User talk:Domer48

• Pádraig, Rest In Peace a chara - sorely missed - not to be forgotten.

26 + 6 = 1This User knows that Ireland is one country

Today is 15 November 2024

Archives
Archive 1 - February 2007 to December 2007 Archive 2 - Jan 2008 to December 2008 Archive 3

Useful links

3RR Irish Manual of Style MOS & Policy : 3RR ~ AGF ~ CITE ~ Warning templates ~ CIV ~ CON ~ DP ~ DR ~ EQ ~ Fallacies ~ NOR ~ NOT ~ NPA ~ NPOV ~ POINT ~ RS ~ TOPIC ~ V ~ WP:ATT ~ WP:SYN ~ Deletion Policies ~ WP:HOWTO ~ WEASEL

WP:AE

I've proposed modifications to your existing topic ban here please comment.--Tznkai (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

For, amongst other things, attempting to out another editor repeatedly after being told not to by numerous people, your account has been blocked indefinitely. SirFozzie (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Very premature - who did he out. I didnt see him outting anyone. Totally OTT Fozzie.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

VK, I'll shoot you an email. SirFozzie (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Vin, its all done by email these days, I didnt out anyone! Its over to ArbCom now to bring this BS to an end. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sam Korn confirmed the problem, and I do as well.--Tznkai (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Domer is blocked indefinitely (by the same Foz who blocked me indefinitely I note). For what? Was his "crime" worse that mine? (Memory jog; I was three weeks blocked for, basically, nothing). Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are you accused of outing? Why no "diffs"? We need some explanations here pretty damn quick. Sarah777 (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Providing details on who Domer48 is outing/bullying would defeat the purpose of blocking him, because of his threaten to out, now doesn't it? An outside admin/checkuser confirmed the issue at hand, if you don't trust Fozzie, and I assume you don't trust me, try trusting him.--Tznkai (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, some statements for you to look at:

I have never ever threatened to reveal the real life identity of another editor, ever! --Domer48_'fenian' 08:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you [meaning me] just emailed me to attempt to give evidence to try and out another editor, I continue to support these topic restrictions. MBisanz ^talk 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have your [SirFozzie] email, can you emailuser me so I can forward? It was a clear threat that if I did not withdraw my support for sanctions on Domer, he would out another editor. MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been privately shown some of the evidence that resulted in this block and I agree that it is proportionate and necessary. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC) (My highlighting)

"proportionate and necessary" - that quite frankly is a load of balls! he didnt revel anyones real details. --Vintagekits (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

One diff, here uninvolved?--Domer48_'fenian' 09:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I too have been privately shown the emails that are being used to justify this block and NO I can't see any attempt to out another editor and I feel they should be posted on wiki I am that confident that there was no intention to out the real life identity of any editor. BigDunc^Talk 13:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Domer. I am not aware of the details of this, so can't comment either way. If the information you shared with MBisanz was what led to these sanctions, for whatever reason, then sharing them with other editors is probably not going to help you. I think you would be better served going straight to ArbCom by email, since its highly unlikely anyone is going to unblock you without being in possession of all the information. Rockpocket 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Domer48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would definitively undertake not to out anybody, nor to connect any present accounts to past account.

Decline reason:

I have to decline this for the moment, due to concerns. Other admins, please do not unblock without first contacting the blocking admin. — Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A denial is all well and good. It would be a stronger unblock request if you undertook definitively not to out anybody, nor to connect any present accounts to past account. I am guessing that is already your intention, but it would not hurt you in any way to say so. Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jehochman I see what you mean, and your right that was my intention. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit your unblock request. It will be reassuring to show that you understand the requirement not to do such things. I have reached out to the blocking admin to discuss this. If you don't mind, can we wait a bit and see how he responds? I've seen the email and think this block might be a misunderstanding, and hence, unnecessary. Jehochman ^Talk 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That is really decent of you Jehochman, thanks it’s a welcome change. I’ll do that now.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be remaining concerns. I recommend you email the admins you have contact with to try to straighten things out. Jehochman ^Talk 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Jehochman, is it any Admin in particular who has expressed concern or all three? If they wish to email me, being at a disadvantage, I’m unaware what those concerns are, I’ll be more than will to address each and every one. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Conditional unblock proposal

Don't ask me why, but I've just had a long chat with the blocking admin. Based on the above assurance that there will be no further "outing" attempts (on or off wiki), it seems that the following set of conditions would likely lead to an unblock, should you agree:

• You are strongly encouraged to participate in the mediation process.
• You may edit article talk pages in a positive way with the intention of moving articles forward, and without personal attacks or BLP violations during the course of the mediation. Tendentious editing, personal attacks or BLP violations are zero-tolerance, and in the unlikely event they are needed, blocks will start at one week and double in length for repeated breaches.
• Your return to article editing will be in accordance with the proposal outlined by User:Tznkai on the WP:AE page (link to be added after that thread is archived). Successful AGF participation in the mediation process will likely lead to a return to editing once the mediation session is concluded, regardless of whether it is through the recommendation of the mediator, or through a review of sanction at WP:AE.

If you are willing to undertake abiding by the above conditions, I believe that SirFozzie will be willing to lift the indefinite block. Please respond here on your talk page, so there's no question who said what - and also because it's likely either SirFozzie or another admin will respond further to you as I am about to go offline for an extended period. --Risker (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of points:

Why is the unblock conditional? I agreed "I would definitively undertake not to out anybody, nor to connect any present accounts to past account." I did not threaten to “out” any editor, and most definitely did not threaten MBisanz. I'm more than willing to take Jehochman advice and consider it to be “a misunderstanding” and let it go.

• I have agreed to participate in the mediation process, a number of times, and would look forward to it, indeed welcome it.

• I agree that tendentious editing, personal attacks or BLP violations should have a zero-tolerance. I always edit according to policy and no editor has said that I have engaged in personal attacks or BLP violations.

• Tznkai’s proposals on AE are a completely separate issue on a completely different subject. How and why are they being linked to this unblock request? To link a block based on “a misunderstanding” to the AE proposals is curious?

