User talk:Vintagekits

Indef block

I have extended you block for an indefinate period due to threats of physical violence, gross personal and sectarian attacks and indicating you will engage in further meatpuppetry. I will ask for a review of this myself, therefore you do not need to. I will leave this page for you to plead your case, should you have a change of opinion, but be aware that if you continue to use this page as a platform for soapboxing or personal attacks, I will protect it. Rockpocket 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to continued abuse from Vintagekits, I've protected this page. This will have the effect of limiting Vintagekits's ability to make a case here. Rklawton 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

At Vintagekits request, I have unprotected the talk page (the only page he can edit while blocked). Please do not come here to gloat or attempt to wind up VK any further. SirFozzie 18:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Fozzie.--Vintagekits 18:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Foz, I've been away chillin out. I'm gonna stay off for a month and then request that I am aloud back but not to edit on republican articles for a further six months. How does that sound?--Vintagekits 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support that request.

But only if the list of "republican articles" is published in your (SirFozzie's) talk space first, publicised in appropriate article discussion areas (ie most of the embargoed articles) and then a period of 7 days allowed for the community to add to the "six month embargoed" list.

I would also suggest, as a preventative measure, an escalating series of edit blocks beginning at 1 hour and only rising in 1 hour increments to try and correct breaches of policy (obviously including edit warring and personal attacks). VK's editing skills have improved with leaps and bounds and it would be a notable educational achievement to welcome him back as a conscientious editor.

The penultimate, and obviously controversial, proposal I would make is a ban on "Admin shopping" by VK. You, SirFozzie have a certain amount of respect in the community which is not shared by infallible admins like Tyrenious and Alison

The final, and obvious, proposal I would make is a 3 month ban on my editing any article I have not edited previously and before his return that he has edited after his return so as not to run the risk of antagonising him...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 19:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

VK, I think that sounds reasonable, and I'd support that. Foz is away ill at the moment, but I'll see that he gets the message - "Infallible" Alison ☺ 19:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Alison, please would you clarify whether it is an unconditional return that you support or one with the conditions I have described?...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the conditions I see as reasonable, some I do not. Overall, a conditional return would be okay. - Alison ☺ 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you would clarify exactly which of my proposed conditions are unacceptable. Sorry to press you, Alison, but I think it might be helpful to Vintagekits if he knew exactly what behaviour was expected...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 20:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's neither mine nor your decision to make. All I can do is state that I'm okay with a conditional unblock. Appropriate behavior for all of us is already well established by WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc, etc. As I'm not directly involved in VK's issues, I'll defer to SirFozzie on what the best approach is. - Alison ☺ 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the blocking admin is usually involved in such decisions? I've notified him. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Alison, we have policies and I would not support policies being made ad hoc, by anyone.--Domer48 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd support resetting the block to something like 2 weeks (in all). VK did ban me from this page so I hope he wont object to me commenting here but he is unquestionably a useful editor and if people have issues with his behaviour we have disputre resolution processes and an arbcom; I am not comfortable with this user being indefinitely blocked without coming up in front of the arbcom first, and that is definitely following our policies and guidelines, SqueakBox 22:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not unusual for a user to be indef blocked without coming in front of Arbcom. Vk is not banned, his block should only stand as long as his contributions are likely to be disruptive to the smooth and proper functioning of the project, as they clearly were when I issued the block. I indicated I would let others decide on whether Vk's block should remain. I stand by that and will not object to his unblocking should any admin choose to do so for whatever reason. For what its worth, my personal opinion is that Vk's problems on Wikipedia stem from his editing of articles and talk pages related to Irish Republicanism. Should he steer clear of these either by choice or by an enforced ban, I don't see any good reason to enforce a block. Should he continue to edit these article, though, then I think he will continue to be a disruptive influence and see little point unblocking at this time. I should also note, though, that any repeat of the behaviour the led to the current block would, from me at least, lead to it being immediately re-instated. Rockpocket 02:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Would that be a slective block then, i.e. not editing Republican articles? Is that an existing policy option, as I have already indicated I'm opposed to any ad hoc policys? --Domer48 08:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a block. It would be a ban on certain articles. There is plenty of precedent for this, usually through ArbCom, which is a last resort, and if things can be settled before that stage, then it is best to do so. The ideal is an agreement between the editor whose conduct is at question and other relevant editors/admins to resolve any problem. Tyrenius 10:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with Vk coming back, under the terms he has proposed himself above. Note, though, that Vk's "problem areas" are not necessarily limited to the "Irish Republican" sphere of influence but could be extended to include "anti-British". See here for a past example. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I note yer concerns, hence the reason that I have offered to not edit republican articles (and to be more specific so there there can be no debate about it that includes all articles with WP:IR which I think covers all republican and republican linked articles) and then after I have earned the trust of Fozzie again I will request the "full membership" is reinstated.--Vintagekits 10:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with lift. I thought that some editors were talking about a fresh start. I don't believe that making threats against Vk at this stage is making a fresh start. However I hope something is done about the continuous trolling on the relevant pages, this is the real problem, and these are the editors that sneak in and out and rarely ever get blocked. GH 10:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Noone is making threats, against Vk or anyone else for that matter. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I expect GH is referring to my indication that I will re-block Vk again if the same circumstances arise. I think it is Vk's interests to be straight with him about that and I don't think it is particularly controversial considering the circumstances that led to the block. If that is considered a threat, then so be it (though the fact blocks are not punitive, rather discounts that in my eyes). Rockpocket 19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is no place on Wikipedia for users who continually intimidate others, and even threaten violence!, to continually push their PoV. Vintagekits is one such user. --Counter-revolutionary 10:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've had a lovely break and wont be rising to that!--Vintagekits 10:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Vintagekits offer to refrain from editing these articles is a fair offer and he should be allowed to show good faith by having his block lifted.--padraig 10:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

