User talk:Vintagekits/terms

Record of debate which lead to Vintagekits/terms.

<archive>

Please add your comment to the appropriate section. Please note: All comments from VK have been copy-pasted from his talk page.

1: Editing only boxing pages, concerned with boxers who have no connection to the Irish Troubles whatsoever.

VK has indicated he would like to extend this condition to include places of interest such as Railway stations. I have no problem with this, so long as they are places with no connection to the Troubles, and that possibility is vetted before he is allowed to create the page, per section 2. User talk:JzG has suggested (below) this be included to incorporate subjects concerned with the Olympics.Giano (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone clarify who or what is a boxer connected to the Troubles? BigDunc (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be defined as any boxer who has been involved in the Troubles, or who is known to be related to anyone involved in the troubles. Basically, VK is not allowed to mention the Troubles on any page on which he works. Giano (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we just say "no editing of articles on Irish boxers" instead of "Troubles" boxers? While this might restrict VK a little more tightly, without doing some serious research into the proposed article there is no way for an editor/admin who's had no prior involvement in "Troubles" issues to determine if the boxer is a "Troubles" one or not. Risker (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• What boxers have been directly involved in "the Troubles"? - None that I know of. I should be allowed edit all articles that arnt relating to "the Troubles".--Vintagekits (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, and nobody else knows of any notable boxers who are related to "the Troubles" then it would be reasonable to open this up to boxers generally. As to the "all articles" part, I am still hesitant to give full rein until I can see significant evidence of self-control and comprehension of limits. At the bottom of this page, Guy suggests that this be opened up a bit to include all sports-related articles. I could live with that, but am not prepared to support general editing yet. Risker (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

JUst to clarify, I am interested in coming back. ALso I dont see what benefit there is to stopping me from editing "non Troubles" articles when the problem I have had on wiki are main pertaining to Troubles articles. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

are you interested in editing under restricted rules - if your peers feel you do need restricting to certain pages? At the moment you are allowed to edit none, the proposal is you can edit a few of you favourites and certain non-political pages to be determined. Basically, anything will be an improvement for you, than the present situation. Prove yourself responsible for three months, and you will be able to edit normally, with a just a topic ban on the Troubles etc. Giano (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, yes I would go along with that and also go along with Guy and Riskers suggest that it is limited to sporting articles.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you think it is cool because I really think it is the best you can hope for. Giano (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with all of the 11 or so conditions laid down and happy to abid by them. My only comment would be that in section 1 & 2 and word "boxing" is substituted for "sporting".--Vintagekits (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this being extended to all sporting pages, so long as they are subject to the troubles restrictions. Giano (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this, including Vk's request that it be extended to all sporting articles, and Giano's caveat that it also be subject to the Troubles restrictions. (No offense, Vk, but Celtic/Rangers springs to mind). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is to be sporting, I don't really see a reason why not, then I think we should have wording putting Celtic and Rangers should be off-limits explicitly and any dispute about Irish/British national flags should be strongly avoided. Apart from those, I don't see much problem with expanding it to sporting articles. Rockpocket 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite apart from The Old Firm, if Vk is writing about the Olympics and/or sport in general, he will run into pages where those damn flags appear, and where nationality is an issue. (This year's Olympics, especially, are looking contentious already, if not from a Troubles perspective, then from a different nationalism dispute). This will need to be addressed in some fair manner, I think. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, rather than restrict him from editing those, we simply advise him to not get involved in any flag/nationality disputes. There is plenty of editing to be done without getting bogged down in the flag issue. If he avoids the disputes he will be fine, if gets involved and loses his temper, he risks being banned per the terms. Ultimately, we can do our best to protect him from others and himself, but there has to be some level of self regulation. That is where he will succeed or fail. Rockpocket 23:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

2: VK is only permitted to create new boxing pages after posting their prospective title first here (soemwhere) for consent, vetting and approval.

• Suggest that the "clearinghouse" page be WP:WikiProject Boxing. While I am aware that many people prefer to avoid wikiprojects, it *is* a single centralised page, and is frequented by individuals who are familiar with the primary subject matter. Risker (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, now that the terms have changed slightly to encompass sports-related articles rather than just boxing articles, this suggestion doesn't work anymore, and WP:WikiProject Sports does not appear to be terribly active, so I don't see that as the right place either. Perhaps a clearly labelled area on VK's userpage (Articles proposed for editing/creation), right near the top immediately below the terms and conditions for editing would be the best place. Any other suggestions? Risker (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say all sporting pages, so long as there in no (even remote) connection to the Troubles. If a conction is detected then VK must withdraw from that page. Giano (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One possible solution is to take Vk at his word that any boxer/sports article he proposes to write/edit is totally unrelated to the Troubles. Pre-judging is difficult - who'd know? Certainly I know of no boxer involved in the Troubles but I'd be very surprised if there aren't any. Vk would know I suspect; so "his word is his bond" and if it turns out that some boxer/sportsperson has got a "troubles" dimension then let the consequences follow. Sarah777 (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I want this one firmly tied up. I don't want VK registering surprise when a connection suddenly arises, because it well may, and then others may say he knew all the time - it will lead to problems. At least if a subject can have a quick check and vet first, VK can legitimatly claim innocence. Giano (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In which case, Risker's suggestion seems the most workable? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(But change 'boxing' to 'sporting'). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

3: He would be allowed to comment only on Wikipedia and policy pages that have no concern with the politics of any nation.He is allowed to vote in RFAs etc, so long as they are not connected with the Troubles, in any way.

This is like denying the prisoner a right to vote; fundamentally wrong. He should be allowed vote without commenting - usually discouraged but in this case the lesser of two 'evils'. Sarah777 (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, he can have a voice on all issues except those pertaining to the Troubles. Giano (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this cover AfDs - and minor members of the British aristocracy? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of practicality, it should cover XFDs etc. There is little point in keeping out of article space if he can then engage in the same conflicts in AFD debates, where he has previously been involved in heated conflicts. Sarah's suggestion of a vote-without-comment option is pointless, because a closing admin should discount such contributions to an XfD debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He should be allowed to comment on all subjects that do not pertain to the Troubles ect. We take his work, so he has rights. There is no reason at all why his opinion on other matters is not as good as anyone others. Giano (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

True, with the exception of minor members of the British aristocracy. Vk's interest in Baronets was retaliatory, his contributions there in the past were provocative (if somewhat amusing to the neutral, admittedly). For our purposes, I think minor members of the British aristocracy should be be considered "connected with the Troubles". If we are protecting him from other editors' pot-stirring, its only fair we protect them from his. Rockpocket 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

4: For the three months probation he would be forbidden any contact with the Kittybrewster crowd, even by email, if they torment him - then an independent Admin (User: Lar springs to mind) could be appointed to address the situation.