In an effort to move forward, I would suggest a Request for Comment on the current AE outlining the issues and concerns and arriving at an agreed set of proposals. I have made some considerable efforts to facilitate this by providing the Diff’s for the discussion at Review of edits on UDR and will place them here for your connivance. Having reviewed this I would welcome and appreciate any and all advice offered on how I can continue to improve my editing and talk page skills.

Thank you for taking the time and the trouble to help it is very much appreciated. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Jehochman, I have to date not received any emails from anyone outlining their concerns for me, as you mentioned above. I have emailed one of the Admin’s outlining mine, and hope to hear back soon, as this has gone on long enough. I would have absolutely no problem with you having a look at any un-published concerns and give me your opinion publicly or privately. I would prefer the former, as there is too much of this of wiki discussion and there is nothing I not happy to share with the rest of the community.

Now Risker has outlined a conditional unblock proposal. One condition of it was that I accept Tznkai’s proposals on AE. Dunc has suggested an amendment on AE to those proposals and Tznkai has says they have no objection to the amendment. I’m now willing to accept all of the conditions outlined by Risker. I not happy about it at all, but if it moves this on so be it. Below is the conditions:

Proposals (Amended)

• BigDunc and Thunderer are under 0RR restriction until a mediator reports BigDunc and Thunderer have entered formal mediation.

• Domer48 will join mediation, but under a strict indefinite topic ban on Ulster Defence Regiment and subpages thereof, and a strict 1 or 0RR on all other Troubles related articles in addition to voluntary terms with the mediator.

• If in the opinion of a 3 editors referee panel, in consultation with the mediator, Domer48 has successfully participated in mediation, Domer48's topic ban is rescinded.

The aforementioned referee panel will consist of Avruch (talk • contribs), Tiptoety (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), Nishkid64 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

Not part of the proposal per se, but the article specific 1RR restrictions as applied by previous AE thread are continued, but should be revisited later--Tznkai (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

--Domer48_'fenian' 15:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

just stating here that I have read this, but I am going it over again to make sure I didn't miss anything.--Tznkai (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as the issues with Domer editing the Troubles, I think this is adequate, more than really. I'm not convinced yet that Domer understands what got him into hot water with the indef block though, and I'm unwilling to unblock him until I've received some sort of assurance that he gets it, or at least knows how to modify his behavior. (Domer: feel free to e-mail me if you want to argue with me using the sensitive details)--Tznkai (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why?

If there is nothing but vague circumstantial (or some such) "evidence" against Domer, why is he still blocked? "To link a block based on “a misunderstanding” to the AE proposals is curious" . It certainly is; and that is exactly what happened me. I reverted a "merge" (deletion) that was executed without following proper procedure (in an area that had absolutely nothing to do with The Troubles, Ireland/Britain or anything remotely related) - got blocked indefinitely by Fozzie and then ended up blocked for weeks while they pondered my "civility"; which was totally unrelated to the initial block. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why Domer should be unblocked

I have now been sent quite a lot of information and it seems to me what happened was that in the interests of a level playing field Domer emailed an Admin who was taking part in an ANI discussion with other Admins (who had more information at their fingertips) and said something to the effect of "You do know account A is account B right?" That is not outing at all, but quite different. I have certainly received and sent such emails myself in the past and expect to continue to do so, some such emails have been sent to me by very important Wikipedians indeed. One example springs immediately to mind when such actions finally brought to an end an entire POV army of socks and clones - Admins and checkusers were quite happy for such speculation to be emailed on that occasion. As usual some Troubles' Admin has jumped the gun again. If something soon isn't done to supervise The Troubles, its admins and editors the pages may as well be deleted - all of them. I for one don't know what to trust and believe in them, I expect others feel the same. I hope some Admin reading this will now have the sense to unblock Domer. Giano (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I sort of tried to unblock him but got signals originating from Sam Korn (Checkuser) and conveyed to me by SirFozzie that there were non-pubishable concerns. Therefore, I denied the unblock request and told Domer48 to take up the block with the relevant admins by email. I have seen the email which is allegedly a threat to out, and it isn't in my view. Hopefully the blocking admin and the Checkusers will get together soon and arrange an unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 15:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unpublishable and secret seems to be the current excuse of the moment for getting one's own way, perhaps it is taking over from incivility as the new way for enemy disposal. Giano (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never had any dealings with Sam Korn (Checkuser), and I’m at a loss to know what their concerns are? Now I was offered a conditional unblock, which I have accepted. Is it now the case that there are additional hurdles I have to jump through? I didn’t attempt to out anyone. I didn’t threaten MBisanz with anything. I’ve accepted conditions linked to a separate issue. I’m accepting conditions imposed on me without any justification for them being put forward in the first place. What more could anyone want? If the conditions for unblock were not enough, why were they put forward? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

They want to punish you Domer. To teach you a lesson. Why was I blocked for 3 weeks even after it was admitted the original block was a mistake? Same reason. They dragged up the "civility" weapon from ancient history and spent 3 weeks "agonising" in some internal game-play (for which, according to Fozzie I should be greatful!). Bottom line - don't mess with the in-crowd. Sarah777 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how big is this "in crowd?"--Tznkai (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I will ping the blocking admin. Perhaps he is just offline. Jehochman ^Talk 16:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm going to give some general background, since so much of the cat is already out of the bag. Domer has been specifically warned against saying account A is account B to begin with, unambiguously and totally. Not in general mind you, in this particular A and B. This information is not supposed to be shared. I am willing to release the full context of the e-mails to any checkuser (who have essentially been cleared for private or in this case, semi private information.) Unfortunately, the one checkuser who could really step in and give us some sort of clarity is Alison, who was involved in this early on, who is on indefinite wikibreak, and has by most accounts, been through hell. I have been avoiding bothering her because of compassion for her situation. I would like for her to remain on break if and until she comes back to Wikipedia of her own accord.

