate as an involved party.
So the question to be asked now is, who initiated this AE and why? Why was the UDR article page protected? Why are three editors currently under a topic ban on all Troubles articles when this is confined to just one? Who is going to review the UDR article since the AE to identify what the problem is? Thanks, -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Your comments are quite inflammatory which can only increase tensions and are therefore in my opinion disruptive. You should consider rescuing yourself from this discussion, as your continuous accusations relying only as they are on your opinions have no place here. The time frame in which we are dealing is quite narrow, from AE till page protection. That you are still unable to provide any diff’s to support your opinion or proposed sanctions is quite informative. Your comment “no one seems to be willing to give Domer the time of day” I find to be quite offensive, and grossly uncivil, and so far removed from reality as to raise questions as to your competence to hold the position you now enjoy. Therefore, in an effort to remove your opportunity to continue to insult me, I will decline to respond to your taunts and hope that someone with more experience can address your unacceptable behaviour. That you have chosen to personalise this to such a degree as to become personally offensive should in my opinion raise concerns among the wider community, who you continually suggest to speak for. -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I have now accepted mentorship for the UDR page from User:PalestineRemembered. Thunderer ( talk) 13:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'd be very grateful if somebody could make the decision for me here please. Thunderer ( talk) 16:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
PR speaks - it seems strange that people who've had content disputes with me would suggest that Thunderer would somehow suffer harm. Whether I'd be a good mentor for another editor is of course not for me to say - but people who examine my edits (you'll find 5 of them on this page) will know I'm either pretty careful or very, very, very careful indeed. PR talk 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
. As someone being mentored, you do not seem well suited to the role of a mentor yourself. NoCal100 ( talk) 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)PalestineRemembered has gained for himself over the years a "cloud over his head", whereby he is clearly not regarded well by substantial volumes of the community. Indeed, that may be for good reason -- PR's past conduct has not been exemplary, to say the least, and the fact he has recently ran through 4 mentors (one of whom has actually filed for a community ban) is not exactly heartening.
It seems that we're in fairly broad agreement on what to do with BigDunc and The Thunderer, that they are at least TRYING to work together in a collegial manner. It's what to do with Domer that's the bone in everyone's throat at the moment. Here's some thoughts on what to do here.
A) Remove the Topic Bans on Thunderer/BigDunc (replaced with some combo of 0RR/mentorship), leave 1 month topic ban on Domer. I know polling is evil, but other then the participants, does anyone think that we WOULDN'T be back here in one month once it ends?
B)Remove the Topic Bans on Thunderer/BigDunc (replaced with some combo of 0RR/mentorship),extend topic ban on Domer. The ban can be extended for a set length of time or made indefinite, and we can see if Thunderer and Dunc can work together with out worrying that the balance would be upset in a matter of weeks.
C)Remove all sanctions applied in this thread Which is what Domer seems to be asking for here, but I don't see much, if any, support outside of his arguments.
D)Apply to have Ulster Defence Regiment and Criticisms of the Ulster Defence Regiment placed under flagged/sighted revisions. Sounds like this could be a good first test case for using flagged/sighted revisions. Not sure the developers would be sanguine about bringing a new wikipedia feature on EN-WP for use only on a single article, but it's an idea to consider with any of the other options.
E)Status Quo I'm not sure this would be a way to solve the situation, it seems like more all it would be doing is postpoining the situation. It seems more like punishing Thunderer/Dunc for others actions.
I welcome other options, and thoughts to this. But my general thoughts on this is that at least with Domer, the general consensus of the community is that he's exhausted community patience with regards to these articles. Wikipedia's editors (both administrators and content editors alike) as a whole has had to deal with Troubles articles being made a Battleground for over a year now, (at least I've been trying for at least 18 months to get these sides to fully work within Wikipedia's rules and policies).