...and I don't. Just as you have your opinion I have mine. --Counter-revolutionary 10:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes you give your opinion and I give mine, so why the need for your comment above.--padraig 11:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block remains in place until such time as an admin is prepared to lift it. Alison and Rockpocket have already stated they consider it can be lifted on a conditional basis. Tyrenius 11:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Take it the arbcom and let them sort it out as a neutral party. Badgerpatrol 11:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think VK offer is reasonable and clear. That it is self imposed, I would have no problem. --Domer48 13:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested conditions

How about this (I'd ideally want admins to comment, but any constructive criticism would be fair).

The unblock would be lifted under the following conditions

1) VK observe a MININUM 6 month topic-ban on all republican and republican-linked articles. Once six months are up, we can look at VK's editing , and response to provocations and the like, and look at lifting this topic-ban. 2) VK agree (as he did before) to a 1 RR on all topics. 3) Depending on how my illness goes, I may or may not be able to fully mentor VK.. hopefully in a few weeks when I can get back to editing fully, I can resume my duties. Right now, my WP editing is limited to 1/2 times a day. If I can't I will try to get another, neutral admin to help mentor VK.

Fair enough? SirFozzie 13:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

aye.--Vintagekits 13:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse that. Furthermore, I'll agree to mentor if VK and others are okay with that. I don't edit such articles myself as a rule - Alison ☺ 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to that, though in the interests of clarifying exactly what that self-imposed topic ban would entail, would Vk exclude himself from contributing to associated talkpages and XfDs also? Rockpocket 19:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Slight problem with that; Vk's PoV-pushing has not always been restricted to Republican articles in the past. Maybe if we made it boxing-only? --John 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems a tad too restrictive to me. VK could get indef' for fixing a typo in, say cheese, because it's not boxing-related. Opt-out, not opt-in - Alison ☺ 20:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just say "dont get involved in political articles", ie any politically charged articles, that way places in Ireland say are great but eg Flags is not a good idea. A more liberal approach would be to jsut say dont get involved in disputes over political articles as adding to the Republicanism articles in a non-controversial way could help expand the encyclopedia without anybody minding. Its the conflicts that need avoiding, SqueakBox 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The conflicts appear to arise whenever he takes part in anything to do with Ireland or Britain. One previous attempt at mentoring having failed I'd say the onus is now on Vk to be flexible, rather than the community. --John 20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldnt agree to that. The restriction of staying off articles in within WP:IR is explicit definition and sets a defined list or category of articles and leaves no debate as to what I should or shouldnt be editing. Also I would say that blocking from associated talkpages would be counterproductive. The reason I myself have offered this solution is to show that I can be trusted - I know I am on my last chance and I will need to show a level of maturity and by editing the talk pages this will benefit me in a few ways 1. it will show that I am able to approach subjects in a logical and retional manner, 2. it will show that I am able to not rise when baited (which I am sure a number of editors will attempt to do) and most importantly 3. it will get my used to solely solving issues on talk pages instead of getting involved edit wars - to that end I would also agree Fozzies suggestion of 1RR. Finally, I would disagree that Fozzies mentoring didnt work. I think must editors would agree that my contributions to wiki had improved significantly - fair eough I let him down with one drunken late night spate of editing but I wouldnt say that that was the failing of Fozzies mentorship.