Now, Domer and I were in e-mail communication, and the topic of a past abusive action of Domer's came up. In the course of the discussion, the "A is B" issue came up in a particularly hostile manner, and Domer demanded that I make Mbisanz remove a certain comment on wiki. I told Domer to ask him himself, Domer sent that e-mail, and Mbisanz interpreted it as Domer threatening to reveal A as B on wiki, an interpretation that is reasonable, and also can be seen in his e-mails with me.

A couple salient details I wish to mention. First, this is an old issue where Domer was told repeatedly to drop it, and that his efforts have in the past been interpreted by an outside admin (Alison) as bullying. This is a large part of why the involved admins, myself Mbisanz and SirFozzie have reacted strongly: this looks like a repeat offense. Second, while there is some room for interpretation, on who Domer was trying to bully, it is clear from the context of the e-mails that Domer was trying to bully someone. Third, Domer has an out: the Arbitration Committee, and to which I add that Domer has already threatened to file a case against me, so he might as well avail himself of it, since he apparently believes that he is right, I am wrong, and the ArbCom will see the light the same way. Fourth, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case Domer was already on thin ice his protestations to the contrary aside, his contribution log (and for that matter, block log) have shown Domer's repeated poor behavior, which has been itemised by myself and others before. Note the additional voices of yet another outside admin laying down sanctions, and two admins tried their best to help only to be chewed out. If this is a conspiracy, its a really huge one.

Finally, if Domer gives permission, I am willing to post the contents of my emails with him, except for the identities of A and B.--Tznkai (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To Giano's point: we need people on ArbCom who have different points of view. The current committee seems much too prone to circling the wagons when there is criticism. Yes, "secret evidence" can be a convenient excuse for tyranny, or it might be a legitimate concern. If the community had more trust in the people who held the secret evidence, and if there were stronger checks and balances (e.g. Arbs who might actually disagree with each other in public), that would be a good thing. Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that Jehochman. We have Admins happily banning editors because they claim they are suspected socks of banned editors. Now we have Domer blocked, not for outing anyone, but (apparently) for saying that "Handle A = Handle B". I imagine North Korea is run along similar lines, though perhaps with less defensivness in the ruling caste. Sarah777 (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that all emails be posted up here and simply A and B certain names. I gave an undertaking to an Admin that I would desist in a particular line of discussion. I kept to it and let it drop. Now it was Tznkai, in the absence of any justification for their proposed sanctions raised this particular issue into the discussion. I emailed them and told them I was unable to respond and told them why. I’d given an undertaking on this. I asked them to remove their comments and they did. This is missing from Tznkai’s account above. MBisanz who like Tznkai could not justify the proposed sanctions, they in fact had to strike some of their proposed evidence, and refused to strike the rest despite Alison’s intervention, started to proceed down the same road as Tznkai. I emailed Tznkai and asked them to say it to MBisanz, and ask them to ask MBisanz to remove their reference to it, and was told to do it myself. That’s exactly what I did.

MBisanz response was to make a post on the discussion making accusations, and on their talk page.

I was then indef blocked.

Now Alison has described me as a super editor, despite some major differences of opinion. Like Alison, despite our differences I too have defended her when banned editors have made attacks, and I have been quite forceful in my defence. Now I don’t think it would reveal any editors account if the email I sent MBisanz was posted here, by applying the A and B. Let the community decide.

So lets deal with the unblock, and if Tznkai wants to continue the discussion with ArbCom on the other matters I’ve no problem at all. If at all, it should be done in the open, so both the community and ourselves can learn from our mistakes. I agree completely with both Jehochman and Giano with their comments above. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to clear email contents with every editor involved before posting it on wiki.--Tznkai (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

E-mails almost entirely in their original here User:Tznkai/desk/Reports/Domer48 October 27 Ban--Tznkai (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I read the Tznkai link as part of reading myself into this case; the arrogance of Tznkai's tone in that exchange is breathtaking. "When this recent AE came up Moreschi and Angus McLellan immediately singled you out. Doesn't that strike you as indicitive of something?". Yeah, sure does T'kai. But not what you seem to be suggesting. Sarah777 (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll read through them? Could you please put up the email that was used to indef block me? Thats the one editor what to see? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you email me the bits you left out, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 19:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

clear it with Mbisanz, and do you not keep e-mail archives?--Tznkai (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, it’s Mbisanz that has me here. They get an editor an indef block and don’t take part in this discussion. Why not “ping” them and invite them to contribute. I have given the ok for the email to be produced. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this entire discussion and no, I did not get you blocked. I commented on an email you sent me, another trusted admin asked for a copy of it, I sent him a copy, and without consulting me further, he blocked you. MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hang on look at your comments above that you posted, thats what got me blocked. Now do you want to put the email with the threats or will I do it for you. Going by your post above, I would have blocked an editor. Now could you please post it for the community to decide. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's your email, I can't release your copyright by posting it onwiki. MBisanz ^talk 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats grand, I've already ok'ed it. So could an Admin with it, or I'll email it to them, do the A and the B on it, just so it is done right thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 19:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Domer just copy and paste it and change the A and B section. I'm sure if you tried to change anything else you will be swiftly pilled on it. BigDunc^Talk 20:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The email I sent:

"MBisanz are you the only one who dose not know yet that A is B? Withdraw your last comment, remove it. I have given an undertaking not to raise the matter, therefore I’m not in a position to respond. Check the history of the discussion, tznkai has removed their comments already. Thanks D"

Thats what I got indef blocked for, and that is the threats I was supposed to have made. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, and somewhat disconcertingly, I find myself (partly) agreeing with Giano. Perhaps I am missing something, but I really can't see how, from the email above, one could come to the conclusion that "It was a clear threat that if I did not withdraw my support for sanctions on Domer, he would out another editor." In fact Domer explicitly states the opposite, ("I have given an undertaking not to raise the matter, therefore I’m not in a position to respond."). Is this really the only basis on which the block was enacted, or is there more to this that we are unaware of because of privacy concerns? If its the former, then I do think this is a horrible misunderstanding. We should unblock and get back to the issue at hand. If its the latter, then having a discussion with half the pertinent information isn't going to help. In that case everything should be presented to ArbCom and we should let them decide. Rockpocket 01:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I read that as Domer was telling me to remove my support of a sanction on him, or he would no longer honor his position of not raising another user's identity. But I didn't block, another uninvolved administrator blocked based on his reading of that email and apparently other information of which I am unaware. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I can maybe see how one could find an implied threat there, but surely you can also appreciate that, taking it at face value, it could equally be a request to remove the information because he gave his word and therefore can't respond to it. In my experience Domer tends to be quite blunt, if he was going to give you that sort of ultimatum, he would done so perfectly openly.