If Domer thinks he is harshly done by in whatever suggestion is finally followed, he is free to bring it to the attention of the Arbitration Committee, of course. I wouldn't recommend it, as we all remember the drain on all editors from the first Troubles ArbCom case. Also, ArbCom would be just as free to ADD to the sanctions as to soften the sanctions as they see fit... but it wouldn't seem fair not to remind him he does have that option. SirFozzie ( talk) 22:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | I support retaining the topic ban on Domer48. Their aggressive and combative approach to this AE shows that they are not well suited to editing collaboratively in a disputed area of this type. The longer the better as far as I am concerned because its obvious that the problems will resume as soon as any ban ends. I also support releasing Dunc and The Thunderer from their topic bans. I suggest that 0RR restrictions and absolute requirements to seek agreement on disputed edits on talk pages be the minimum condition for their continued participation. | ” |
That's what I endorse. Traditional unionist ( talk) 18:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
"Their long list of diffs clearly designed to blame The Thunderer for the trouble is a case in point." Spartaz, that is clearly a conclusion you have drawn, I however have made no such conclusion. That none of you have provided anything to support your opinions is very telling , and still suggesting sanctions? -- Domer48 'fenian' 18:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I perfectly amenable to both mediation and mentoring and see it as one possibly solution to the current impasse. 0RR on the UDR article would also help along with a third party referee agreeable to all, would also be another avenue worth exploring. -- Domer48 'fenian' 22:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Adding this lot to the discussion in this format is unhelpful as the page is already too long. I have collapsed it before the page self destructs. Feel free to put this on a su¨-page or somewhere in user space and link to it. Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Domer48 'fenian' 18:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The edits have now been provided for you all, why not use diff's now to support your opinions? -- Domer48 'fenian' 18:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I have infringed none what so ever. -- Domer48 'fenian' 18:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I have placed the edits on the Ulster Defence Regiment here to be reviewed by Editors.
| ||
---|---|---|
AE case closed on 5 October 2008 at 18.02 by Rlevse. All Troubles Articles placed under 1RR. The template below was posted on the Ulster Defence Regiment on 5 October 2008 at 20.00 [23] by SirFozzie. >
Editors will note: If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first. Article was Page Protected on 14 October 2008, 20:10 by SirFozzie [24]
User:Domer48Inserting text: [25], [26] [27] [28] [29], [30], [31], [32] [33], [34], [35], [36] Removing text: [37] Reverting text: [38], [39]
User:BigDuncInserting text: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] Removing text: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] Reverting text: [56], [57]
User: The ThundererInserting text: “Belfast and other urban settings” [58], “Battalions and locations” [59], [60] “Politicians (order by rank, where known)” [61] “Criticism” [64], note, [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72] “Infiltration by paramilitaries” [73] [74], [75], [76], [77] “The Subversion in the UDR report” [78], [79], [80], [81], [82] “Subsequent Catholic recruitment” [83], [84] “Options for Change and amalgamation” [85] “Rural ambushes and attacks” [86], [87], [88] “Mortar attacks” [89] “Uniform, armament & equipment” [90], [91], [92], [93], [94] “Duties” [97] “Attempts to prevent paramilitary infiltration” [100] “Politicians (order by rank, where known)” [101], [102] “Formation” [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111] “Annual training camps” [112], [113] “Awards, honours and decorations” [114] “Comparison with the Irish Citzens Militia” [115], [116], [117] “Bibliography” [118] “The Men” [119] “Training” [120], [121], [122]
“The role of ex-B-Specials in the UDR and the effect on Catholic recruitment” [133], [134], “Options for Change and amalgamation” [135], Max, [136], [137], max, [138], [139] “Battalions and locations” [140], [141], [142] “Attempts to prevent paramilitary infiltration” [143], [144], [145], [146] “Targeting by the IRA” [147], [148] “Rural ambushes and attacks” [149], [150] “Formation” note “Intimidation” [153] “Infiltration by paramilitaries” [154] “Subsequent Catholic recruitment” [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161] “Uniform, armament & equipment” [162] “Structure” note
Reverting text:
“Options for Change and amalgamation” [166] “Criticism” [167], [168], [169] “History” [170] “Rural ambushes and attacks” [171] “Subsequent Catholic recruitment” [172] “Battalions and locations” [173] “Belfast and other urban settings” [174] “Loyalist Intimidation” [177] “Uniform, armament & equipment” [178] “The Greenfinches” [179] “Attempts to prevent paramilitary infiltration” [180] “Aftercare” [181] “The whole article” [182], note edit summary “Male personnel” [183]
[184], [185], [186], [187], 2nd revert
I will put together some diff’s on talk page contributions, on how they relate to main space edits. I have refrained from putting forward any analysis, until this has been reviewed. -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
This looks to have stalled out yet again, so I'm going to do my best to unstick things and move it forward. I'm enthused that Thunderer has accepted Ryan as a mentor as well as PR. That's a good step towards resolving this. I do add to the voices urging Dunc and Thunderer to seek formal mediation on UDR and elsewhere. I am therefore modifying my placing Dunc and Thunderer under the topic ban, to the following:
The topic ban placed on both User:BigDunc and User:The Thunderer is now in abeyance. Instead, they are placed on a strict 0 Revert Rule, specifically on Ulster Defence Regiment, but this remedy can also be applied to any other article in which they find themselves in conflict, by any administrator.