--Vintagekits 10:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you do that, simply asking if that was what you were proposing. Personally, I think if you did stay off controversial talk pages and AfDs you would have a better chance at keeping your cool and thus be less likely to find youself losing you temper again and getting reblocked. Nevertheless, if you can engage with other editors and remain civil then all credit to you, and that would be a strong indicator that the partial ban can be lifted sometime in the future without worry. As far as I'm concerned its your choice as to how restrictive you wish the conditions be. You appear to be very aware that it really would be a last chance, so if you feel that you can handle talkpage editing on controversial issues (and the inevitable conflict that will arise) then great, go for it. Rockpocket 20:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I made 2 suggestions so perhaps the no political articles would be best, SqueakBox 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its fair to block an editor from commenting on an articles talk page, even if he has agreed to not personaly edit the article itself, that would stop him from pointing out errors on those article that other can correct, or engaging in discussions on content within that article.--padraig 13:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Any restriction should only be to articles, ie never to talk pages, SqueakBox 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie your conditions set above contain a massive loophole. VintageKits has come into conflict on articles that aren't just WP:IR or political. Its also articles to do with Britain and Britishness that conflict with Irish republican ideals. So i'd suggest a ban on him editing WP:IR and ANY article (politically and non-politically) that deals with Ireland and Britishness and Britains role in foreign territories. Irish republicanism and anti-Britishness go hand in hand. Mabuska 13:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, on 26th July user Rockpocket wrote the following "Vitagekits. I have blocked you for 31 hours for persistant low level incivility", so why the extreme conditions? GH 20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Because immediately after the 31 hour block for low level incivility, further things were said. See the top of the page. See the page history. But I believe you're aware of this anyway, as you commented on the block on AN/I at the time. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What "extreme conditions" are you referring to? Rockpocket 00:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Rockpocket, my fault. That question is addressed to SirFozzie. GH 01:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please may I comment on all this compassion as someone who has been, on numerous occasions, at the receiving end of Vintagekits vitriol. The first thing I would say is that the template says he is indefinitely blocked. Does this now mean that indefinite is only temporary? I have no great interest in Irish affairs but when I strayed into that arena once, many months ago, because I objected to the sanitisation of a terrorist organisation responsible for countless innocent deaths, all hell broke loose upon me led mainly by Vintagekits who then proceeded to goad me constantly. Silly me, I reacted accordingly and one of the pro-Irish lobby then placed a short ban on me for being uncivil!! So all very cosy, I thought at the time. Vintagekits and his pal One Night in Hackney, not being content with that, also proceeded to articles I had commenced or made major contributions to and changed them or at least tagged them causing an unnecessary degree of worry and harrassment to someone who carries out his research and writes Wiki articles in valuable time and good faith. At the same time, Vintagekits was engaged in arguments with User:Kittybrewster and set upon, with several fellow travellers, using all manner of Wiki Rules they could locate, a campaign of tagging articles he had commenced or made major contributions to as Articles for Deletion. I do not propose to enter upon the merits of this or that article. The question is: was Vintagekits the slightest bit interested in any of these articles? Answer: no he wasn't. What I am saying here is that Vintagekits has amply demonstrated that he will oppose and harrass anyone on Wikipedia he does not like or who demonstrates opposition to edits he has made. Discussion is utterly pointless because his responses are similar to listening to a broken record or otherwise intellectually insulting and designed to wind you up to fever pitch. I for one would oppose his return. You have to ask yourselves whether leopards do change their spots. David Lauder 13:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

