Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 11:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 08:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 14:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 02:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties[edit]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have informed all mentioned parties of the request

SirFozzie, who added User:Conypiece, notified Conypiece here of being added as an involved party
Traditional unionist notified by Penwhale
SirFozzie notified Biofoundationsoflanguage

One Night In Hackney notified Aatomic1 here

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

SirFozzie offers unblock conditions

Statement by User:Vintagekits[edit]

Have I acted poorly in the past? - too right I have, very poor - the worst I have behaved was the night I came in pissed at 3am and had a pop at Rocketpocket and threw the toys out of the pram - most of the shocking diffs that is used as evidence against me comes from those couple of hours on that faithful night - it was in excusable and I never made any excuse for it and I took full responsibility for it, the only thing I could do was hide behind the fact that I was incredibly drunk which does mitigate it a little but doesnt excuse it - I accept that I have held me hands up - mia cupla, mia maxima cupla. I was allowed return and after the terms of my return were agreed I was happy to return and contribute to wiki and I had a different take on my editing - I was polite, helpful, tried to engage with and compromise with editors who I have butted heads with before and even created an article about a Baronet!!!!.

All I wanted to do was get on with editing, and I was getting on fine with that. However, it all went to pot when I dared to cross BHG, the whole tedious and boring issue is outlined at length here. To my mind and that of others also I was acting well within wiki rules when I moved a number (about 10 I'd say) of article names due to over disambiguated - this issue is an old one and the Baronet project have a policy of over disambiguating the title of their articles in an attempt to include their titles along with their name - an admin confirmed the position on Kittybrewster page. Anyway BHG blocked me for three weeks for what amount to saying that articles on wiki should be correctly titled - obviously that is my take on it and others may take a different view. The block was wrong, BHG was in a content dispute with me and blocked me for following wiki policy so I emailed Alison asking if she was going to do something about it - I got no reply so I sent another email using some "industrial language" - I did not threaten her like some are making out I just point out that I was really pissed off at her lack of support for me when as "I saw it I was obviously in the right and BHG very wrong to block me when she was in a dispute with me" - I also within minutes sent her two more emails apologising for the language I used (the point behind the email still stood but I was sorry for the language I used).

So I got unblocked and then blocked the following days - the crux of the issue was a supposed threat to W.Frank which consisted of putting his street name in a post to him - I did that, I never claimed I didnt, it wasnt meant as a threat at all, and that is the honest truth, it was meant as a prank or a joke just to see what his reaction would be - it was a stupid thing to do and I realise that now and I've learned a lesson that some jokes are funny even it you think they are at the time and I think I will be leaving the jokes to comedians from now on. But after I got indefinately for that W.Frank stated that I sent him an email saying that I sent him an email saying that I threatened to burn his house down and attack his house, initially this is the reason that I thought I was blocked - lets get this clear - I never threatened him, I never said I would come to his house, I never said that I would burn his house down, I never said I would attack him, I never threatened him - either explicitly or implicitly, never and that is the truth. He said he had an email where I said all this but I have asked him to produce this or to forward it to a neutral admin but he never has done - I also forwarded to User:Alison all the email corrospondances that I knew existed between myself and W.Frank. If I have said anything like that then I will volunterily leave wiki for good and never return (no cheering please!) if he cannot provide this then I hope someone will seriously look into his actions in all this and the possible orchestration.

All I have ever wanted was to make wiki a better place and to improve the articles I am interested in and many of the articles I created are listed on my user page - thats pretty much it - all I hope is that out of this arbcom comes a framework where all editors can get on with editing instead of it begin a constant warzone.--Vintagekits 20:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by User:SqueakBox[edit]

I am not directly involved in the dispute but as nobody has so far brought this case to arbcom I am going to be bold. VK was recently indefinitely blocked in a case that has brought up many strong feelings from editors who believe this block is both wrong and partial given that this case involves various parties editing two subject areas, Irish republicanism and the British nobility. There have been many arguments and blocks and nastiness on both sides and IMO the arbcom needs to pass judgement on the case and take whatever remedies it feels necessary, SqueakBox 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by retired User:Gold_heart[edit]

Before I begin, I would like to draw attention to the sterling work carried out by the Editors, Admins, and the Arbitrators of Wikipedia. It has been a pleasure to work with the many who have given their time, dedication and knowledge to this great world endeavour, and I am certain that all good people here will bid them success. Duty has now called on the Arbitration Committee to decide on matters of such crucial importance, so important indeed that the solution could fundamentally change some of the workings of Wikipedia into the future. Again we sit here at this moment in time, and ask the Arbitrators to perform that task, on our behalf.