I appreciate that you didn't block, but your comment would certainly appear to precipitate that course of action ("a clear threat ... he would out another editor"). Like you, I too am unaware of other information, but would you concur that on this evidence alone the block could be the result of a misinterpretation? If so would you agree that the burden is on this other evidence to justify the block? Rockpocket 02:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There is possibly a misinterpretation of exactly who Domer was trying to bully, but I have no doubt in my mind he was trying to bully someone. Second, and more pressingly, "A is B" is a taboo subject for Domer, and he knows it, having been told point blank to let it go, which explains the zero tolerance. As to WHY he's been told to let it go, that falls within the "other information' category. Domer's been skating on thin ice, and he was warned by Alison, an admin he apparently respects: but he isn't apparently quite getting it. Third, and this is most important: Domer still does not understand (at least by my estimation) that he screwed up bringing up the issue ever. Domer's past on this issue has been abusive, and he is apparently immune to the criticism he has been given from all quarters, including those he respects, that what he did was bullying and totally out of line. It is this display of attitude that explains why Domer was banned indefinitely, and why that ban should remain until he shows he has at least somewhat gotten it.

As a note, the work on AE that precipitated this e-mail is somewhat a separate issue, or at least could have been, but they were resultant of entangled events. I personally am satisfied that Domer deserves a chance at mediation and productive editing, but I am not satisfied yet that he understands why three immediate admins and then a completely outside party all interpreted Domer as using the "A is B" line as bullying. So, could I, Mbisanz and SirFozzie misinterpreted Domer's statement? Certainly, but much of that lies at Domer's feet with his unrepentant attitude and history of abuse on the subject.--Tznkai (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There is possibly a misinterpretation of exactly who, or what Domer was trying to bully, but I have no doubt in my mind he was trying to bully someone. Have you any idea how ludicrous that sounds? Sarah777 (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I put "or what" in there, but thats about it.--Tznkai (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If you aren't sure what you are talking about you'll appreciate why we aren't. Sarah777 (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Tznkai. Not being party to the other information, I can't really comment further. I just hope it gets sorted out. Rockpocket 04:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rock there is no other information! If there is, put it up for the Community to review. I still have one issue, and I would like advice on it, my email is open. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Time to end this NOW

I've read through everything now. There is simply no case at all against Domer. I demand that some Admin (including you Rock) lift his block NOW. Pronto. Not tomorrow, not in 10 minutes. Now. Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Then we should start investigating the Admins involved in the block. I have serious concerns about several of them. Sarah777 (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just give me a second while I pick up my pickfork and round up a willing mob.... Please Sarah, this isn't helpful. If a mistake has been made, then it will be resolved. But the principle actors are spread across the world and as such it will take some time to get to the bottom of things. Based on what we have read here, I agree that it does seem unwarranted. But rather than presume that its an other example of bias against Irish editors, or even an unfortunate crossing of wires, consider that it is possible that there is more to it than this. Lets wait until we hear from those editors whose interactions led to the block before acting. Rockpocket 02:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember Rock, I've been in that dock. I've Zero Tolerance for dodgy Administration. It is easy for someone on the sidelines to be calm, but some of us are getting really really fed-up of all this. (I attach no personal blame to you Rock; we see simply things through a different lens I guess). Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There is not going to be a unilateral unblock without terms that address the problem behavior. Tznkai, Risker, myself, and a couple other admins are trying to come up with a set of terms that will allow Domer to edit productively. SirFozzie (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Domer, they are saying you are guilty. Personally Foz, I think he was editing more productively before you blocked him. I could be wrong of course. Sarah777 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it help if I put "without unduly disrupting the encyclopedia" at the end of my statement, Sarah? I've actually communicated a suggested set of terms to a couple people with similar views to Domer to see what they think.. I want to get their feedback (see if it's a non-starter, too restrictive, not restrictive enough, etcetera) before I post them publicly. SirFozzie (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What can I say Foz? - that wording is much better:) If Domer feels he can agree to terms I certainly won't encourage him not too and he seems pretty willing to accept anything that will get him out of prison. If you get something Domer accepts I'll not protest, but there is really no excuse for delay beyond 24 hours; my fear is this could run to weeks, as my case did. Sarah777 (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to sleep sometime you know ;) But if the two people I sent it to give it the thumbs up (one of them actually suggested something similar), I'll post it sometime this evening your time. Trust me, I want Domer back too. I'm tired of all of this.. when Domer and I were discussing this via email, we talked about all the names of editors who've fought these wars, and are no longer on WP (either left, or shown the door). There were too many names on that list to be happy about another one possibly joining them. SirFozzie (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Two points:

• Why did Risker offer me a conditional unblock proposal only for it now to be removed. Removed after I accepted all of Tznkai's conditions? Why have I not been unblocked? What has this block to do with anything else, was the block correct or not? A number of Admin's and Editors consider it to be wrong, and yet the ones who imposed it have to decide what conditions they want to impose?