This is the potential stumbling block. Defining who is on this list of non-contactables (BrownHairedGirl could possibly advise here). However, as VK will only be on his defined pages, and they tend not to be involved in these subjects the two paths should not cross. If VK does feel he is "running across them" he needs to have an admin to whom he can refer. I would not want to see a situation where he is being driven from pages which he is lawfully editing. Giano (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

None of Vk's boogeymen have ever edited boxing articles significantly. Vk has never had significant problems editing boxing articles, so the argument that he need to be watched closely in those articles doesn't hold water. Therefore should we see anyone with a history with Vk begin to take an interest in boxing, then the issue will be with them, not Vk. The problem would come (as I indicated below) in tangential articles like Irish/British geographical terms that are disputed. Should he be permitted to edit those articles, even after three months, then their paths will cross and attract the same sort of invective as the Troubles articles themselves. Rockpocket 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So anyone who has diagreements with VK in the past is now banned from editing any area he takes an interest in, incase he comes into contact with them? Astrotrain (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, in the unlikely event that any of the above decide to start editing sporting pages rather than Baronets, conservative politicians, Irish connected pages and the like, it is to be hoped they behave in a mature responsible fashion. Giano (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the opposite from my read of this entire proposal. It is up to him to stay away from areas where he is likely to come in contact with his "opponent". And if they do cross paths incidentally and a conflict occurs, then he is too seek assistance from someone else rather than reply directly. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Flo is correct, the onus has to be on VK to make these rules work, it would be veru obvious if someone was deliberatly trying to antagonze him by turning up on pages out of the blue. Giano (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The rule suggests that if anyone who VK dislikes edits a boxing or sporting page, he will accuse them of stalking him or trying to provoke him and use that as an excuse to be abusive. Also, I fail to see how you can stop him sending abusive emails, or being abusive on other Websites. Astrotrain (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The rule is aimed at keepking VK away from one particular groupe with whom he has had big problems on the past. That groupe do not edit the pages towards which VK is being pushed anyway. Of course one cannot stop him sending offensive emails, but if he does then he is out. I don't anticipate too many problems there anyway one leading member of that crowd is now 100% banned, (whereas VK was only blocked) so the omens are good. Giano (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

5: If VK uses anywhere on the site any obscene or seriously offensive language (in any language or spelling therof) then he will be banned permanently.

Extended to: "5: VK will not use anywhere on the site any obscene, seriously offensive or threatening language (in any language or spelling therof). This rule also applies to emails and any communication with other editors." Giano (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete "seriously". Change "of" to "or". Kittybrewster ☎ 10:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I think "seriously" should be left, or changed to "intendedly offensive" - I don't want some over-active admin jumping in, on a misunderstanding - we can all say "No, you great idiot" to a friend and mean no offence at all, that could be slip of the tongue. What I don't want him doing is using language that is seriously offensive, blaspehemous or downright crude. We have seen "chunt" in the past, I don't want to see it again. I'm sure I don't need to spell the other words out. These rules are to help him, not trap him. Giano (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Giano. Offense can be caused pretty easily around here, even when unintended (Bishonen took offense at something I said on your page, for example, and I had no intention to be offensive.) Thus we do have to give a little bit of leeway. But just a little. Might be a good idea to include something along the lines of "racial or ethnically charged" though, since he does have a habit of using nationality as a weapon. Rockpocket 17:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be hard to define - if we say "blasphemous (covers religion), Obscenity (most swear words) Racist (nationalities) or any clear intent to insult or threaten, in any language or spelling thereof." Giano (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Rockpocket 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really hoping Vk will avoid such language, but in the past I remember one occasion where someone was called a "chunt" - and we were then told that it was normal practice in Ireland to call someone that without meaning offence. Giano's wording of 19:45 looks fine. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for him not being allowed to use offensive words. Any offensive words directed towards a user in an insulting manner, would be a personal attack, while other uses (fucking nice edit) would be acceptable. If another editor takes offense to VK using profanity in a descriptive form, then it is the problem of the user offended, not VK's problem. I personally have had issues with my use of the word "fucking" and "wtf" which I found to be a little stupid.Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

6: There should be no right of appeal or alteration of these rules half way through the three months

This has to be sorted now, and he has to agree. If he finds himself too restricted in a few weeks time - tough! We need to let him edit peacefully and constructively, and forget him, we don't want to be here having animated debates every 5 minutes. Giano (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Change "half way through" to "part way through" or "during the duration of" or something similar as we don't want any rules lawyering of the form "well it's now 2/3 of the way" or whatever... :) ++Lar: t/c 10:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks lar, I have now ammended "6: There will be no right of appeal or alteration of these rules at any time after the commencement of the the 3 month period." Giano (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

7: For the three months trial, VK will not make any reference or comment on Wikipedia concerning the Irish Troubles, not even in a boxing-bio.

Ammended to be less ambiguous to: "For the three months trial, VK will not make any reference or comment anywhere on Wikipedia, (in article of Wikipedia space) concerning the Irish Troubles." Giano (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This would cover the voting issue comments problem. Sarah777 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

8:After three months he is allowed to edit fully and normally, although a topic ban on Irish political pages could still prevail.