Vintagekits (Vk), a bright, intelligent editor with over 12,000 edits to his credit was last month, thrown a buoy made of lead, and was told to swim, i.e. the “SirFozzie parameters”,. He had on many occasion been the recipient of the infamous argumentum ad hominem tactic, that regressive style of personal attack that causes so much anger, and anguish on Wikipedia. No doubt, Vk became quite discomposed on at least one occasion as a consequence of these ongoing attacks, however I must also give him empyreal recognition and credit for the many many times he showed exemplary calm, dignity and restraint under the barrage of extreme provocation. Though the arguement of post hoc ergo propter hoc (it happened after, so it was caused by), can quite correctly be reasoned for here, nevertheless it cannot be positively sustained as part of an overall solution in this particular instance, yet it can quite naturally assist for mitigation purposes. As has been noted, Vk had been goaded as a direct consequence of the stringent conditions recently imposed by the “SirFozzie parameters”. The relevant articles are usually Northern Ireland related, and doubtless, the long struggle there for civil rights and the resultant armed conflict is well known to many of us here at Wikipedia. This conflict goes way back to the Plantation of Ulster in the seventeenth century. With a political agreement now in place, and not everyone contented, there is the distinct possibility that some political agendas within Northern Ireland are entering a new phase here in cyberspace, via Consequently, differences of opinion have played a factor in the manner in which some of these articles are presented. There are a couple of handfuls of editors involved, chiefly from United Kingdom and to a much lesser extent from Ireland, who have clashed on occasion. But really this is very far from an edit-war, and relationships are overwhelmingly cordial most of the time. Nevertheless, with the “SirFozzie parameters” applied, Vk found himself with a Sword of Damocles dangling over his head, and this “sword” could only terminate with an inevitable fall, and accordingly it did. Can we afford to lose VK? In my opinion no. With over 12,000 edits, and rarely in big trouble, I argue for Vk to stay.

There is a solution in my mind, and may I offer it here. This would involve the nomination of a panel of 3 wise Admins to look after unforeseen events. I propose the nomination of the now familiar admins, SirFozzie and Alison, and one other admin, (but not Rockpocket as he is seeking a permanent block). Vk would be allowed his opinion on the establishment of the three, but not have the final say. Then in the event of a major transgression, and with the approval of at least 2 of the ”3 wise Admins”, Vk could be the subject of a punitive block for some hours, or at max a week. Any longer than a week’s block, an outside admin would be required to deliberate on the matter at hand. Ideally, these penalties would never need to be invoked. These measures would hopefully assist with the “conflict resolution”, and create a desirable outcome leading to the following. (1) Would remove the psychological pressure, and the feeling of victimhood away from Vk, thereby acting as a cushion, and leading to calmer editing. (2) Would also lead to greater respect, and caring among the Wikipedian community. (3) Would build confidence between the involved British and Irish editors. (4) Would send out the message that "mob rule" does not work on Wikipedia. (5) Would ensure a fairer system of jurisprudence, and not a continual “block threat” – This whole issue is so vitally important, because if Wikipedia loses editors like Vk, there will be another culprit, and another culprit, year after year, after year, thereby irreparably damaging the Wikipedia project. Can Wikipedia continually sustain this? I believe that it cannot.

By way of illustration, this running saga reminds me of Victor Hugo’s great novel, Les Misérables . An editor makes a faux pas, and is never to be left at peace, now pursued by Javert type characters, forever watching his every move, and ready to pounce for the least of infringements. Even Jean Valjean, Hugo’s hero, would have resigned to despair with the chivvy that Vk had to endure, I suspect.

To conclude, my suggestions could go some way to help repair this contravention. Following the passing of some time, things will settle down and all will be forgotten about. New editors will come on stream, and some will be looking for guidance, and who better to help them, but the old hands? I believe that this is the time to grasp the opportunities, not to forestall, and not leave them to wither unsung. .- User:Gold_heart17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Extra Comment. Some weeks ago I retired from Wikipedia, and scrambled my password. I believe that this issue is important, and thus my reason for this one final interjection. I feel that rudeness is quite prevalent, and there are many many editors who sometimes and unnecessarily resort to thus, including some of the Admins. In most cases it can add to the cut and thrust of discourse, and is quite easily forgiven, and at other times it can get out of hand. And that applies to many of us.- User:Gold_heart17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by User:Rockpocket[edit]

As far as I recall my first major involvement in an administrative capacity was when another editor approached me for assistance with some convincing evidence that Vintagekuts was recruiting meatpuppets off-wiki. The clearly stated purpose of this was to votestack on Afds. This editor expressed to me that he would rather remain anonymous for fear of threats of retribution from Vk (with time this precaution came sharply unto focus). I offered to present the evidence on his behalf. The evidence can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits. The latter report was closed by Will Beback (talk · contribs) with the conclusion "it is clear to me that these accounts are either sock puppets of VK or are meat puppets controlled by him. I will block these accounts indefinitely. VK has been blocked seven times since January, and also has a proven history of using sockpuppet accounts." [1] An ANI discussion on what action to take (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive262#Vintagekits, redux) generated consensus on a one week block followed by civility parole by SirFozzie (talk · contribs). This had limited success; SirFozzie blocked Vk for further "WP:CIVIL violations" within a month [2] and I issued several warnings, including one [3] for a typical attack [4] (Note: Vk appears to think that the swapping of, or addition of letters disguises his regular use of the word "cunt" in reference to other editors [5].) Just over a month after being placed on civility parole I blocked Vk for 31 hours for a number of attacks, culminating in this edit (which is typical of his combative attitude towards Wikipedia). This resulted in further attacks, threats, paramilitary rhetoric and so, on. So I indef blocked and immediately asked for an independent review at AN (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive97#Block Review - Vintagekits). The consensus, including Vk's mentors, was to maintain the indef block. In the meantime, the abuse continued by email, along the same lines, but with the added threat of personal violence against me and some hints that he indended to get revenge off wiki.I can forward them to ArbCom on request.