See User_talk:David_Lauder#WP:NPA_warning. Tyrenius 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the block is indefinite until or unless Vk can demonstrate the capacity for good behaviour. I too have had bad experiences with this editor and he has already had several last chances. Although he has made some useful contributions, at this stage his balance is way over to the negative side. I would repeat; it is for Vk to be flexible and convince us he would not abuse the privilege of being allowed to edit here. Failing that, the block can stand. --John 15:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have said above, I cannot "convince us he would not abuse the privilege" if I am unable prohibited from doing so. I feel a little like an eager footballer on the bench urging his manager to put him on so that he can prove what he is capable of.--Vintagekits 15:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really had any run-ins with VK as far as I recall, and I don't frequently edit the kinds of article that seem to provoke his ire. I have come across his edits in the past however, but hopefully I can speak as some kind of neutral. There is room for all sorts of opinions on-Wiki, of all political persuasions. But *everybody* MUST undertake to edit impartially and without any agenda. I'm afraid it's blatantly obvious that VK (et al.) see Wikipedia as a POV battleground on which to further their own POV. This has also in the past boiled over into extreme incivility, racism, and downright nastiness, which is just completely unacceptable. Everybody deserves a second chance (and on Wikipedia, sometimes a third, a fourth, a fifth...etc.) and obviously VK sometimes acts in good faith and can make good contributions. But I strongly agree with John above- the onus here is on him to alter his behaviour, not on the other few hundred thousand or so of us to change our rules. It's also obvious that there is a lot of good faith being shown here and few want an indefinite ban to remain in effect. To reiterate, I would favour taking this to the arbcom and letting them sort it out. I suspect the outcome would be similar (some kind of parole with limitations on editing) but it would have the benefit of unassailable legitimacy, and the arbcom may also decide to look into some of the wider issues involved which could led to a wider solution. Badgerpatrol 16:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying badger, however, to pick me out like this is a little unjust and unfair - many of the editors who many come on here and wanted the indef block to continue have been blocked for personal attacks on me (one who has been blocked again just today), so its doesnt surprise me that they have that opinion. As for arbcom, I am not sire hat would solve anything and would just take up more time and energy of all editors also I dont think that the outcome of an arbcom would suggest any restriction more stringent than the proposed in have suggested myself. As for proving that I can be trusted - actions speak louder than words and I will prove it be showing my editing skills and resolving issue in an amicable way without recourse to edit warring.--Vintagekits 16:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's more or less what I meant by "wider issues"- from my (admittedly superficial) knowledge of your history on Wikipedia, it seems there are at least two sets of editors, each with a political agenda, who seem to delight in off-topic provocation of each other, POV pushing, and brinkmanship. Personally, I would like the arbcom to look into the behaviour of *all* the editors involved, not just you. Banning you indefinitely (whether you deserve it or not) is like sticking a plaster on a gaping wound- it's not an end to the problem. To be honest, in the absence of any groundswell towards taking this to the arbcom, I'm personally in favour of another chance for you, although I'm not an admin and 9 blocks in 6 months is a pretty poor rapsheet. Equally, I can't help but think that as soon as you go near any political article (Irish, British, terrorism, whatever) then problems are going to inevitably arise, and even if you're paroled from editing these I suspect you'll find a way to push your agenda somewhere else...sorry if that's harsh, but it is based on my reading of your edit history. Anyway, as you say, you can't demonstrate that you are prepared to change if you don't get given the chance. Badgerpatrol 16:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with you to be honest, and yes, there needs to be some sort of mediation to govern all editors and an strict nonosense approach taken by admin to edit warring and POV pushing. I would be willing to sign up to that. I would also point out that the disruption and edit warring hasnt gone away just because I have been blocked, infact in the week or so that I have been blocked its arguably been much worse.--Vintagekits 16:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That's conciliatory, Vinnie.

Now can I clarify that you are unequivocally "willing to sign up to", as your very first edit if and when your block is lifted, "some sort of mediation to govern all editors and an strict nonosense approach taken by admin to edit warring and POV pushing."?

You are giving your promise to make a leap of faith in SirFozzie now and sign up to SirFozzie's initiative - or do you still have havers and quibbles and a bit of Wikilawyering to do yet?...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

If you look at the top of the page, you will see that I was the first editor to support your request to be allowed back to WP.[1]

I personally know how aggravating and annoying it is to have users you loathe and detest post what may be regarded as provocations in your user space. You may think that, as per WP:CIVIL, you have an unconditional right to take the attitude that inappropriate text will typically be read but then deleted without comment (except for the edit summary, perhaps) but I am a litle disturbed by some of your recent edit summaries here on this page [2] [3]

Do you have a specific list of existing editors you are unwilling to interact with?