Probably should clarify this, does the ban still prevail after this ends or not? ++Lar: t/c 10:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My view is he should be subject to these rules for three months. After that period he is allowed to edit normally, but he could still be subject to a topic ban, which if he breaks he is then banned. These rules are pretty harsh, if he sticks to them for three months, then he will have done well and invested a lot more of himself in the project, so he has an extra incentive to behave well afterwards. If a subsequent topic ban of Troubles related pages is invoked, then it should be for a further six or nine months. Personally, I think if he sticks to these conditions for 3 months, all will be well, and if he does not then he is gone and the problem is still solved. Giano (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As much for Vk's own benefit as anything else, I would propose adding baronets and British aristocracy, Irish/British geo-politics (and those of other separatists: Basque, Gibraltar etc) and The Old Firm to the list of (semi)-permanent topic bans that remain after 3 months. While not directly related to the Troubles, they are controversial (have a look at the current discussion over at The British Isles, for example). They are also the subjects over which Vk has got into trouble in the past, mainly because he and others have used them as a proxy to carry-on their geo-political wrangling. Should he edit in these areas he will run into those he has shown he cannot edit with, and he will end up clashing with them (as has past record shows). If this is about keeping Vk out of trouble while using his expertise, then he should recognize that these subjects are like touch paper for him and remove the temptation of getting involved. Rockpocket 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree with you. How long would you suggest a topic ban last on these subjects for? Giano (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I'd like to think that some time away would focus Vk's attitude and he could contribute to those articles again without problems, but I'm not sure. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to keep The Troubles off-limits indefinitely and after 3 months permit Vk to edit those tangential articles I mention should he wish to (hoping that he would have the self awareness to avoid them voluntarily). If he transgresses on those even once, then they immediately revert to being off-limits again for a lengthy period. But if he shows he can edit in those controversial areas for a significant period (or show the self restraint to avoid them voluntarily), then we could even unlock the Troubles articles under the same conditions. Ultimately it will come down to Vk's self restraint. If he wants to stick to boxing then he will probably be able to do so without any problems. If he wants to get involved in articles that will challenge his temper, then he has that choice, but with the knowledge that he gets once chance only. If he can't handle it, then we take that option away again. If he can handle it, then in time there is no reason he can't be permitted to edit any article. Rockpocket 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make a bulleted list of subjects which are likely to be contentious, certainlu Stronge Baronets should be on the list, but they would also come under Troubles related pages. If we can al work together on this, it just might succeed. Giano (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I may not be the best person to do it, for this to work Vk has to embrace the opportunity, not seethe under the restriction. I feel my involvement in drafting his restrictions would precipitate the latter rather than the former. Perhaps those more sympathetic to Vk, but are familiar with the contentious subjects (I'm thinking perhaps Domer, BigDunc, Sarah) could come up with some suggestions to begin with; remembering the goal is not to punish Vk, but to restrict him from the articles that are likely to get him into trouble and thus protect him from himself (and others). Rockpocket 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That is very good of you to understand, I have left messages on the pages you suggest. Giano (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and it certainly is difficult. The list of articles that could end up as "troubles related" is vast. One example: about six months ago a tiny article/stub on some remote village in West Cork blew up into a major war over the adjective used to describe the rebels in the War of Independence. All the usual suspects on the Unionist side piled and I certainly bit back hard, so I shudder to think how Vk would react. Perhaps we need to work out detailed rules around this about 2 weeks before the "ban" is lifted further - we could do a lot of head-scratching here for nothing, after all! Sarah777 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah on this Troubles related fun and games can spill in to the most unusual articles one I can think of was the FIFA 08 article when the Ulster Banner was being used to represent a team playing in the FAI so IMO we need to be very careful and keep a mindfull eye on likely provoction from editors who VK has had run ins with. It would be virtually impossible to give a list apart from the glaringly obvious ones. BigDunc (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How about: "After the three month trial expires, should VK find a page he is editng in any way is connected to the Troubles, he withdraws completely from that page, and lists it here." Giano (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How about: "After the three month trial expires, should VK find a page he is editing in any way is connected to the Troubles, or be informed as such, he withdraws completely from that page, and lists it here." When he is the heat of a battle, he is likely to dispute its relevance. Obviously those doing the informing should be an uninvolved user in good standing and not one with whom he has had a run in in the past. Rockpocket 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I will go along with that, but I don't want people who are interested in genealogy suddenly informing him a boxer he has been researching for weeks has a third cousin who was in the IRA, when he had no intention of mentioning it anyway. Can we have a "no way reasonably connected to the Troubles" if VK is forbidden from mentioning the Troubles/IRA etc etc that should not be a problem. I just want to cover every possibility Giano (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. "Connected" in as much as it is notable enough to be in the article. Rockpocket 23:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

9: VK will not use any other sock, accounts or edit in any other way other than as Vintagekits.

I think this clause has to be non-negotiable. Giano (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewording: Vintagekits will edit only using his Vintagekits account, and will not edit under any other acknowledged sock account, other account, or when not logged in (i.e. no IP editing) .

• Simply spelling out the extent of what is not negotiable. Risker (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Should something about not editing with open proxies be added as well. I want clear up any loopholes that may cause potential "misunderstandings" down the road. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nw added: "or taking adbantage of open proxies" Giano (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is unblocking is to happen, Vk should also declare all the sockpuppets which he has previously used, on an amnesty basis, as proposed at the time of his indef-blocking in February. In other words, publicly declare them all now, and then there will be no issue of what sanctions to impose for any past socks found in future ... but if they are not declared now, and are found in future, then the usual sanctions apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not necessary, I doubt he can even remember half of them. If he undertakes not to use them in future that is sufficient. We are looking to reform and the future, not backwards to old problems. Giano (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it's rather important, as a mutual good faith exercise. Vk is asking the community assume good faith in him, despite all the evidence, and this is a chance for him to show a bit of good faith in return by disclosing without penalty all his previous socks. It's a chance for him to wipe the slate clean, and for the community to see how effective it has been so far in tracking his socks, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is unblocking is to happen, it should also cover the creation of new accounts. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Kittybrewster, either read what is written and already agreed, or go away! Your history, makes your very presence here hard to assume good faith. Giano (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, the growl was inappropriate. Kittybrewster has identified a gap I hadn't spotted, in that the current proposal bans the use of new accounts but not their creation. The current wording would allow Vk to create new socks, but not use them, and just have them handy if he gets blocked again (without them showing up as brand new accounts). It would only take a brief addition to the terms to cover that point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano I am disappointed that you did not embrace my proposal immediately as there is no reason whatever for it not to be included and strong reason, base on historical evidence, to include it. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is unconscionable for the community to respond to Vintagekits' frustration at our enforcement of WP:SOCK these past few months by unblocking his main account now (vs. later). Giano II and BrownHairedGirl are asking us to assume good faith with Vintagekits, but how can we? His block log speaks for itself. The only way we can assume good faith is to see an actual demonstration of his willingness to abide by community standards, and that takes time. Let him sit out for four months, and if we can verify that he has done that without creating any more new sockpuppets, then great! Welcome him back at that time—but not now. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point of this page. We are discussing conditions under which it may be possible for VK to be allowed to edit. You will have an opportunity to voice opinions such as yours when these conditions are finalised, and a discussion is taking place as to whether to implement them. Giano (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have expressed elsewhere that there is a good argument to wait until there was a significant sock-free period and then consider unblocking. But I'm contributing here on the basis that there was a significant number of people who indicated they are willing to support the unblocking now, if certain conditions are met pertaining to restrictions. If that is going to happen, I'm keen to participate to minimize disruption and maximize the chance it works. When we have thrashed out those conditions and have Vk agree to them, they can be presented to the community as the conditions under which Vk's unblocking is proposed by Giano. Then the community can have its say, yea or nay. The consensus should be clearer, because the probation conditions are defined so there will be be less conditional ifs an buts, At that time I hope you will present your alternative proposal Andrwsc, and the community may wish to choose that instead. Rockpocket 22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Giano II) You are missing the point of my message. I am indeed discussion a "condition under which it may be possible for [Vintagekits] to be allowed to edit". For reasons explained, I believe one of those conditions ought to be a verifiable demonstration that he understands WP:SOCK, and that implies a sock-free time of reasonable duration. This point (#9) is the only one on your list of conditions that mentions sockpuppetry, so that's why I placed it here. If this should be condition #12, or perhaps an alternate proposal altogether (as Rockpocket suggests), then fine. Obviously it's more than a little confusing to figure out how the community can modify and progress your proposal, since I don't seem to have followed your preconceived rules of how I should have done this. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrwsc, one of doing making your proposal would be that when Giano brings his plan back to ANI, you propose that terms be accepted now, but not implemented until Vk has refrained from sockpuppetry for X months. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a pretty good idea, and should give something for the third main vocal group to stand behind (along with the unblock with conditions now and the keep banned camps.)