After an apology from Vk (the tirade was alcohol induced, apparently) and a campaign by a number of supporters to unblock him, Vk was unblocked by myself on his explicit agreement [6] to a self imposed ban on certain articles, to avoid conflict and uphold the "utmost level of civility" meaning he was "going to have to be on your best behavior no matter what" [7] [8]. Although Vk's ban was in the area of Irish Republicanism, it was made clear to him that the point was to avoid conflict, and wiki-lawyering around this would not be acceptable. Indeed, in this spirit he agreed to consult an admin before editing "articles tangential the subject-specific ban (like contentious British issues such as the Falkland and Gibralter)." [9] Despite this, and fully aware that the prior conflict on Republicanism articles had spilled over onto articles about baronetcies, Vk waited less than 24hrs before editing an article on Sir George Dick-Lauder, 12th Baronet [10] Inevitably, Vk found himself in conflict on this subject before long, leading to a block by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs). In the immediate aftermath of this, it was reported that Vk sent abusive emails to both his mentor Alison (talk · contribs) for not supporting him, apparently, and to BrownHairedGirl. This was just eight days after Vk had been unblocked, having been indef blocked for the exact same behaviour. At this point Alison then indef block Vk again for "making clear threats regarding another editor's home address" [11], but for obvious reasons did not elaborate. I reviewed Vk's recent edits, identified two edits that appeared suspect and contacted Alison privately to confirm those were the reason for the indef block. She confirmed to me they were. With this information to hand, and considering Vk was already on parole from an indef block, had sent abusive emails yet again and has a long history of seriously disruptive editing, incivility, sock- and meat puppetry, I believe Vk's negative impact on the project grossly out-weighs any benefit he may offer. I propose he remain blocked indefinitely and placed among the Wikipedia:List of banned users. I am aware of a history of disruptive editing from a number of other editors named in this request, and support an ArbCom inquiry into those editors also. I do not believe I, personally, have used sysop tools in anything other than a neutral manner, in an effort to protect the project from disruptive editing. Rockpocket 22:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by User:Kittybrewster[edit]

I am one of many Users who has interacted at some stage with User:Vintagekits. I have found him to have been persistently provocative in attacking articles created or edited by me and others, some of which were articles about baronets. It seems he is deeply opposed to anything connected to the British establishment, titled people, etc. He has threatened to and has tagged numerous articles nn or fact or afd. Other users have waded in to back him up in this, including numerous editors some of whom are members of the Irish Republican project (notably User:One Night In Hackney, User:Domer48, User:Derry Boi) and editors who are not (e.g. User:Padraig, User:Giano II and User:SqueakBox) Other SPAs and possible meat/sock puppets have emerged from time to time, some of whom (eg User:Thepiper User:Stramash) are still around. Some of those were invited by Vintagekits specifically to assist in vote-stacking at afds. At no stage has VK accepted any responsibility for his own actions and for drumming up support off-wiki.

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Nor is it a soapbox.

After this had been going on for several months a few administrators were drawn in, all of whom are listed above (I think). They have done a superb job in trying to stop this dissolving into total chaos but they have been accused by VK and others of having been partisan. I don’t believe those accusations.

My analysis is that VK is a very angry person who should have been restricted to writing articles about boxers – where I am told he contributed constructively and uncontroversially (I have no view on that). He was allowed past his first indefinite block on condition that he behave impeccably in future. He has failed to do this and administrators blocked him indefinitely as a result. Other editors (User:Giano II and User:Squeakbox) claim VK may have been provoked or goaded into resuming his poor behaviour. They claim they want to achieve a full inquest to ensure things have been fair. From what I have seen the admins concerned have been fair and patient to a degree.

1. Is VK’s block appropriate? Indeed, having submitted no statement, is he complaining at all? 2. Was he provoked into his behaviour? Is that relevant? 3. Are SqueakBox, Giano_II and Vk himself seeking to become famous for a moment by expanding this mess (under the guise of fairness for all)? 4. If so is an expanded enquiry appropriate? 5. If so on what topic?

Statement by User:SirFozzie[edit]

I am not really much surprised that this case has made its way to ArbCom. I have recently returned from an attempted vacation (and still on a semi-sabbatical from WP due to health issues). My two cents.. as I said on the Great Irish Famine ArbCom.. this is one of the biggest long-term edit warring groups I have ever seen on Wikipedia, both in terms of numbers and in terms of people. We have the whole smorgasboard of ill done deeds.. threats, edit wars, sockpuppets, POV Pushing.. you name it.. it's happened in this group. I strongly urge the ArbCom to take the issue, and take whatever means necessary to end this war, once and for all, even if it means blocking everybody (and I do mean EVERYBODY.) Half-measures will mean that we have to do this again, eventually. SirFozzie 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional Statement by User:SirFozzie[edit]

What you are seeing with the sniping and issues between the groups is generally what goes through the whole set of articles. Members of both sides have dug in, and the resulting edit wars have forced several people to retire (like User:Gold_Heart, and others (like Vintagekits) who've basically blown themselves up when it comes to WP editing. We see statements, like the one below from User:David Lauder (since removed) where it's assumed that if a user is Irish, then he or she automatically supports Vintagekits, or if they support Vintagekits, they're Irish automatically. This is why I urge ArbCom, even if they determine there's no action that needs to be taken on Vintagekits (confirming his indefblock/ban), to accept this case for user conduct issues across the whole chain of editors. SirFozzie 20:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, i confirm that the IP address is User:Gold_Heart) SirFozzie 23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since User:Conypiece and Padraig just got 48 hour blocks from User:Alison on an edit war (and constant sniping at each other) on these articles, I have added Conypiece as an involved party, and am letting him know now. SirFozzie 00:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by User:Alison[edit]