If so, I think it would be better if those editors are also banned from interacting with you should you return....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many editors who have commented here that I wouldnt care to have a drink with, many have had their say here and voiced their opinion without me removing their comments. However, I drawn the line at having Astrotrain interject on this talkpage. I am happy to work with him with regards articles but I not going to allow to go attempt gloat or lord over me on my talk page.--Vintagekits 17:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's positive, Vinnie. A very short list of one, then.

Would you be so kind as to comment on whether you are prepared to sign up (as requested by SirFozzie) in the first section of this edit: [4]

As I have already outlined I would be in favour of some sort of mediation - as long as its treats all equally, which is fair enough I think.--Vintagekits 18:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to badger you, Vinnie, but that is really not very specific. Could you perhaps take some time and address yourself to the specific and precise question in the section above and give us all a Yes or No. If you need clarification, I believe you still have SirFozzie's e-mail address...

Now I think I've said enough on this page for the week...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Amended concrete proposals

After examining all comments above (up to, and including 17:47hrs UTC, 6 August 2007), I would still support User:Vintagekits request to have his indefinite ban lifted at 18:47hrs UTC, 3 September 2007

• But only if

(1) the list of articles that Vinnie is banned from editing until 18:47hrs UTC, 3 March 2008 (the embargo list) is precisely defined and published in this and User:SirFozzie's and User:Rockpocket's talk space first and then
(2) that draft list is publicised in appropriate article discussion areas (ie most of the embargoed articles) and
(3) a period of 7 days is then allowed for the community to add to the "six month embargoed" list
(4) as a preventative measure, an escalating series of edit blocks beginning at 1 hour and only rising in small 1 hour increments to try and correct breaches of policy (obviously including edit warring and personal attacks) is implemented so other users can see that admins are vigilant and active and are then not tempted to edit war or revert themselves
(5) the talk pages of embargoed articles are specifically not embargoed (since Vinnie says he wishes to prove his reformed behaviour) - but only if
(6) three specific admin parole officers in different time zones are assigned to monitor all incivility and disruptive behaviour on articles that Vinnie edits (by any editor)
(7) a ban on "Admin shopping" by VK is implemented
(8) Vinnie publish his list of editors that he refuses to interact with here before his return
(9) consideration is given to banning editors on Vinnie's aforesaid list from editing specific articles that Vinnie edits after his return so as not to run the risk of antagonising Vinnie...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 13:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I appriciate your time and effort G but I dont think that you are in a position to lay down what criteria or hoops must be jumped through. I have outlined the terms that I should be back on and I think they are more than fair.--Vintagekits 17:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

With regards to 3, who decides if articles added by the "community" to the embargoed list are to be part of the finalised embargoed list? Also why is there such a long wait (ie a month) until VK's indef ban is lifted? Surely as a sign of good faith we could lift his ban as soon as he agrees to any proposal?Derry Boi 14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is worth taking some time to make sure this will work. The community has no need to prove its good faith, only Vk needs to do that. --John 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that only VK can make this work, but he can't prove anything onless he is able to edit on some articles. So dragging this out, or making him wait ontil x time has passed is not very helpful.--padraig 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

{Clarification for Derry Boi and Padraig}: I have not proposed "dragging this out".

Vinnies original proposal was "I'm gonna stay off for a month and then request that I am aloud back but not to edit on republican articles for a further six months.". It shows the good will and faith of the community that we are already discussing a "request" now, that is technically not due to be made for more than another three weeks. Now the post I just quoted from Vinnie was made by User:Vintagekits at 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC) - hence my proposal at (1) above that "the list of articles that Vinnie is banned from editing until 18:47hrs UTC, 3 March 2008 (the embargo list) is precisely defined".

In regards to concrete proposal (2) above, "a period of 7 days is then allowed for the community to add to the "six month embargoed" list", there is nothing to stop either SirFozzie or Rockpocket starting this list in a specific area of their talk space right now so the list can be firmed up in the next 3 weeks and then the initial finalised list can be published here. My suggestion is that the draft list is not worked on here so that Vinnie does not have an opportunity to debate the entries since I really don't think it is for him to decide where he has been incivil and disruptive and biassed at this stage - once he is unblocked he will have ample opportunity to fight his corner again....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 15:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How about the following to take the best of both worlds:

A) Banned from editing articles relating to Irish Republicanism, broadly based. (IE, VK will have to show that it isn't tangentially related to the subject, not that others will have to prove that it is). This will last six months at a minimum. We can review it then.