Definitely needs to be amended to cover new account creation. "VK will not create or use any sock accounts or edit in any way other than as Vintagekits." Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

10: VK has to publicly acknowledge these terms, and have them posted on his talk and User pages

I think this clause should be non-negotiable. Giano (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He has to publicly acknowledge them, certainly, but I don't like the Scarlet Letter or Badge of Shame clause whereby they're posted on his pages. I'd rather see the terms posted in the form of a link, something like this:

Vintagekits' editing conditions are here.

Bishonen | talk 13:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC).

Maybe put them on the user page as an announcement for a week, and then make it an obvious link as you show above. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OK good points, the idea is to put him on the right road not to humiliate him. Giano (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So long as Vk accepts them - that is what counts; we don't want to pin a target on him (as was done to Giano) and VK has pride; he regards himself as being as much sinned against as sinning and some of us would agree with that view. Sarah777 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

11: If he breaks this agreement, he is indef banned.

If he does break this agreement, as far as I'm concerned he is out, with no return ticket. Giano (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewording: Should Vintagekits violate this agreement in any way whatsoever, he will be considered to be community banned, and subject to the penalties and restrictions related to such a ban.

• "Indefinitely banned" isn't a recognised status and conflates "banned" with "indefinitely blocked." Indefinite block status can be overturned by any administrator, whereas it seems the current practice for overturning of community bans requires discussion (of varying lengths) at one or the other of WP:AN or WP:ANI. Risker (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok no problem, so long as it is quite clear, if he breaks the agreement in any way, he goes! Giano (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

.......including his talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"in any way whatsoever" obviously includes his talk page. Giano (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

....and his talk and user page will be permanently blanked. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We are here to help VK edit and live, not plan his funeral and post-mortem. If he does fail to follow these conditions and be banned, the disposal of the remains can be decided then. Thank you for your input Kittybrewster. Giano (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If VK is very committed to returning anyway over the long-term, an indef. ban on the person is unenforcible. From my experience of the case of User:Molobo, I think a year ban would be better in practice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally, exhaust the patience of the community bans (which is what we are talking about in this situation) are usually indefinite blocks. This is because the user has been blocked repeatedly and the community has lost patience trying to sort out the issues related to them. At that point in time, the community see no hope that the user can fit in. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the evidence of this case is that Deacon's claim that "an indef. ban on the person is unenforcible" is actually wrong. Vk kept on creating socks, but that strategy was only viable until the sock edits began to be reverted on sight, and that was the point at which he sought to return officially. We are now at a point where some editors want to allow Vk to return, which may be a good or bad idea depending on POV, but the only reason that this question of a formal return has arisen is that the blocking-and-reverting of socks was making his sockpuppetry futile. An indef ban could work now and could work in the future; the question is whether the community wants to impose one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be dependent upon how determined and how calculating VK could be longer term. If he did it the right way, it's simply unenforcible. Everyone in the know suspects that a number of e-c european editors are more recent incarnations of permabanned users. In mobolo's case ... he was kept in the system with a year ban rather than permaban, served his period and is thus still molobo. A year long ban has more chance of keeping VK in the system, gives very long relief and, in point of fact, a year long block is also probably more like to last a year! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there are way of getting around things, but so far VK has shown no signs of knowing how to use them (he might figure it out in future, but a year allows plenty of time to do that). So a year long ban has neither a greater nor a lesser chance of working than an indefinite one; it all depends on whether the will is there to enforce it, and how determined an editor is to evade it. In this case, the response to Vk's persistent sockpuppetry was starting to work, and he was kept within the system, just unable to to make edits that stuck. In this case some editors started a clamour to lift his block as soon as the block was being effectively enforced, but if that's a problem it's not due to a flaw in the blocking system. Whether someone is short-term blocked or indef-banned, we will still face the same question of whether persistent sockpuppetry should be rewarded with an unblock, as is being proposed here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Throughout all of his blocks, Vk has never managed more than a few weeks without creating socks. Patience is clearly not his forte. Whether the consequences is a year block or a permaban, every indication suggests it will be too long for him and he will go back to creating alternative accounts (until they too are deal with). That is not acceptable. Therefore if a year block is the best consequence, according to your reasoning, I would propose it revert to a permaban the moment his first sock account is discovered. That would permit him to have light at the end of the tunnel, while stopping him from gaming the system (again). Rockpocket 18:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way of ensuring this works, is that he knows it really is his last chance, break this agreement and there is no way back. Giano (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with Giano again. This is the last chance saloon and that needs to be made absolutely crystal clear to VK. A proposal for how to word such a clause could be something like: "if the terms of this agreement are broken by VK in any way VK will be indefinitely blocked and will then be considered to be community banned." That is a bit wordy but it makes the penalties unambiguous - the only issue might be whether a blocking sysop should be "uninvolved" or should it be any sysop?--Cailil ^talk 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably for the best. I would hope that, given the controversy it would probably generate, a concerned admin would have the good sense to take it to ANI before making the call. Its clear from this weeks drama that admin action that doesn't have support is not a good idea. However, Vk also has to appreciate that the benefit of doubt will not favor him this time. The whole point if this is to ensure he stays out of any and all trouble. Claims of ignorance, or "it wasn't as bad as [the other participant] and he wasn't blocked, therefore its bias" will not hold. At even a sniff of trouble, Vk needs to excuse himself and back away, because he is is to be held to tighter restrictions than the rest of community now, not just the same standards. Rockpocket 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Giano that VK has to be truly deterred from transgressing again, through in this case fear that a hopeless situation would result if he were to. However, if he did transgress and found himself in such a situation, he would have no reason to remain as VK and/or else (which might be as bad as changing his id) constantly edit as an ip (what you gonna say to him then ... "you know, you're probably VK and VK has been permabanned .... so stop or else I'll ask you to stop again"). While I agree with Rockpocket's point that there would be a high chance that VK's urges would overcome him, it is also the case that he is an intelligent human being who can learn and judge differing situations according to the circumstances. That's the bad side to a permanban. The positive side is that it might be a more effective deterrant, would appease his "opponents" better as it appears to be a worse punishment and a better way of keeping him gone, and might actually be enforcible if VK fails to control himself thereafter. On balance, a year block would be better. Appearances are deceptive, and everyone deserves some chance to change. Even murderers get out of prison eventually. But looks like the political forces here will mean that the terms will be "permanent". I just hope everyone understands we'd only be going for a permaban for its rhetorical rather than practical value. If you think about it, a permaban for a human rather than an account is kinda daft. Like parliament, we can't bind our successors, and we're here for the long-haul. If in 20 years VK came back and said "I was a young man then with young man tendencies ... I did not appreciate then as I've come to the value of rules" or something such like he'd be back in no prob, even if Rockpocket, John, BHG and the rest were still around. Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the analogy to prison is flawed—a more appropriate comparison would be to other large volunteer organizations. People get fired from those for misbehaviour, and do not get rehired. They aren't punished (as in a prison term); they are just not welcome by their peers to volunteer anymore. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