Evidence in camera[edit]

I'm in the process of writing this up. In the meantime, to answer Paul August; all my evidence has been forwarded to Fred Bauder, as that is the extent of my permission here. As Fred is on the ArbCom, can you please check in with him regarding what I've sent? Note: the two edits in question (the rationale to my blocking) have been oversighted since this afternoon - Alison 03:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This entire problem has been ongoing for almost a year now and it's only my indefinite block of Vintagekits which has brought the whole matter into focus. While my primary concern is the circumstances behind VK's block, I believe there is a much more basic issue which demands attention here. It's not all about VK.

I usually make a point of steering clear of Irish-related political articles as, due to my nationality (I'm Irish), I'll always be subject to accusations of bias. I have little interest in political matters and many of the involved editors here will know that I've turned down requests on both sides for that reason.

Vintagekits blocked indef and unblocked per agreement[edit]

Regarding my indefinite block of VK, I had some experience of VK's actions prior to all this as he'd come to my attention as a result of the actions of User:Gaimhreadhan some months back. I found him to be a likeable guy, knowledgeable but given to losing his temper somewhat, as well as having his own POV issues. Either way, he ended up indefinitely blocked by User:Rockpocket last July 25th. Myself and other admins succeeded in brokering a deal which would allow VK to edit again, but only under certain clear-cut parameters (the so-called "Sir Fozzie Agreement"). As part of this unblock agreement, I volunteered to mentor VK. Note that a number of editors back then questioned why the issue was not brought before ArbCom at that point.

From then on, I kept close watch on VK, his edits and his dealing with others. So far so good. He remained polite, kept away from most contentious articles - at least most political ones. However, he was still involved with the whole baronets business, as I was to find out later.

Blocked again, then unblocked[edit]

Due to his involvement in the baronetcy articles, VK got blocked again. This time it was for an apparent pagemove spree that happened over a short period of time. User:BrownHairedGirl blocked him for three weeks due, not only to as a result of his perceived disruptive actions, but also because he refused to state that he would desist on disrupting further. I initially endorsed BHG's block while stating that I was concerned about it but, as negotiations progressed, I eventually endorsed his unblocking. Again. As I do :)

Between these two points, I got a series of increasingly irate and robust emails from VK, which I only responded to after he apologised and I'd complained on his talk page. Emails are available to ArbCom if required. Fred Bauder already has these. When VK agreed to stop his disruptive behaviour, he was unblocked by BHG & I lifted the autoblock. The debate continued unabated on his talk page and I ended up reiterating my support for his unblocking. It was interesting to note both political camps polarising around the blocking and unblocking of VK; just about all the major players were involved at one point.

In parallel with all this, another editor contacted me regarding another issue. Himself and another editor had been accused of sock-puppetry, and had both been blocked as a result. They had ended up unblocked only after Fred Bauder had been contacted. As a result of all this, they were anxious to prove their identity to a neutral admin who had a RL identity. Either way, I ended up being faxed documents which included this person's full name and home address. I still have them here.

Then blocked yet again[edit]

A few days later, I was to indefinitely block VK on a very serious issue. The editor above, who's personal info I have, contacted me by email. He was quite concerned as he felt Vintagekits had made very clear allusions to his home address in some throwaway comments. I checked the diffs and, sure enough, VK had done exactly that. The comments stuck out like a sore thumb due to their weirdness and their inappropriateness given that VK had made a blatant and amateurish attempt to wedge the editor's street address into the comment. Twice.

On review of these comments, it is readily apparent that VK has made an unequivocal threat as to his knowledge of this editor's whereabouts. It's one of those "I know where you live" moments. Given that both of these editors are on opposite poles of a long-running battle over Irish Republican and specifically the Irish paramilitary organisation, the Provisional IRA, this had to be taken seriously. Some background; I'm an Irish editor. I grew up in the Republic of Ireland at the height of the IRA terrorist campaign. Seeing a message like that horrifies me as I can immediately see it's significance in context. When someone said, "We know where you live", the followup to that message usually involved petrol bombs through your window or a shotgun blast through your front door in the early hours of the morning.

Vintagekits and the other editor are both only too aware as to this meaning. I'm not saying that VK would actually do a thing like this, but he knows that he conveyed that message, and conveyed it clearly. This does not imply membership of any illegal organisation, as User:Gold Heart has implied it meant on VK's talk page, but indicates strongly that VK knew that it would have an impact. In other words, it's classic intimidation.

As a result of these clear threats, I immediately indefinitely blocked VK's account.

Unfortunately, I am unable to reveal why I did this in detail as doing so would reveal private information regarding someone who already feels at risk. It's an awkward situation and as you can see from the talk page, it boiled over into this arbcom proposal, with both distinct groups of editors lining up on either side of Vintagekits. Indeed, it was particularly annoying to see certain editors (I'm thinking specifically of User:Kittybrewster here) openly crowing about the blocking of VK. Breaking out the champagne, as it was described on Kittybrewsters' talk page.