Domer's topic ban is still in effect.. I don't see any suggestion that lifting it early (if at all) would be a good thing at this time. SirFozzie ( talk) 10:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"Domer's topic ban is still in effect" yes when you have explained a) Why it was imposed, and b) if you are entitled to impose it? You have been asked often enough now. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No you provided no valid reason, and the question was directed at the editor who imposed this. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
When Rockpocket above suggests that I “can be caustic in some circumstances,” I find I can accept this from someone whose advice I have followed and whose opinion I have come to respect. Because while offering this opinion, they also accept that my motivation is to improve Troubles related articles. Since the last AE, I have consistently used the talk page, and followed the advice offered by Rock. To now find myself in a situation were I’m been topic banned on the one hand, and denied the justification for it on the other; it can only lead to frustration, which I believe I have managed to keep in check. So without sounding “caustic” I find this block to be both unjustified and unjustifiable. -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Dunc, I've never had a problem with mediation. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to let this situation lay fallow so long, but things needed to be duly taken care of. So, what I'm proposing is these things, in concert:
Not part of the proposal per se, but the article specific 1RR restrictions as applied by previous AE thread are continued, but should be revisited later-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Like the previous suggestions, it lacks one crucial ingredient which is justification. What is it I’m supposed to have done? I have gone to the trouble of providing all of the edits of three editors which would facilitate discussion. Now I have breeched none of the AE imposed sanctions, nor have I breeched any of the terms of the Troubles ArbCom, and no one has illustrated otherwise. So until we return to ArbCom, as the only body capable of applying such sanctions, I suggest we deal with what is acceptable, that being mediation, mentorship, or comprehensive RfC. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not have an extensive history of disruption. In the last AE all personal sanctions on me were lifted as they were seen as unfair. Being subject to the Troubles ArbCom ruling, like everyone else, likewise the recent AE, any and all sanctions will be applyed equally. Since I have abided by all recomendations outlined on the AE, I have a real problem with the logic "proactive consensus driven administration to protect encyclopedia from disruption." There has been no disruption on my part, and to ignore all rules, and the application of common sense to suggest sanctions I suggest is being very disruptive. -- Domer48 'fenian' 16:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course Fozz will not have a problem; they are the one who started this tread. Fozz are you going to justify this with diff’s or ignore all the Wiki norms. Now Fozz who gave you the authority to issue Topic bans over hundreds of articles. Tznkai raised this and Giano also on your talk page? I asked also on this discussion and you ignored it. Now are you going to justify this Topic ban or is ArbCom the only route? -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
So basically you’ve have not got the authority, and are looking to Admin’s like you who could not support such a block to back you up? I don’t think I’m being unfairly treated, that would be too mild a notion. Administrators are granted a range of discretionary ways to deal with disruption, but they also have to show good cause. Now consensus is not good cause, and none of the Admin’s has been able, like you to show any. All normal methods have not been tried previously, as you suggest, and because of a lack of enforcement by Admin’s like you are a rather spectacular failure. Now show “good cause,” why a Topic Ban is justified you have been asked often enough by more than just me. -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Now Fozz, I think you are walking on thin ice! -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed Proposals:
-- Domer48 'fenian' 09:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that The Thunderer in making edits like this are far from helpful. What he has done is as soon as Domer gets blocked he immediately begins by taking advantage of the block to remove reliably sourced information. And it appears to be a whitewash of the article plus removing Farrell's claims is a breach of NPOV. When sources disagree you cant cherrypick the one you dislike and remove it. BigDunc Talk 14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Mentor response - perhaps BigDunc needs reminding that he has another channel opened for settling this matter, and it's a lot better than trying to do so at this "Arbitration Enforcement" page. This other avenue was opened specifically for this purpose - indeed for his benefit. Thunderer opened a mentorship page for precisely this kind of discussions. Dunc knows of this arrangement because he's already participated there. It is difficult to understand how Mentors can possibly do their useful work at this location here instead. Naturally, Dunc is free to bypass the arrangements that were set up to avoid disruption to articles if he feels they're not working. But he's given them no chance - worse, his appeal to "the mentors" here (without informing me) seems calculated to discredit a process even while he apparently seeks to undermine it.
I regret to say that, when, previous to me offering (and Thunderer accepting) mentorship, Dunc challenged my analysis of a previous editing (not content) dispute here, he failed to provide me anything to indicate I'd made a mistake. My own re-investigation, at his behest, only confirmed what I thought I'd seen first, a rejection by him of an established consensus. (To anyone reading this, please see here and tell me if I'm wrong). At the current time it would appear that Dunc needs to change his contribution style if wishes to contribute usefully to a collegiate working relationship with other editors. There is no benefit to fomenting more of this drama, least of all on this page. PR talk 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)