B) If any admin determines that VK is disrupting any talk page in the slightest, he can add a talk-page ban on that article unilaterally. (VK, this means you're going to have to be on your best behavior no matter what, and there's a chance that an admin might decide to add a ban you consider to be unfair. You're going to have to go along with it, however).

C) Vintagekits will endeavor to remain civil at all times. If he has problems with any other editor, be they an administrator or an editor, he will bring it up privately with myself, or if I'm not around, User:Alison. This will prevent what has been termed as admin shopping.

D)VK places himself under 1RR, and will be blocked if he violates this.

E)It is strongly recommended that VK and the editors who oppose him minimize their contact if at all possible.

SirFozzie 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds fair, can I add something to point E, that any editor that opposed VK or was involved in a dispute with him, in the case that they try to deliberately harass him on the articles or talks page he can edit, that the admin take action against that editor.--padraig 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not too bad, but I'm just wondering will D) be set in stone? Ok the 1RR is fair enough, but at the end of the day I'm sure VK will over the course of six months make a genuine mistake and revert something twice. I just hope that if this does happen, he isn't instantly blocked without question. I'm sure VK will try his best to uphold the 1RR proposal, but at the same time I'm sure a genuine mistake will be made over a long period of time like six months. Derry Boi 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to be an indefblock for violating it, but maybe a short term block (3-24 hours is what I would recommend) SirFozzie 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting close. I suggest amending (a) to a ban on all political articles, to avoid a repetition of the user's unhelpful contributions to Talk:Falklands War in late May, for example. Although this kind of article has nothing directly in common with Irish Republicanism, more edits like this would be unacceptable. My other question is about the enforcement; it is a lot to ask of Alison to do it. I would need to see her assent to the job, which will be a long-term one, before I accepted the unblocking. I would like it explicitly stated too that this offer constitutes the absolute last chance for Vk; I would hate to see us all here again in a month or two. --John 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I need to see Vinnie's response to [5]

before I can properly comment on SirFozzie or Padraig's comments on my concrete amended proposals.

For now I will confine myself to saying that there is a danger in making things too complicated for folks to understand and an equal danger in having too many "nooseholes".

Before I see Vinnie's response I agree (C) is compatible with (6) since I assume SirFozzie and Alison are in different time zones, however I do have misgivings with them being 2 of the assigned 3 parole officers since they have both said they are under extreme time pressure and SirFozzie has also been very recently ill and his parole supervision ended in flames last time. If it does not seem too rude I see him contiuing more of a mentoring rather than a parole officer role. I fear that the three "parole officers" will need to be eternally vigilant in weeks 2 and 3 after Vinnie's eventual return. [E] is completely compatible with (9). [D] is implicit in (4). [B] is what I already intended in (1) - except that it is more precise in that only admins can add to the definitive "six month embargo list" - any editors wishing an article added to the list can simply contact an admin of their choice.

That leaves [A].

I wish to make it quite clear, SirFozzie, as other editors have already done above (even though many complaints and concerns have been deleted by various parties at various times and for various reasons and currently can not be viewed on this user's talk page) that the community's concerns are not limited to "Irish Republicanism, broadly based". I would take a great deal of persuading that a loose definition like [A] should ever replace (1), (2) and (3) above. God bless!...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 15:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree to Fozzies point A - E, however, I would clarify that A is limited to WP:IR articles, should you look at the list of articles that are in the WP:IR then this will show they are most of the articles I edit anyway. Also to ban me from articles which are "Irish" or "British" or "political" is both unworkable and counterproductive. If I can show I can handle editing editing non WP:IR articles then that will go some way to showing I can edit all articles.

P.S. I just hope that other editors will also now have to buck their ideas up.--Vintagekits 17:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a strong argument to bring this case to arbcom as it strikes me that there are 2 sides to this dispute and it isnt right to just single out VK, SqueakBox 18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

break

I like SirFozzie's proposal, though would agree that its should be made clear that the ban includes other controversial political issues also, like Gibralter and the Falklands for example. I don't see the need to create a list, because in doing so we will inevitably forget something. Besides, Vk is not a child and he is not stupid. He, I'm sure, understands that this is not something he can wikilawyer around, that it is the spirit of the ban that is important not the specifics. Moreover, the ban is to help him. It is in his interests to avoid anything that could lead to conflict until he is confident, and we are confident, that he can deal with conflict in a manner that is acceptable to the community. If he edits a controversial article that is obliquely tangential to Irish republicanism, but does so in a responsible, civil and uncontroversial manner then its no big deal. He has contributed in a positive way. If he edits the same article in an incivil, irresponsible or controversial manner, then he will have shot himself in the foot. It will be Vk's decision on whether to edit articles around the margins of the ban, and if he is smart he will err on the side of caution.