• Tznkai, you and me should visit ArbCom, because your consistent accusations are wearing thin. Is there any Admin / Editor willing to act as a neutral third party? I will present my views, supported by Diff's and Tznkai presents theirs (with diff's) and we let the community decide? The one question I would like answered is, what did I do wrong? If I don't know what I'm supposed to have done wrong, how can I address it? --Domer48_'fenian' 09:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Having logged in for the first time in 18 hours I find it incredible that Domer is still blocked. All on the say-so of a bunch of junior Admins, not even one of our illustrius Arbs. The email is banal and obviously been passed arownd "in box-to in box" with added provisos and interpretations which have grown like a game of Chinese wispers until no one is sure exactly what it is supposed to mean, which is probably exactly what it says. For God's sake stop acting like a bunch of prats and unblock him now. Giano (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat offended by this, and not by the part where you say we're acting like a bunch of prats. Also, I can't understand why you think that demanding and insulting people will make this move any faster forward.--Tznkai (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting that if some third party, over whom Domer has no control, insults you (Admins, plural) that you'll make it more difficult for the prisoner? Please clarify. I'm banking on Fozzie lifting the block zip fast when he comes back tonight. Sarah777 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Domer, if you want to request arbitration, I'm certain a sympathetic or neutral experienced Wikipedian can assist you.--Tznkai (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock review, further info

I declined Domer48's unblock request based on a review of the situation.[1] I have continued asking for information to ensure that my decision was the correct one. My understanding:

1. There is a history of abuse, including the involvement of real life matters (confirmed by a Checkuser).
2. Some of the evidence has been Oversighted, so we cannot explain things fully here.
3. There is also a history of edit warring.

These facts have been represented to me by multiple reliable parties. I suggest that Domer48 contact ArbCom if they wish further review of the situation. Admins should not unblock without fully understanding the facts of the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I got asked as an Arbitrator, to look at this just now. A quick review of the discussion above suggests the following:

1. Jehochman asks that no action is taken until the evidence that he states exists, is considered. This is reasonable, if such evidence exists, and should be a very quick point to resolve. Jehochman - please forward it now or tell me where to look for it. Feel free to sum up what issues you feel exist if any that are not reflected fully in the above discussions. I'll comment on its significance when I've read it, so there is as much transparency as possible. I may check with others before commenting.
2. The emails and statements above that are attributed to Domer48 can probably be read both ways. To read them one way or another is not an act of malice. What the discussion does suggest is that personal information was released, and there is a concern the user may repeat it in future or engage in other troubling conduct. It also suggests that Domer is willing to agree upon a set of reasonable conditions about future conduct that will meet the concerns of the community and will allow him to resume editing.
3. Sarah, a case where there may be private or oversighted evidence due to privacy breach or the like, can take some time to resolve. Your requests for pitchforks all round and stating there is a wish to "punish" is not helpful [2], nor is it consistent with the above posts many of which show experienced admins aiming to understand and resolve the concerns. The policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith - and it is an enduring policy, not a mere option - applies to you every bit as much as others.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

FT2; thanks for reminding us that Wiki policies apply to everyone. It would be very easy to forget that if one went merely on the evidence of one's eyes. It seems to me based on Jehochman's summary above that he is actually admitting that Domer was blocked for an offence (outing) for which there is no evidence but that now Domer's release is conditional on things like "there is a history of edit warring". Am I reading Jehochman's comment incorrectly? If not, this bears a striking parallel to my own case and certainly would undermine my ability to indiscriminatly assume good faith. (I'm assumimg you are not suggest that we must assume good faith even in situations where that becomes rationally impossible?). What I'm trying to do is to establish good faith in a case where my assumption of it appears to have possibly been wrong. As for your comment that the email "could be read both ways", the only version of the email I've read couldn't, in good faith, be read two ways. In my opinion. Sarah777 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How the hell have multiple reliable parties come to this conclusion is beyond me. Why is everything being done here behind closed doors. The emails have all been made public from what I can see nowhere is Domer attempting to out another editor in fact on the contary. Edit warring has been mentioned here too this is a ruse as it was never mentioned as the reason for the indef block and as for Oversighted information I am very sceptical that this in fact happened. Could the oversighter please confirm that content has in fact been oversighted where Domer has I pressume outed, as why would you oversight if not to protect the real life identity of another editor. Someone here is telling lies and it needs to be sorted rapidly. BigDunc^Talk 15:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If Domer made a comment that was so bad it needed oversight then why was he not blocked straight away? BigDunc^Talk 15:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of matters that we're trying to find out, all of us. There may be good reason for concern, there may not. The quick answer to your questions are - 1/ privacy and harassment matters including allegations will often need to be handled off-wiki to some extent or even entirely. That's to prevent harm and protect users who may be named or affected; 2/ We're trying to pin down these answers as we speak, and will do so as soon as Jehochman and others provide details. If it were believed likely that some non-public or oversighted information is involved, then they could not provide these details until an arbitrator or other user with Oversight access was around, hence part of the likely delay; 3/ If there is in fact no further significant evidence about any problem beyond the few comments posted above, I'll say so. 4/ One reason something may be oversighted and the user not blocked is for example, a comment may look innocuous and be oversighted, and yet if the user did repeat it, it may be start to look like evidence of repeated carelessness/"fast and loose" with others private information. 5/ WP:AGF - those users handling this are themselves trying to address concerns. There is no basis above to assume their handling is motivated by bad faith, other than reasonable concerns of the form "I don't see why there is a block" or "How did they conclude this". Which of course depends on interpretation and information, which may not all be on wiki. Which is what we're finding out... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Domer - please hold on a little, I'm looking into this. If there are any questions or there is information thats relevant, and others' privacy is involved, I may email you with it rather than post it here. I'll do so as soon as I hear from those I've asked for their information, above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Last night I looked at a proposal for conditional unblock that seemed entirely appropriate, and fully expected to see it posted here and approved this morning. I have no idea why this has been escalated to the point that an arbitrator has had to get involved; the issues were not nearly as complex as that. Sorry, Domer. Risker (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick update - I've just checked and found there are possibly relevant oversighted edits logged. They were not from within the last week, and without discussing with someone familiar with the case, I am not able to determine their relevance, or what if anything they may signify. But yes, there have been privacy-oversights, yes, user privacy is a correct use of oversight (it's one reason it was created), and yes, waiting for an administrator with oversight access or arbitrator to review them, is therefore appropriate, if those edits may be relevant. Still waiting for more explanation on any private matters to determine whether anything relevant to the block comes out of this, though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a case of too many cooks here. If those edits were oversighted more than a week ago, they are not relevant; Domer48 was only blocked 4 days ago, with respect to off-wiki emails he sent on that day. Risker (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though the too many cooks are very busy cooking! Giano (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Noting here that I've forwarded FT2 what information I have access to.--Tznkai (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and for the benefit of those sweet little Admins discussing blocking me on IRC, I am not about to fo "ballistic" at all - so don't trouble yourselves, just carry on amusing me, one of the few things those particular Admins do do well Giano (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What have you done Giano? Blocked for what? Sarah777 (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently: "Someone should tell Giano to butt out. His presence doesn't help, and is likely to invoke his civility restriction shortly." Giano (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah! A pre-emptive strike the Americans call that. It seems that as Domer's block for "outing" is running into evidence-deficit territory he is now being held for what he might do based on what he might have done in unrelated matters like "edit-warring". Sarah777 (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are all puzzling on what he has done - I expect it is super secret. Giano (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What?

