→8:After three months he is allowed to edit fully and normally, although a topic ban on Irish political pages could still prevail.: fixing link in reply to Rockpocket |
Rockpocket (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
::::: 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. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 17:55, 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. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 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. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 18:00, 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. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|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 find the articles that are likely to get him into trouble and thus protect him from himself. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== 9: VK will not use any other sock, accounts or edit in any other way other than as Vintagekits. == |
== 9: VK will not use any other sock, accounts or edit in any other way other than as Vintagekits. == |
Revision as of 18:16, 5 May 2008
Please add your somment 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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.
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)
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 of 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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 find the articles that are likely to get him into trouble and thus protect him from himself. Rockpocket 18:15, 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)
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).
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:
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)
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.
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)