My position is this; I blocked VK for threatening another editor. He's been blocked before and has an extensive history of being abusive and threatening physical violence both on-wiki and in email. His is being disruptive beyond belief and has been intimidating others for quite some time. Unfortunately, he also has quite a loud and vocal fan club.

I spoke briefly on the phone with RockPocket, another involved admin, this week. He revealed that he'd found the diffs in VK's edits and I confirmed to him that this was where the issue lay. He endorsed my block, as did quite a number of others

[ More to follow re. the overall case scope and direction ]

Alison 21:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Giano[edit]

I found this problem when I was involved in the investigation into the validity of Kittybrewster's own family pages, many of which have been deleted. He has never forgiven me. As I have no great political interest in either Ireland or England I have been able to view this problem quite dispassionately. Similar problems are occurring on other Wikis. The problem is complex, two groups - one symbolised by Vintagekits and one by Kittybrewster are at war. Neither are the leader of their group but both are among the most vocal.

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Irish and proud of it. Some in his group undoubtedly have republican sympathies. All quite legal and acceptable, if not greatly liked in the old British establishment. Today, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness men who Margaret Thatcher would probably have cheerfully shot are both now entertained at 10 Downing Street where their views are seriously debated. Times change and Wikipedia has to reflect that.

Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his friends are British and proud of it. Some of his group undoubtedly have establishment sympathies. Indeed they have deliberately identified themselves with the old type establishment, and more importantly the Anglo-Irish aristocracy. The traditional "enemy" of the "downtrodden" Irish.

The problem is that they both want to edit each others pages, both scream POV - was a baronet, or a freedom fighter, murdered or was he killed can result in months of bitter acrimony. Was the "freedom fighter" a "terrorist" or a glorious hero and so it goes on. Anyone caught up in this is labelled a Republican by Kittybrewster's gang. They even made a template to put by "suspect editors" names. The name calling from both sides is appalling. Some admins have tried to put a stop to this, but as they were largely Irish themselves their neutrality was questioned. Ireland is a very divided country. Adding to the confusion both sides use multiple sockpuppets. Kittybrewster's group were found guilty of vote stacking etc. on one of their baronets deletion pages. I don't have the diffs but I fully expect the Irish group have been equally guilty.

Vintagekits is his own worst enemy, quick to anger, he engages his mouth before his brain. This has been seized upon and he has become the chief target for goading. Kittybrewster has indeed been blocked and warned repeatedly to stop goading him - However he and his friends do not. Kittybrewster and his friends advertise a lot of personal information on Wikipedia, real names, schools, backgrounds and locations. They seem more real than some other and more reticent Wikipedians, and it seems that in the heat of the moment blinded by rage Vintagekits lashed out and blurred reality with the anonymity of Wikipedia. In the course of this he made, I am told, some very serious threats indeed. (I have not seen them)

The question is what to do with Vintagekits - is he a bad lad, an evil man or a hot tempered Irishman? I think he is a combination of the first and last and he needs a very severe warning and/or a short ban. Permanently banning him and Kittybrewster will solve nothing as others just like them will arrive. These editors and their friends have to be forced to keep away from each other and certain pages. That is the only long term solution.

I'm aware much of this case is in camera and sub-judice, but I think it is breaking no secrets to say Kittybrewster was not the one to whom the threats were made, but that person at times in his behaviour too has been suspect. The above can be verifiable by diffs found here [12]. Giano 09:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The more I look into this case, the more strange the undercurrents seem to be. The Arbcom either has to accept this case and make a thorough investigation into exactly what has been going on, or leave it alone - unblock Vintagekits and let the whole bunch fight it out between themselves. The secretiveness of this case is alarming, there can be no harm in making it being public knowledge exactly what VK said, to who he said it and where he said it. The precise details which would identify the RL identity recipient can be with withheld. The fact that Vintagekits is not even allowed to defend himself here is also worrying. My own dealings in the last 12 hours have greatly increased my own suspicions. Giano 08:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding Kittybrester's post above "Are SqueakBox, Giano II and Vk himself seeking to become famous for a moment" I think even the Arbcom will unanimously agree I am quite "famous" enough already. So no Kittybrester, you are quite wrong there. Giano 10:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by One Night In Hackney[edit]

This case goes far deeper than the conduct of one editor, the currently indefinitely blocked Vintagekits. While his conduct has at times been deplorable, the many, many breaches of policy by his opponents are plain for all to see. For well over six months there has been a campaign of disruption and POV pushing by a group of British (and assorted other) editors on articles related to The Troubles. Some of the Irish editors are equally to blame, very few people have clean hands in this case. In effect since the end of outright conflict in Northern Ireland, Wikipedia has become the new battleground between those believing the views of the British public are what should be presented as NPOV and Irish republicans wanting their side of the story to be told equally and fairly, or in some cases a biased Irish republican viewpoint.

For my part, my editing has been misinterpreted by many editors. Many consider me a POV pusher biased in favour of the Provisional IRA, when the truth is I'm as English as they come. I have probably contributed as much in terms of sourced content to articles relating to Irish republicanism as any active editor. There are currently two articles under the Irish Republicanism WikiProject that are good articles, and I wrote, re-wrote or sourced 90% of both of them. If my editing was as biased as certain editors claim, they would never have passed GA. One administrator who holds a strong anti-Provisional IRA viewpoint has said privately to me that my editing was totally neutral, and anyone seeking to find much evidence to the contrary will have difficulty in doing so.