What the bloody blue blazes is going on here? Before I went to bed, I sent an email to Dunc and someone else (I don't have their ok) regarding proposed terms to unblock, and when I woke up 15 minutes ago, I was fully expecting to be able to present them to Domer, and then unblock. Now things are worse then they were before.. let's all take a minute to breathe. Domer, if you promise not to get to angry at me for suggesting them, I'll post them here, now. SirFozzie (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh get onto IRC there is more discussion there. Giano (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Such discussions shouldn't be occuring on IRC. They should be here (at Wikipedia), for everyone to read. Wikipedia matters should be dealt with on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it was more a discussion on the possibility of taking me out of the equation. Do you want the logs? It's totally stupid that Domer is still blocked, and as usual it is me that has to point it out. Giano (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a bit of a queue has formed to do that! Foz; you will have to cease issuing "indefinite" blocks. It seems you lose control of the situation afterward. Sarah777 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And this edit is Fozzie [3] is rather late in the day, you shpuld have thought of the consequeces first. Why not just blow the storm out and unblock him, all this talk of secrecy is getting out of hand, my imagination is running riot so God knows what will be being said on IRC in a couple of hours the way they play Chinese whispers there. Giano (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, unless you have something others do not have (see Scott's quote elsewhere) your imagination IS running riot. I did think of the consequences, Giano. SirFozzie (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid "Scott" is telling fibs elsewhere. I expect you are all hoping I will post the logs, then you can block me. Anyway we are rather deviating from poor Domer. Giano (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed unblock terms

I was waiting for an indication from Dunc that he had received my email, but since that's not forthcoming. (he's probably smart and out having a pint on a Friday night. Actually wish I could join him if that's the case!)

Suggested terms:

A) Domer either gets a mentor or joins the ongoing mediation
B) Semi-topic ban.. (Dunc actually suggested this, banning him from articles relating to the modern Troubles (1969 and onwards, but allowing him to work on Irish History articles, etcetera), To be reviewed let's say.. at the end of the year?
C) 0 RR/1RR (various folks suggested either)

So, you may begin tearing me apart now if you so wish. SirFozzie (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, in general. I'm not a big fan of 0RR, as I've seen it gamed far too often, but probably could live with 1RR. I do strongly recommend active, and heartfelt, participation in the mediation. I also would strongly urge Domer48 to spend a little more time in other areas of the encyclopedia; it's very easy to develop a form of tunnel vision when working in narrow areas. Working in a variety of areas will help change the focus from being an editor of Irish topics who happens to edit Wikipedia to a Wikipedia editor who happens to work on Irish topics. Risker (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Support BThunderer (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

They're all inclusive, Thunderer, a full set, not picking one of them. :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Support A; oppose B and C. We all need a mentor. How is a 'topic ban' or '1RR' related to a charge of "outing" someone? What is the crime here for which we are discussing the punishment? Sarah777 (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, then oppose unless Domer asks me to support the package. Sarah777 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, just to be clear. Domer is already under a full topic ban, unrelated to the block. He has indicated that, as far as he is concerned, that is equivalent to a site ban. The proposal above reduces the topic ban; I rather doubt he is going to oppose that. All of the articles he regularly edits are already subject to 1RR. As I recall, Domer48 has already more or less agreed to mediation; mentoring is another option, provided he can find a suitable mentor—and by suitable, I mean an editor in good standing, who has little or no involvement in articles related to Irish topics. He's coming out ahead on this. Risker (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposal I put on AE were I would propose an article ban on the UDR page and a strict 1 or 0RR on all other Troubles releated articles. Also Domer joins myself and Thunderer in mediation and let the mediators and the referee panel decide if he has changed his editing patterns this was endorsed by Tznkai. I emailed Fozz and ask if he would agree to the terms I had put to AE and he said no. So I wouldn't endorse the current proposal by Fozz. I feel this whole drama can be sorted out and I said it before is all is needeed is an Admin to step up to the plate and enforce policy. As regards bullying I totally disagree with the claim as it was put to me too without a single diff produced to back up the claim. Now I see it is being brought up again without diffs this is nonsense. BigDunc^Talk 19:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no diffs from emails, BigDunc. Risker (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Risker but what emails? Are you saying now that there are emails that prove bullying. BigDunc^Talk 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to inform editors the proposals I made are all stemming from the AE were Fozz topic banned myself Domer and The Thunderer and are not to be seen as a way to get this bad block lifted. BigDunc^Talk 19:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Update

I have now had emails from Tznkai, Jehochman and SirFozzie, and broadly, they all do agree now and the case makes more sense. My reading of the back history of this case is that because of these reasons, it was possible in good faith for different users to interpret the case in different ways. This is the summary I have so far:

Domer48 is an editor on "The Troubles". He and others have been disruptive in the past, enough to be topic banned in this heated area. He feels his edits were not as disruptive as some suggest; others disagree - a common enough problem in editing disputes. My own view tends to suggest the past editing was disruptive. As part of that past editing, Domer was highlighted as taking part in bullying and possible outing of a user with a genuine reason to wish for pseudonymity, as many users in "The Troubles" may have. Alison helped to handle this case.