After three months he is allowed to edit fully, however, an Irish Troubles topic ban could still be in force for a further few months/years/ever.

A year would be normal for a topic ban. I suspect VK has realised he is unlikely ever to be able to edit a topic on which he harbours such very strong feelings, without stepping over the line, so I would hope that he does not aspire to edit such articles at the moment anyway. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JzG. revisit the topic ban in a year, however I agree also that he's unlikely to have changes his very strong feelings about 'troubles' related issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a year would be better than 3 months and the RoI and the UK and not merely the troubles (I am thinking specifically of the Falkland/Malvinas issue, I would not be happy to see VK editing that set of articles within 3 months. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A year for anything related to nationalism or politics. --John (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

General Comments, & further stipulations

Those terms are fine by me, they should appease the sceptical as they look pretty weasel-proof (I like the idea of including clauses against even trying to wikilawyer them). If he will sign up for that, I think it will be a good result for the project. Only one thing: the subject area might eb slightly wider, perhaps including all sporting articles not related to the Troubles, broadly interpreted. I think he wants to work on Olympic subjects other than just boxing, but I could be wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (cross posted from User talk: Giano)

Most sports articles wouldn't be an issue, but with two caveats: The Ulster Banner (and representative flags in general) in relations to sports has been a big problem in the past. And the Old Firm articles (for example, Vk recruited meat puppets to keep his article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville, because it had turned into another Irish/British polarized argument, and he has used socks to support his arguments on the Celtic talk page, proposing that it should not be described as a "British club".)

Its easy to ring fence the Old Firm issue by establishing he can edit sports except articles in Category:Celtic F.C. and Category:Rangers F.C., but I don't know how one would deal with the other issue. It wouldn't be particularly useful (or productive) to limit him from editing Irish or Northern Irish sports articles since that is likely his area of expertise. So, if all sports were permitted, how to draw the line around what is "related to the Troubles, broadly interpreted" and how do we deal with the flag issues? Rockpocket 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is, of course, that Vk sees everything in terms of "the Troubles". He's quite capable (and has demonstrated the capability) of getting blocked over a boxing article dispute. I'm afraid, while I absolutely take my hat off to the tolerance and forgiveness of many respected editors here, I still don't see this working. --John (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It will have a good chance of working because the troubles ans all pertaining to them are being removed from the equation. Giano (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• far too complex. Bielle has the perfect obsevation and solution on the ANI thread. Vintagekits latest "indefinite" block is specifically for sockpuppet abuse. Also noted is that he has never really stopped (ab)using sockpuppets since then. Therefore, an appropriate remedy would be to reinstate Vintagekits only after he has demonstrated his willingness to change. Have him sit out a few months with a zero tolerance policy for sockpuppetry, and then reinstate him with no strings attached (other than standard policy and guideline compliance, of course). I have made it quite clear that I oppose lifting his current community ban, but I think this solution is one that even I can live with. Vintagekits, take the summer off. Seriously. Stay away from here and enjoy the good weather. Come back in the autumn and promise to play by the rules when you do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Different situations call for different solutions. It is worth trying something different than we've done in the past to see if it will work. There will be tight control on the situation with strict limitations. I see no harm in letting this go ahead if Vk agrees to the conditions for editing.

To ease minds, maybe this proposal needs to spell out more clearly what the process is for the re-block. Where should an editor running into problems notify an admin of a problem? AN/I? FloNight♥♥♥ 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a concern both from personal experience and from watching the treatment of Giano that any random Admin (or self-selected Admin) can come along and take action that gets Vk (or anyone) banned forever. Any alleged breach should be adjudicated by three named Admins; I suggest Ali; BHG and Rockpocket - if they agree there has been a breach then the consequences are grave and terminal. I feel we need all have some confidence in the procedure. Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And again I concur what Sarah says here too. The named Admins are all good admins and are very aware of the other side so to speak. BigDunc (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I understand your concerns, but I do not think that we as a group can put this restriction on the usual role of other admins. I agree that one admin should not do it alone, but do not agree that it should be limited to just these three admins either. I think that their needs to be a discussion first and then one admin will decide to block per our usual policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That policy, IMO, is a total disaster. Sorry, but I feel very strongly about Admins abusing power and pushing agendas. Sarah777 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we (the Community) needs to change admin policy and the blocking policy. But as it stands now, any uninvolved admins can block any user for violating a policy, violating a sanction, or being disruptive. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable, isn't it? No wonder Wiki is in trouble. How do we change this catastrophic policy? Sarah777 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sarah777, Sarah. --John (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No you won't. I am not looking for power to impose my pov. What we need is to change the powers of Admins. Sarah777 (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Sarah777?? Has possibilities. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

VK Unblocked

It appears that VK has been unblocked subject to accepting these rules[1]. I would have liked a little longer for more debate and input from others, but it seems what is done is done. Could someone (other than me) decide what they think were agreed ammendments and add update the finalized conditions [2]. Then as suggested by Flo NIght and Bishonen, post them on VKs page for a week, and then add the link to this page. Thanks for all of your input here. Giano (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest we put the brakes on for 24hrs. I hopeful we will see a few developments in that time:

• Vk himself will see the merit in doing precisely nothing.
• The unblocking admin will appreciate that his job is to listen to the community.
• We can then move towards a final version that those people who have said they support a conditional unblocking can then endorse.