I am no longer an active Wikipedia editor, so if anyone wishes to spend their time hunting down evidence to blacken my name it will be an exercise in fulility, and there is ample evidence to refute any claims. However the conflict across articles has intensified since I stopped editing Wikipedia, and something needs to be done to get many editors back on the straight and narrow and improving the encylopedia in constructive ways. For this reason I implore the Arbitration Committee to accept this case to examine the conduct of all involved.. One Night In Hackney303 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Scolaire[edit]

I have had relatively few dealings with Vintagekits. What communication we had, I found him to be a genial character, but very sensitive and quick to take offence. Reading through many of the debates he was involved in (although in general I did not get involved myself) I have the distinct impression that certain editors knew exactly where his breaking point was, and steered him relentlessly towards it. Maybe the ugliest example was the editor who contributed anonymously as and who tried to provoke Vk even as he was attempting to get himself unblocked. I find the whole section "Champagne" on User talk:Kittybrewster, culminating in this diff very disturbing. At best it is a show of very undignified gloating by four or five editors (and not btw what talk pages are intended for); at worst it looks like a conspiracy. To come down hard on somebody who doesn't know where to draw the line, while those who know how to "play the game" get off scot-free (pun not intended!) would be very unfair. Scolaire 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by User:Counter-revolutionary[edit]

I have been away for the past few days and have returned to find myself listed as an "interested party". My experience of Vintagekits has left me with the impression that he is a most discourteous and deliberately provocative editor. He has made many comments which, if the parties involved were still alive (such as in the case of Sir Norman Stronge, would have been libelous; such as accusing him of funding terrorism (a wholly false claim). He has also made provocative statements such as this [13]. I know there are many more, which I cannot locate at the moment, the above are just an example of the sort of editor he is. None of us are without fault but VKs seems to go out of his way to cause trouble. That is all I have to say on the matter.--Counter-revolutionary 17:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by User:David Lauder[edit]

It is fascinating to read some of the remarks on this page. I support the comments of User:Rockpocket and User:Counter-revolutionary above. It is laughable to suggest that Vintagekits is just another editor doing good work who has been misread. It is also more than apparent that his overwhelming supporters are Irish Republicans, plainly shown by a glance at their user pages. I have nothing against Irish Republicans (my first delightful girlfiend was from Limerick) but I do not believe that Wikipedia is the correct forum for them to present their anti-British case. Nor do I think it is a forum for editors such as Vintagekits whose user page blatantly displays serious POV prejudices which, when put into operation, must cause instant disruption and grief to Wikipedia. More importantly, if you examine the contributions logs of Vintagekits, you will see that he generally sticks to an Irish Republican agenda. But any editor challenging his view of things on such pages means that Vintagekits will instantly move to articles that editor has created or made substantial contributions to with a view to bullying tactics of a varying nature, right up to AfDs, once he has located a Wikipedia 'guideline' he thinks he can rely upon.

I am really not interested in Irish affairs at all and it is ridiculous to try and sort opponents of Vintagekits into some sort of cabal similar to his. I strayed into 'his arena' of interest maybe once or twice and was penalised accordingly. I then found where he was attacking the contributions of another editor (User:Kittybrewster) under the usual guises and I foolishly entered my feelings on the AfD pages only to bring Vintagekits sneering remarks down on my head, with several of his collegues in tow, likewise. His behaviour towards other users who fail to support him is constant bullying, unpleasantness, and unkindness. He fails all the usual WP tests of civility, good faith, and no personal attacks, direct and indirect, for which has has already had several blocks, one of those being an "indefinite" block which, amazingly, was not. His latest block should be upheld.

Lastly, there is at least one editor above who has had the audacity to state he is "uninvolved" when he has consistantly supported Vintagekits in the past. I think he should at least correct that heading. David Lauder 21:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Logoistic[edit]

My purpose here is to comment on the broader issue of Vintage's editing of "Troubles and related issues" articles that the arbitrators have said they will consider.

I have had much interaction with Vintage in the early stages of his Wikipedia carreer. I believe Giano has grossly simplified the issue when he paints a picture of an Irish Republican vs. British "establishment" clash - to the point where the analagy becomes quite offensive. Undoubtedly Vintage's presence has served to counter any POV that might come from an Anglo-centric Wikipedia - I myself have benefited from our arguments over "terrorism", for example. Vintage has also a lot of knowledge and a lot of energy to contribute: he has made thousands of edits. However, I think he has two major issues that mean these positives are far outweighted by the negatives for Wikipedia.

First, he seems to have an intense anti-British sentiment, to the extent where he attacks it almost wherever it takes its form. Even when Squeakbox wished Vintage well when SirFozzie last unblocked him, with Squeakbox commenting that this was his "British sense of fair play", Vintage had to have a dig at this, replying that "Lol! Aye, we'll put it down to the British sense of fair play alright! Just kiddin"(here). He linked this to an article on the Birmingham Six - a group of men unsafely convicted over the PIRA Birmingham pub bombings. This doesn't sound like 'kidding', but is a deliberate dig that appears even when a user is reaching out to him.