Similarly, it is the spirit of 1RR that is important. If Vk was to accidently violate 1RR, one would fully expect an admin to remind him of it first, rather than just block him. The onus would then be on Vk to act appropriately in response (acknowledgement and relf reverting).

I think there is a danger of over complicating this. Wikipedia cannot exist with editors having a complex sub-set of things editors can and cannot do. All Vk really has to do is avoid making controversial edits until he can convince the project he can play nicely with others. It isn't rocket science, and thousands of other editors do it every day without too much effort. Either he can manage that (Great - welcome back, Vk) or he can't (Goodbye, Vk - Wikipedia isn't for you). In addition to Fozzie and Alison am happy to assist Vk in this if he would like, though he may prefer not to use me, and that is fine. But he doesn't need to be watched 24/7. He can't do anything that can't be retrosepctively assessed and reverted relatively trivially, and if he does melt down, what does it matter if it takes a day or so for an admin to intervene? I can't see him getting another chance after this one, so 24hrs is going to make little difference to an indef block.

I say as long as Vk understands and accepts Fozzie's conditions, and realises that it is the spirit, not the specifics, that are important - then he may as well be unblocked tomorrow. Rockpocket 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW nobody should ever be punished for reverting obvious vandalism, even arbcom restrictions dont go that far, flexibility has to be the name of the game, if VK finds someone making ridiculous, obviously vandalsitic edits (so and so is a prat etc) this needs to be reverted by the first person on the scene, SqueakBox 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, anyone that wanted action taken against Vk for vandalism reverts because they broke the terms of his parole would be equally guilty of wikilawyering. The onus is on Vk to prove that he can edit in an acceptable fashion, fencing him in with too many restrictions is not the way to judge that. There is two ways of looking at it: we give Vk enough leeway to prove to us that has has the judgement to edit constructively, or else we give Vk enough rope to hang himself. Either outcome solves the problem. Rockpocket 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Irrefutable logic.

I just don't want any condemnation of the hangman or rope afterwards if it, sadly, goes that way...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 18:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I refer to reverts like this as being entirely uncontroversial, SqueakBox 18:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Rockpocket, if it's all right with you then it's all right with me. I'm going away for a few days, so I hope this works out. --John 18:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• With regards the articles which I wont edit - obviously I wont edit WR:IR articles as state, and if I edit any other articles but then Fozzie or Alison says dont edit that article then I wont edit that either. Now can the block be lifted please Fozz.--Vintagekits 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I haven't taken part in this discussion, but I think there is a clear consensus now. It's time to get on with it and lift the block. Scolaire 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, best of look Vintagekits, hope it works out well for you. --Domer48 12:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've come into this discussion late for a number of reasons, and can add nothing that has not already been said (and probably better) by someone else. Let me say simply that I am glad to see your block lifted, VK, and I wish you the best. Occasionally, justice prevails. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 17:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not back yet - but thank you for your messeges of support. Fozzy has to remove the block yet, however, he is ill at the moment and doesnt edit much at the moment.--Vintagekits 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the unconditional release of VK --(Sarah777 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

• Still no sign of Fozzie, I hope he is he ok, has anyone heard from him?--Vintagekits 19:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jamie Moore

Hi there, long time no speak!. I have made a slight alteration to the Jamie Moore boxer page and added a couple of references. Hope they sit well with you. Regards GRB1972

By adding one reference you have taken out another. I'd fix it if I could.--Vintagekits 14:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why no arbcom?

I understand why User:SirFozzie, Vintagekits former Parole Officer, has been reluctant to refer Vkits to an arbitration committee because it now seems that User:Sarah777 is to be blocked for one year. However, as an administrator his loyalty should be to the community at large - not his former client. To show neutrality he should refer the issue of if and how Vkits should be unblocked to the same arbitration committee that rules here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Great_Irish_Famine/Proposed_decision