Then we can assess the will of the community after Vk and everyone else understands what will happen if and when Vk is unblocked. Rockpocket 07:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He has since been reblocked. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where to put this, but I conditionally support an unblock, with Giano's caveats of course. Since VK basically agreed to it above (with a minor change), there shouldn't be a problem. Enigma ^message 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Time to wrap up?

This page has been remarkably constructive, I think, and we appear to have reached a general consensus on what the proposed conditions should be. The natives are getting restless, so I think it would be prudent to write up what we have discuss, rubber stamp it and get Vk to agree. Then we can see if they are acceptable to the the wider community.

I'm pretty busy today, so if someone wishes to incorporate our discussions here onto the main page, please go ahead. If not, I'll try and do so this evening. Rockpocket 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead Rockpocket, I think we are all done and dusted here. VK did once say something about wanting to edit railway stations, but he has said no more about it. Giano (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it myself, but I agree that it is time to wrap up this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

BHG, you would be the best one to do it. The second best would be Sir Fozzie. I of course would be the worst one to do it, so saving written backing from Mr Wales, will not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, it's very kind of you say that, and considering our recent disagreements I take your suggestion kindly. However, Giano seems happy for Rockpocket to do it, and that'd be fine by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, a few months back I would probably have been the worst person to do it, but times change and I guess if Vk and I can agree on probation conditions, then there should be less suggestions that they are too soft. I'll try and formalize them over the next few hours. (btw, I have no objection to permitting railways stations be included, seems harmless enough to me.) Rockpocket 02:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Railway stations should indeed be harmless, and I think the point is that if VK edits harmlessly there should be no problems, and that means NPOV, and while we cannot trust VK to be neutral re flags and politics we can with boxers and hopefully railway stations, its always good to give good editors another chance and we as a project should be doing more of this. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on including railway stations, for two reasons. First there's clearly plenty for him to do wrt boxers, and no need for mission-creep; from all he has said about what's to be done, he won't be running out of material in three months. Secondly, and more importantly, the stated purpose of this proposed return has repeatedly been to give Vk a chance to prove himself and to allow further contributions in his area of great expertise, where he has a proven track record; it's not a device to allow him to everything he wants, and this last-minute addition to the shopping list comes when the discusion has almost wound down, and if it is added now, it will be without the opportunity for comment that has been available on other points. That risks creating another procedural row, which we could all do without. Please leave the railways out; if he stays the course, he can start work on them in August. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy about it changing like that either. I am cautiously confident though about this holding water; so long as these conditions are held to by Vintagekits and enforced by the community, I think he could be unblocked. Note that I think the topic ban should continue for a year. I trust Rockpocket to fairly assess the consensus at the three places this has been discussed. I might also recommend holding off unblocking until the questions at User talk:Vintagekits are fully resolved. Over to you, Rock. --John (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. That is a fair point. John, my understanding is that the problematic Troubles/nationalism/Baronets topic ban would continue for a year and review then, but everying else is permitted after 3 months. If Vk can go his 3 months of boxing without incident, then he can turn to railways and lots of other subjects then. Lets keep this as simple as possible. I'll draft my interpretation of what we agreed on now and head to bed, if I miss something feel free to amend or discuss further. Then, tomorrow, if there is no serious objection, we can propose this to the community formally.

I'm honoured you would feel comfortable with me to make this decision, but I'm not sure I am! I think I may be a perception that I am too involved in this to make a truly objective interpretation (see the discussion with Bielle on my talk page, for example) and that would not be conducive to wide acceptance. I honestly don't know who the best person (or persons) are to assess the community feeling. I was kind of hoping an entirely fresh pair of 'crat eyes could be convinced. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Rockpocket 06:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Someone has to do it, so it may as well be you. I think most peope are "invoved" to a lesser of greater degree. I have been surprised that it has been so easy to sort the conditions out, without any real disagreement or sticking points. When you have the final version we can have a last cursory glance, but I don't anticipate there being any problem, as I think all those who have commented are singing basically from the same hymn sheet. Giano (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've done it. I'll check back in about 9 hours if it needs to be tweaked further and then draft a proposal that, I hope fairly, describes the three main options. Then I'll see how the discussion goes. If the consensus is relatively clear perhaps I will be bold myself. But if its a difficult call, perhaps I could consult with some more experienced editors. I hope Vk takes the opportunity to resolve all those questions fully and honestly. I don't see anyone holding anything in the past against him now. Its all about the future. Rockpocket 07:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added All preexisting alternative accounts must be disclosed prior to unblocking to ensure that sleeper accounts are relinquished. Rockpocket 08:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this in theory and understand the reason. But it is possible that he might not know if all the accounts have been noticed. Or he might honestly not remember one (he did use many!!). I'm not sure how we can clear this up. I hate to think that an unused account that he forgot and CUers did not find would be the end of his editing if everything else is going well. That is the reason that I did not support this before. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - a bit late here - can we add or otherwise make clear that these sanctions apply equally throughout all WP-space; ie. including such things as edit summaries, redirects, 'easter eggs' (ie. false links) and so on? Just for the record, I don't expect him to game the system in this way, but it's probably best to make it absolutely clear. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten socks

I agree with Flo above, this is about my only concern, that he may have forgotten a sock or two, he did have rather a lot. I would hate this to fail because of a genuine bad memory rather than bad behaviour. Giano (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this could be resolved by two steps. First, Vk declares any socks he can remember, as a sign of good faith; secondly, a checkuser is run to identify any other socks. I know a fishing trip such as this isn't a normal use of checkuser, and I don't know whether it would be legitimate ... but if Vk agreed to it in the context of a wipe-the-slate-clean amnesty, it would guarantee the clean slate which I think is the aim here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of doing that, but I fear that with this plan, we still run the risk of missing one. I'd like to hear Alison view on it in order to see how likely it is in this instance to find all the socks. Or the chance that during an unrelated check that a possible sleeper account might be found. And if the account was unused, would we be able to determine for sure if it was Vk or not? Not having looked at the cu data myself, I'm unsure. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right: some expert input needed here. I'll drop a note to Alison asking her to take a look at this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we defer to Alison's judgment on this. The goal is to encourage full disclosure in the process of drawing a line in the sand, not trip Vk up on a technicality. Rockpocket 18:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