This anti-British sentiment, which I think might even comes on to the point of paranoia at times, leads to the second problem: his consistent breaking of Wiki policies. Plenty of other Irish Republican Wikipedians get on just fine without breaking revert rules, using sockpuppets and meatpuppets, canvassing, vote stacking, making personal attacks, breaking mediation rulings, and being uncivil. Yet he has flounted the policies quite conistently. He has been given plenty of chances, yet has failed to restrain himself and follow the rules that everybody else has to follow. This is the simple issue at hand. Whether he introduces controversial stuff into articles is irrelevent - Wikipedia works best were conflicts of opinion are present. Even if he is pro-Irish Republican, other editors are there to balance out his own POV.

It is a shame that Vintage has not learned to control himself. I sincerely think he has a lot to offer Wikipedia and I have grown to like him, but given his track record, seriously doubt whether he can control himself.

I think his history of breaking Wikipedia policies is what needs to be considered here, not his particular political opinion. Logoistic 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/1)[edit]

  • Reject, no basis is presented which would justify unblocking Vintagekits Fred Bauder 23:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment, I request that Alison please send all private information regarding this matter to the ArbCom mailing list. Paul August 03:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept to examine the full situation. Mackensen (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There are 30 named parties to the case. Do you want to keep it that broad a case or narrow it down some? FloNight♥♥♥ 11:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept I have no interest in examining the block of Vintagekits, but would accept to examine editing regarding the Troubles and related issues. Fred Bauder 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept Likely will back in front of us soon if we don't look at it now. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept Paul August 02:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept. SimonP 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)


Neutral point of view[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a subject.

Passed 8-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires that information be supported by a reliable source.

Passed 8-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


3) The editing of users who disrupt Wikipedia by aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be restricted. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Passed 8-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


4) Editors who severely harass other users may be banned.

Passed 8-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tit for tat[edit]

5) Editing in someone else's area of interest in retaliation is inappropriate.

Passed 8-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Findings of Fact[edit]

Locus of the dispute[edit]

1) This dispute is centered on auxiliary issues which relate to The Troubles, with notability of baronets as a side issue.

Passed 6-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gold heart and Thepiper[edit]

3) Gold heart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also editing as Thepiper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other accounts has engaged in serious harassment of another user.

Passed 6-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Probation for disruptive editors[edit]

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

Passed 5-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Superseded by an alternate sanction, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


4) The indefinite community ban on Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is lifted and he may edit normally subject to the terms of probation as defined in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 5-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Contentious topic designation[edit]

Superseded version

5) Articles Pages relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Passed 14 to 0 by motion, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Updated by motion. Passed 9 to 0 on 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Amended to change "articles" to "pages"

Passed 7 to 1 by Motion, 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

5) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 02:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

5) All pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Superseded version

6) As a standard discretionary sanction, a one revert restriction (1RR) is applied to all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Enforcement, with notifications to be posted, at a minimum, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and Talk:The Troubles.

6) As part of the standard set of contentious topic restrictions, a one revert restriction (1RR) is applied to all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Enforcement, with notifications to be posted, at a minimum, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and Talk:The Troubles.

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 02:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  1. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  2. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  3. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Terms of probation[edit]

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

Passed 7-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Amendment (February 2019)[edit]

  1. Remedy 5 of The Troubles is amended to read:
    5) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.
  2. The section #One revert rule of the same case is superseded by the following additional remedy:
    6) As a standard discretionary sanction, a one revert restriction (1RR) is applied to all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Enforcement, with notifications to be posted, at a minimum, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and Talk:The Troubles.
  3. All active restrictions placed under the previous remedies remain in force.
  4. Remedy 1.1 of Great Irish Famine is marked as superseded. The article, now at Great Famine (Ireland), is within the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorised under The Troubles.
Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 02:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)[edit]

21) Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and probations[edit]

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Guide to enforcement[edit]

This note about enforcement was added on 23 May 2011 per a discussion [14]. Arbcom's 2007 decision did not place any sanctions on named editors. Updated 7 December 2011 using strikeouts and new text to reflect Arbcom's motion of 27 October 2011 establishing discretionary sanctions for this case and T. Canens' use of DS to reinstate the general 1RR rule. A section for Notices has been added per the usual DS provisions.

ArbCom's case remedies have been modified to include standard discretionary sanctions. Other potential sanction had previously been possible, such as probation. Any administrator could place a user on probation, though the terms of the restriction were limited to a 1RR/week on Troubles articles, excluding reversions of IP editors. Discretionary sanctions allows for a much broader potential range of sanctions.

In addition, both the Community and an administrator acting under the discretionary sanctions remedy have placed the topic area under a general 1RR/day editing restriction which applies to all Troubles articles. If {{Troubles restriction}} is placed on an article talk page, the 1RR/day restriction may be enforced without warning.

Complaints of violations of the Troubles remedies or of the article 1RR are normally presented at Arbitration Enforcement for a decision.

The log entries below fall into four sections:

  1. Sock-puppetry
  2. Final remedies for AE case
  3. Editors informed about the case
  4. Regular log of admin actions by year

All four of these sections are historical. Admins placing new discretionary sanctions or enforcing 1RR (as it was imposed as a discretionary sanctionc should log them in the discretionary sanctions log.