In the current block, there were concerns about privacy again, and combined with the use of the word "oversight" and misinterpretation of an email, it led to concerns he was outing people, had implied he would, or was going to. These were serious concerns, and could not be fully checked by administrators since some material was believed to possibly be oversighted as well. When there is reasonable belief in a concern of this kind, administrators sometimes block to prevent disruption or harm, with a view to agreeing reasonable conditions to allow an unblock, per WP:INDEF. This is what was done. The concern that there was oversighted material led to a slight delay while an Oversighter or Arbitrator was found, leading some to speculate hidden agendas.

It seems that upon review, there are no unknown issues here and any agreement on future conduct can therefore proceed. Domer48 hopefully will understand this as an indication how seriously respect for other editors is taken, and will exercise great care in future, after editing resumes.

Additional background information:

1. There was a case of bullying/wiki-harassment in the none-too-distant past, and serious "Troubles"-related WP:OWN issues. Domer48 is represented as being one of the primary players in the bullying issue, and as being also told to cease (and didn't). The user he is said to have bullied had genuine real-world reason to be concerned about outing issues (or at least wishing to stay private), like many other users who edit on The Troubles do. A number of users including Domer48 were topic-banned in relation to that matter. The bullying may or may not be historic at this point. Domer has come up more than once at WP:AE.
2. Emails between Domer48 and Tznkai in the last week, submitted in private to me as an Arbitrator, reflect and support these impressions; after checking, they confirm Domer has been of concern as an editor (and denies it), but also he has shown willingness to consider conditions or restrictions that would help keep him out of problems.
3. Tznkai confirms he used the word "oversight" to signify usual reviewing of the indef block, not in regard to oversighted edits. Jehochman has emailed me with an indication of the history, but does not include links to any oversighted edits either.
4. Tznkai states: "In the meantime, Mbisanz, who was also aware of the above, having also received an e-mail from Alison [who handled the initial harassment/outing issue], also made the comment that Domer had been abusive in the past. Domer demanded that I tell Mbisanz to remove the edit, and I told Domer to ask him himself. Domer sent the e-mail to Mbisanz, who interpreted it as a threat to out the editor on Wiki, (which I maintain was reasonable), SirFozzie, also aware of the previous incident from Alison (I believe), asked to see the e-mail, and blocked Domer indefinitely, apparently under the belief that Domer was attempting to out the user."
5. It should be emphasized that Domer had been disruptive, and uncaring of other users' privacy, in the recent past of this dispute, and this is a factor when assessing the current block and also in future editing. A number of users in nationalism related disputes, including The Troubles, rely upon relative anonymity. For them, it may be important. Other users need to respect that and if attention does need drawing to A=B, ask an administrator for advice by email.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I may be exceedingly dense; but I'm still unclear exactly what Domer is being punished for. You say that the "outing" charge isn't sustained. Good. But now he is being sanctioned for some older beheaviour that had nothing to do with the block? Is that correct? Sarah777 (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• That would appear to be the long and the short of it. If the first charge doesn't stick then drag up another to save the admin's face.(Yes, I am still here IRC in spite of lies from one of your number) Giano (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed this block, per se. There are enough reviewing admins to do that. The issue is that there was confusion what was going on, the background of it, and what to make of the recent events and "outing" concerns. What I'm doing is summing up what seems to be the actual events and issues related to conduct and privacy, hopefully so that normal discussion of an unblock and any conditions needed on editing, can now resume. It's purely there as information for any user in this discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. My bad. I thought you were delivering a judgement and I couldn't make head nor tail of it! Sarah777 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha -- no, it's just information and summary, because of the concerns that there might be private or oversighted material, and so on. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is something I have become all too familiar with in discussions, which are accusations with no supporting evidence. I’m disappointed that FT2 at no time contacted me for my view before posting. Just maybe, there is another side to the story or that they my not have got the full picture, or possibly another misunderstanding / misinterpretation. I deny the charge of bullying, harassment, disruption and WP:OWN and I can support this view with diff’s. The only thing being presented here is comment and opinion. FT2 could you possibly provide a summary of my issues and concerns? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue I am addressing is not the one you're asking about. I'm addressing two very specific issues here - 1/ Was any private or oversighted information relevant to the block, 2/ With different administrators disagreeing on some points, what exactly has gone on to lead to any misinterpretation? Concerns exist about conduct, and also, you have denied that there is a basis for them. That's mostly part of the background, covered in depth by previous discussions, and is well within the remit of many administrators and other users here to consider as part of the unblock discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so I can keep up here: what is oversighted information? Sarah777 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

FT2's summary agrees with my understanding of events. As the outing issue is finished business, all that remains is to deal with edit warring behavior. SirFozzie has posted unblock conditions above that seem reasonable. I recommend Domer48 accepts them. Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be reasonable to lift the block first and then discuss the sanctions. The block had no foundation? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Domer is quite correct. Giano (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll not wheel war with User:SirFozzie, but I agree that the block should be undone. If there has been edit warring over The Troubles, any administrator can apply the necessary sanctions without Domer48's agreement, though of course it would be better if Domer48 agreed. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

To Domer, the block had no foundation. He was told by several administrators not to do what he did (tie A to B, on OR off WP, so to speak). So to others, the block has a very solid foundation. But that's arguing over a situation that's pretty much resolved. Why do I have the feeling that if we unblocked Domer now, it would be "Show us something AFTER he's been unblocked which would necessitate this?" SirFozzie (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't you just unblock them and apply whatever discretionary sanctions are available and necessary to prevent further edit warring? I see no reason to keep Domer48 blocked in order to compel his agreement to sanctions. An agreement under duress is as useless as a screen door on a submarine. Jehochman ^Talk 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The block was without foundation! Now, if you check the discussion on AE, you will see that it was Tznkai who introduced the subject and not me. I said it to them and they removed the comments. Please lift the block, and we can discuss the sanctions in a reasonable and clam manner. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say no, considering the fact that you rather flagrantly violated the topic ban previously.