←Thanks, everyone. Well, I'm pretty familiar with VK's socking modus operandi and, indeed, there's a particular technical quirk regarding his socks that 100% identifies him every time. Checkusers and arbitrators can email me for clarification. I'd have no issues doing a thorough "fishingy" sweep of his usual ranges, especially with the blessing of an arbitrator, and I can say with fair certainty as to whether there are any left or not. I'll certainly do it if this is what FloNight and the community wishes - Alison ^❤ 18:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alison, in that case Vk and you can work together to make sure have them all. If Vk knows of any more than he can tell us. And then you can do a final check to make sure that none are missed. That should give us a clear slate to start with after the unblock. Vk is aware that he will under scrutiny now. Thanks for offering to help. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Vk has made a declaration here - basically that all his socks have been found. Don't think there are any more outstanding issues? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Vk's declaration is very welcome, but before wrapping this up I think we should wait for the outcome of Alison's feedback on the thorough "fishingy" sweep she mentioned above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If Ali can confirm that, we are good to go. My involvement here has resulted in some unwanted attention off wiki, so I have been slightly distracted dealing with that, but I'm still hoping to propose today. Rockpocket 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now thoroughly checked Vk's usual ranges and can now state with fair certainty that he has no currently unblocked socks and that all the socks he has used are, to my knowledge, indefinitely blocked. So checkuser says that Vintagekits is now "clean" :) - Alison ^❤ 18:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Baronets

Excellent work, Rockpocket. I suggest one one small change, to the footnote which reads "1. "The Troubles" includes articles related to any Irish/British geo-political dispute and to articles involving members of the British aristocracy."

Most of Vk's conflicts in this area relate to Baronets, who are arguably not aristocracy, because their titles are not peerages. I think that the intent of the discussion was to include baronets in the no-go zone, so to avoid any ambiguity I suggest rewording the end of this note so that it reads "involving Baronets or the British aristocracy." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, BHG. That error reflects my complete antipathy disinterest, and hence ignorance, of our blue-blooded friends! I'll make that change. Rockpocket 17:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we just have the baronets spelt a little more clearly - because I'm not 100% sure I understand it, as I understand the wording, VK can edit the (half hearted) Cooper Baronets, of Shenstone Court but would not be able to do so if they had an any connection with The Troubles - is that correct? Giano (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm reading the conditions as "baronets in general" and not specifically Troubles-related ones. Because of the Kittybrewster link, I'd prefer if Vk kept well away from all matters baronetcy - Alison ^❤ 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean all matters "Baronial" :-). However, whatever, it needs to be clarified as we have both understood different meanings. Easiest to put the whole lot out of bounds. As Lenin would have said. Giano (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL - yes, "Baronial" :) - Alison ^❤ 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not quite: "Baronial" refers to Barons, and a Baronet is a lesser creature in the pecking order of those who care about such pecking orders. According to the the Shorter OED, the adjective is (rather delightfully) "Baronetical" (yes, really, it is), and that is simply to good a word to be wasted:

“ I am the very model of an editor in General,
I’ve information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I stay away from Troubles stuff, and avoid fights baronetical
From Donegal to Ballymaloe, in order categorical;
I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters pugilistical,
I understand the football games, both friendly and fanatical,
About the next Olympics I’m teeming with a lot o’ news –
With many cheerful facts I know more than the lot of youse. ”

Sorry :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That doggerel is frighfully, delightfully, ... bad. Well played, BHG... ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is so truly awful that it has come all the way 'round to . . . good. Thanks for the laugh, BHG! ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely awesome!! Encoooore :) - Alison ^❤ 02:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There's your evidence folks, it's all Alisons' fault for encouraging me

“ I’m very good at telling how old Dempsey was a blunderbuss
I know the Irish language names of boxers animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of an editor in General.

All In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He is the very model of an editor in General.

I know the mythic history, from McGuigan’s unto Braddock's;
I never flame at any twits, tho' they may be a pack of socks
I quote in perfect timing all the policies put out at us
And histrionics I avoid like profanities and other fuss;
I can tell you each and every winning round of Vinny Feeney's
I even can retain my cool when faced with wiki-legalese
I don't revert an edit that I did revert but thrice before
And I know just exactly why it is so bad to edit war ”

Time to read up on the right to vanish ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't vanish until after the curtain falls; wait for the applause! Thanks again ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from an onlooker

Just a comment to say that I think everyone is doing a wonderful job here. To be able to salvage some useful encyclopedic work from a situation like this would be a considerable accomplishment — one for which all the editors involved could be rightfully proud. This experiment may not work, but seems worthy of the attempt. It has my complete support. Paul August ☎ 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Posting conditions

One fairly minor point, it was suggested here that after a week or so the editing conditions would be transferred from Vk's own page to a linked page , rather than stay as a "brand of shame". Is that quite clear in the final draft? Giano (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be better just use {{collapse}}? That way the conditions would remain at the top of VK's userpage if anyone wanted to read them, without being redirected somewhere else but ... they wouldn't be so in-yer-face as uncollapased text. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK fine - good idea. Giano (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the desire to not have them visible or not have them picked up by search engines? Collapse won't have any positive or negative impact on search engine spidering I don't think. Just something to keep in mind. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

I have made the proposal for the community to discuss at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vintagekits proposed unblocking

Anyone with an opinion on Vk's proposed unblocking should make it there. Rockpocket 05:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

</archive>

Extension

Why have these terms been extended. I was instrumenatal in drawing them up, and have not been consulted, norhave i seen any debate on this. Rockpocket does not have divine rule, as far as I'm concerned the topic ban expires in May 2009. Giano (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats my interpretation of it as well. Rockpocket is just making it up as he is going along. --Vintagekits (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• OK - end of story, as far as I'm concerned. I can accept that you were confused following the initial stage of the probationary period. However, I strongly recommend that in future you check with an Admin before editing any political pages however loosely concerned with Ireland. Also please note: "Should he find a page he is editing is notably connected to the Troubles, or be informed as such by an uninvolved editor in good standing, he will withdraw completely from that page." Now, I'm not an Admin, but I'm informing you - stay away from that page. Giano (talk)