Add details of abusive sock-puppetry and log of related blocks, etc here
Details can be found by clicking the "show" tab.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • User:Alice, a checkuser proven sock of User:W. Frank was blocked. User:W. Frank's account was also indefinitely blocked, however, since the reason for the Alice account originally was a psuedo-RTV due to the exposure of Real life information about User:W. Frank, per User:Thatcher's suggestion here, W. Frank may contact ArbCom via their mailing list to set up another account, and discuss the terms he can edit under (IE, probation on Troubles related articles, etcetera). SirFozzie (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notified SirFozzie (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were all blocked by myself on February 13th, 2008, after a CheckUser Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman‎ determined that the three were editing from the same computer, sometimes one minute after each other, and acting in concert. I have left notifications on all three User's Talk pages. The fourth account that they were working with, User:Sussexman, was already blocked for violation of WP:NLT. SirFozzie (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Sweetfirsttouch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. La voz de su amo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Were all blocked by myself on February 19th, 2008 after a checkuser determined that Vintagekits had created these accounts after his initial ban. Checkuser report is available here SirFozzie (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... all blocked indef as socks of banned editor Vintagekits (talk),  Confirmed by c/u. - Alison 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... all blocked indef as socks of banned editor Vintagekits (talk),  Confirmed by c/u. Guess he's having lots of fun with this - Alison 20:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... both blocked indef as socks of banned editor Vintagekits (talk),  Confirmed by c/u - Alison 08:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... all blocked indef as socks of Kittybrewster (talk),  Confirmed by c/u see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kittybrewster. One Night In Hackney303 06:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Final remedies for AE case[edit]

The template {{Troubles restriction}} may be employed on the talk page of Troubles-related articles. It looks like this:

Previous restrictions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User restrictions
  • Domer48 (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours for gross incivility and disruptive editing. NOTE: already served
  • Domer48 (talk · contribs) placed under indefinite probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, because of disruptive edit warring and inability to compromise and cooperate instead of edit warring.
  • Domer48 (talk · contribs) is advised he is skating on very thin ice. His conduct and statements in this AE case was far less than desirable, especially those directed at neutral admins who were merely trying to help--notably User:Black Kite and User:Spartaz.
  • Sarah777 (talk · contribs), as she herself stated, is under civility parole and reminded of that. She is most strongly advised to tone it down.
General restriction
  • All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
  • All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
    • Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
  • Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
  • As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, I leave it to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: {{Consensus|This article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]]''', as laid out during a previous [[WP:AE]] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.}}
  • These final remedies have been linked to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case

--RlevseTalk 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ADDENDUM-My note above is not part of the formal case remedy voted on by the arbs in the case. It is part background and part observation that I wrote and should be treated as such. It's in the log section, not the decision section. RlevseTalk 22:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re-posting diff and in-force remedies for clarity. The above-mentioned "final remedies" are supported by community consensus, as shown here[15] in October 2008. Some of the October 2008 remedies on individual editors may have been modified or expired at this point, but the general topic area remedies remain in force indefinitely, specifically:
  • All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
  • All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
    • Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
  • Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
--Elonka 19:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(followup) An additional discussion occurred in 2009 at ANI to clarify some of the points from the 2008 discussion. The new clarification[16] states:
  • 1RR may mean 1 revert per article per day, or 1 revert per article per week, depending on context, as follows:
    • A limit of one revert per article per week is a restriction which can be placed per the original wording of the Troubles case from 2007. This is a per-editor restriction. The affected editor must be formally warned by an uninvolved administrator on their talkpage, with a link to the case, and an indication of how long that the editor is on probation for, up to a maximum of six months. The notification and terms of the probation must be logged to the Case page. After an editor has been formally placed on probation, they are restricted to 1 revert per article per week, for the duration of the probation. If the editor is blocked while on probation, this automatically resets the length of time of their probation to the original maximum.
    • Per community consensus from 2008,[17] there is also a 1RR per day restriction, on all Troubles articles. This means that any editor who reverts on a Troubles-related article more than once in a 24-hour period may be blocked immediately, for up to one week, even on the first offense. However, administrators are still advised to use good judgment, to assume good faith, and to avoid biting genuinely new users. So, at the administrator's discretion, they may choose to issue a warning rather than a block.
--Elonka 23:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of editors placed on notice[edit]

New discretionary sanctions procedure does not require notices to be logged as this is achieved automatically.
List here editors who have been warned of possible discretionary sanctions on their talk page. The guidance which applies is at WP:AC/DS:

"Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

Regular log of admin actions by year[edit]

Old enforcement action were logged here, further enforcement actions are to be logged in the discretionary sanctions log.


Subsequently unblocked by Rlevse at 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 06:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I have placed Aatomic1 (talk · contribs) under probation under the provisions of this ruling for further revert-warring on Birmingham pub bombings. Please note the history of this editor with this article, this is approximately the fourth or fifth time he's been sanctioned for edit-warring on this article, and less then a month after the previous probation for edit-warring (which was endorsed by ArbCom) expired. SirFozzie (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Block was extended to 1 week by User:Alison for personal attack on Shell by Astrotrain when informed of the block. SirFozzie (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



One revert rule[edit]

Superseded by Remedy 6 above
  • To clear out any uncertainty whether the 1RR rule persists following the motion that superseded "all extant remedies" of this case, "as amended and clarified", all articles could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, are placed under an 1RR rule under the authority of #Standard discretionary sanctions. The 1RR rule shall be construed and enforced in a manner that is identical in all respects to the 1RR rule that existed before the motion was enacted. T. Canens (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]