But until you hear otherwise, from me, or a consensus of admins on AE:

Terms:A) Domer either gets a mentor or joins the ongoing mediation (Domer's Choice, strongly suggested that he join the mediation) B) Topic ban.. on Irish articles dealing with the modern Troubles, 1969-present day.. to be reviewed at the end of the year, and C) 1RR on ALL articles

Unblock Granted. SirFozzie (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thread by Sarah777

heading added by Jehochman ^Talk

OK, as I thought I saw through the fog a while back, the facts are thus:

• Domer was blocked for "outing" someone or trying to.
• Domer denied the charge and after two days the Admin Community agree the block was a bad one; in the sense that Domer was not guilty of trying to "out" anyone.
• Instead of apologising and unblocking; the Admins go back to past alleged breaches by Domer (for which he was already sanctioned) and now seek to impose additional conditions; for no apparent reason whatsoever?

Am I missing something here guys? Sarah777 (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you certainly are, Sarah. It's not that the block was bad , but that reasonable people are certainly able to see it two seperate ways. Domer may not have meant to "out" A=B with his email, but it certainly appeared to reasonable people. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral observer, this stinks. Double jeapordy. You say that reasonable people are certainly able to see it two separate ways. So then, you're saying that he's guilty of attempting to out someone? If so, sanction his ass. If not, he is innocent. This just looks like a stinker of a case where an admin is slapping sanctions on an editor for an imagined offense with top secret evidence. Doesn't work like that. Let the admins call it first. Guilty = sanctions. Innocent = block lift + apology. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no way any reasonable person could suggest that I a) threatened an Admin to remove sanctions b) threatened to “out” anyone, and c) tried to get an Admin to file a case against anyone. Please let that be the end of it. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Several reasonable people have suggested at least B there, Domer. But you're right. Let it die. Domer, is there any autoblocks we need to worry about? SirFozzie (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen I've got to agree 100% with Domer. Sarah777 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Domer, can you confirm that before this block you were under the following sanctions: (1) Topic ban.. on Irish articles dealing with the modern Troubles, 1969-present day.. to be reviewed at the end of the year, and (2) 1RR on ALL articles? Sarah777 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, he was straight topic banned from ALL irish articles (a ban which he ignored), so he's coming out ahead on the deal, as has been explained to you previously above Sarah. SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You must be patient Fozzie, I'm a bit slow. Will he get an apology for being wrongly blocked for several days? Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If he was wrongly blocked, there would be an apology forthcoming. Since he was not wrongly blocked, there won't be. SirFozzie (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop now. The block was wrong. Forcing sanctions on me to be unblocked was wrong. Now I’m willing to put it down as a misunderstanding. If we are to WP:AGF:assume good faith, it should be accepted as being wrong. Now leave it at that. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not wrong, and I'm not going to let you try to pretend it wasn't. SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

He is blocked for something that it is now agreed he didn't do - but the block was not wrong. Is that what you are saying? Sarah777 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is agreed that a resonable person may conclude he didn't mean to do. Just like a reasonable person may conclude he meant to do. SirFozzie (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Or it just shows that you appear to have a personal vendetta against Domer, and that by "reasonable to conclude he meant to", you actually mean that you are not willing to assume good faith and will be carrying out a future personal vendetta? I'm reading this right, yes? Let's cut to the chase and stop weasel wording. That's what you're really saying. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions

I previously agreed to Riskers unblock proposals, which were proposed by Tznkai, modified by Dunc and placed on AE. The ones I accepted offer the referees a much better opportunity to review my conduct and editing style. I will place both here side by side for editors to review.

These are the ones I accepted:

• Domer48 will join mediation, but under a strict indefinite topic ban on Ulster Defence Regiment and subpages thereof, and a strict *1 or 0RR on all other Troubles related articles in addition to voluntary terms with the mediator.
• If in the opinion of a 3 editors referee panel, in consultation with the mediator, Domer48 has successfully participated in mediation, Domer48's topic ban is rescinded.
• The aforementioned referee panel will consist of Avruch (talk • contribs), Tiptoety (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), Nishkid64 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
• Not part of the proposal per se, but the article specific 1RR restrictions as applied by previous AE thread are continued, but should be revisited later--Tznkai (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2008

These are the ones proposed / imposed:

Terms:

• A) Domer either gets a mentor or joins the ongoing mediation (Domer's Choice, strongly suggested that he join the mediation)

• B) Topic ban.. on Irish articles dealing with the modern Troubles, 1969-present day.. to be reviewed at the end of the year, and

• C) 1RR on ALL articles

Now the question editors my reasonable ask is, why place my self under such strict observation? The answer is, I know I can edit well, and conduct my self in a manner compatible with our policies and guidelines. Another question reasonable editors could ask is why accept sanctions, if you don’t believe you deserve them, and in the absence of any justification for them? The answer is simple and selfish. With this many editors watching me, any hassle and aggravation I get from edit warriors and POV merchants will be noted, and I will receive the protection all editors on wiki deserve and should expect. Now is that not reasonable, and honest? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie do you have a problem with the sanctions that Tznkai and Dunc proposed, and if so could you explain what they are thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was my belief (and Dunc said so in an email to me at the time) that because you didn't know how long the mediation would take, you wouldn't accept a topic ban that could last months. If you prefer what you put up there.. yes, I can acccept that. SirFozzie (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is where we were before the whole block/unblock drama was initiated. Its fairly clear to an outsider this the block was a result of misinterpretation and misunderstanding, rather than mischief. It seems entirely just that Domer be permitted to accept the conditions that were in place at that time. I also think these are better conditions, because they do give Domer the chance to demonstrate that he can part of the solution, while protecting against disruption if he can't. I support giving him that opportunity. Rockpocket 21:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The longer I'm being watched the better for me. Why topic ban me from hundreds of articles, when the problem is on just one? I think that the 0RR should be 1RR like everyone else, and you suggested that yourself. So is that agreed then, Tznkai and Dunc's proposals. Now could someone invite me to mediation, I don't want to gate crash?--Domer48_'fenian' 21:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)