I suggest you both read [3]. I warned Vk to back off, to no avail. I asked you to intervene, Giano, and you refused preferring propagate a petty dispute. Therefore I am currently writing a report for AE. Lets hope for Vk's sake that the probation is just clarified and it is not interpreted as breaking the terms. Rockpocket 18:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A. I am not on probation any more. B. I know the terms of my topic ban, I have kept within it since it was imposed. The Irish Civil war wasnt part of the Troubles, wasnt a British/Irish dispute and certainly wasnt a Baronet so its nothing to do with the topic ban no matter how much you would like it to be. I am not stupid I choose to edit that article because I knew you would be straight in - however your ignorance with respect to the subject betrays your lust to have be banished. slan a chara!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. If I wanted you banished, why would I have been the one who put forward the proposal to get you unblocked? Anyway, you were unblocked by community consensus so the community can decide. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Vintagekits. Rockpocket 18:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yer shit stirring to cause hassle and wind me up - pure and simple. Grow up mate its not going to work!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Modification to terms

For clarity I propose that the terms of the probation are altered to include the phrase VK is forbidden until May 2009 to edit any page in Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland. That way it is quite clear. Giano (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Although I dont like it, for clarity purposes I am happy to abide by it.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This would be May 1st, 0:00 UTC, if we're going to get all precise and clear.--Tznkai (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't 1 May :-) but sometime close. Giano (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The 14th it seems. Giano (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• I can't support that because the original community discussion that approved the conditions were explicit: "For the purposes of these conditions and any subsequent use of the term, "The Troubles" includes articles related to any Irish/British geo-political dispute, and to all articles about Baronets" moreover, "Should [Vk] find a page he is editing is notably connected to the Troubles, or be informed as such by an uninvolved editor in good standing, he will withdraw completely from that page." Those were approved by, YOU Giano, and the wider community. If you wish to change them now, you should put that the wider community, not some user sub-page. The community were also very clear that the conditions be reset last time Vk transgressed. That means the earliest the community sanctioned conditions are lifted is July 2009. Rockpocket 20:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you seem to be having difficulty in knowing what is or isnt including - so to help those without a good knowledge of the topics at hand then a definative category would be help in ruling in and out of what I can or cant edit - otherwise you are just going to try and start stirring shit next time you get a chance.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at the time determined that a definitive category was not helpful, since it would only encourage wiki-lawyering. You pleaded to come back on the basis you only wanted to edit boxing or sporting articles and were sick of the grief of controversial articles, therefore you should have no need to test the boundaries of the conditions. A clause was put in place whereby an editor in good standing would warn you to avoid articles that could reasonably be considered to be problematic. An anon editor did that. I did that. Giano did that.

But for the record, the reason the Irish Civil War is included is informed by the section above, partly reproduced here:

As much for Vk's own benefit as anything else, I would propose adding baronets and British aristocracy, Irish/British geo-politics (and those of other separatists: Basque, Gibraltar etc) and The Old Firm to the list of (semi)-permanent topic bans that remain after 3 months. While not directly related to the Troubles, they are controversial (have a look at the current discussion over at The British Isles, for example). They are also the subjects over which Vk has got into trouble in the past, mainly because he and others have used them as a proxy to carry-on their geo-political wrangling. Should he edit in these areas he will run into those he has shown he cannot edit with, and he will end up clashing with them (as has past record shows). If this is about keeping Vk out of trouble while using his expertise, then he should recognize that these subjects are like touch paper for him and remove the temptation of getting involved. Rockpocket 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree with you. How long would you suggest a topic ban last on these subjects for? Giano (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Irish/British geo-politics" does not mean "Irish vs. British geo-politics" it means disputes involving either country (clarified by the mentioning of Basque, Gibraltar etc, that clearly have nothing to do with Ireland). Rockpocket 21:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As usual you are making it up as you are going all - you are becoming pretty embarrassing to be honest. Yer just try to box me in from all angles in a vain attempt to get me outta here - it comes across as petty and pathetic.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• The terms are not open to renegotiation, per the original agreement. I strongly oppose any changes in them without evidence that the need for the restrictions no longer exists. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats funny because you seem to be happy to change them at Rockpockets whim!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not proposing any change. The original agreement calls upon uninvolved editors to notify you when you are violating your topic ban. I have done so, because Irish nationalism and British nationalism as it relates to Ireland are within the broad field of "Irish/British geo-politics". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In effect you are trying to - the topic ban was supposed to be with respect to the Troubles and now you are trying to have it as being ANY internal or external wars or political disputes - you pretty much have pushed through Rockpockets interpretation word fir word and this isnt the interpretation which I previously understood and you are trying to add another 7 months on to the topic ban. It was supposed to be a 12 month topic ban not a 20 month topic ban.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The restrictions were extended in lieu of an outright site ban. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Were they? Where are you coming up with that from?--Vintagekits (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's my recollection. At this point, it doesn't really matter why the restrictions were extended. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are not prepared you back up what you are saying! You are being as vague as the terms that you are trying to impose! "it doesn't really matter why the restrictions were extended" - when were they extended and why - what are you talking about - yer starting to lose me know.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The restrictions were extended following the discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive24#User VintageKits breaking terms of probation? There was considerable support for a permanent ban. The extension was offered as a compromise. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And even more not to. Now where is this agreement to extend terms of the probation. There was only an agreement to reset the clock on the probation but nothing to reset the timing of the topic ban or to add additional terms.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See the hatnote by the closing administrator, which summarizes the consensus to extend the probation for three months. The topic ban was originally set to follow the probation, so it is naturally moved as well. There is no change in terms, only a clarification as specified by the original agreement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"which summarizes the consensus to extend the probation for three months" - no it doesnt, it states that the timing of the probation is reset. "so it is naturally moved as well" - no its not, the topic ban was never mention so therefore uneffected. "There is no change in terms, only a clarification as specified by the original agreement" - you are changing it and others disagree with you screw and franked ridiculous interpretation of this situation. How the hell did you ever get made admin. I dont think you should deal with this case anymore you I have zero confidence in your judgement.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No one expects you to like these restrictions, however they are the conditions of your continued editing here. You have been banned indefinitely. Your ban was set aside on the basis that you would not cause further trouble. Please just find areas of Wikipedia to edit that won't give anyone a reason to object. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore all the bullshit that I have highlighted that you have stated and then threaten me with banning - good admin work! you are a disgrace and an embrassment. What trouble am I causing? When is the last time I have edited disruptively on an article? I will edit any areas I want that are outside the topic ban area and I will edit them in a non disruptive manner I dont expect the likes of you to disprute my editing to satisfy shit stirrer like Rockpocket.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you. I have told you not to edit Irish Civil War, or other articles related to Irish nationalism or British national related to Ireland because doing so would violate your topic ban. More broadly, I am telling you to avoid disruption. Your block log is long enough already.[4] No one wants to make it longer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Champagne for everyone!

Glad to see Vintagekits is causing more trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.12.212 (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)