Email With Domer48 edit
Contents copied from plaintext, body only, oldest first. Note: these e-mails were shared with Sam Korn in their full, but no one else until now. Some sections were reworked to avoid names as an exercise of an excess of caution.
Domer48:
Tznkai, you should strike your comments on the sock allegations because as everyone knows who needs to know, B is A . I have given an undertaking to Alison never to raise it again, and she has said she will insure any more allegations against me will have to be supported http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Domer48&diff=242318114&oldid=242314464 . Now I have evidence Alison respects the fact that I did not raise this during the sock report, because of real life identity and I allowed myself to be dragged across the coals. By introducing this now in your comments is very unhelpful and a breech of trust.
While I am under no obligation, I more than will to volunteer not to edit the UDR article, and confine myself to the talk page for 3 months. While on the talk page to participate in mediation, and to accept mentorship from an agreed Admin respected by both parties. So I not unreasonable, and I am willing to compromise. Thanks D
Tznkai:
I've redacted the offending comments as well as your reply in response to them. However, you were told, repeatedly to drop it, and you refused to. You asked for my proof that you've been disruptive, and that was it. That inicdent is a major part of why you're on a short leash. I am willing to deal with aspect that off wiki, but only as a show of good faith.
--Tznkai
Tznkai:
Would you rather continue negotiations here, or on wiki by the way? I'm going to note, that if there is a prevailing consensus even with you against, it can be imposed, thats how the general 1RRs happened, but obviously I'd prefer you agree, or at least grudgingly accept whatever settelement is involved.
--Tznkai
Domer48
Without the sock report, your allegations will not stand up to any scrutiny, and is outside the scope of this discussion. However, if the sock report is to form the basis of your complaint I will have to forward the emails to the Troubles Arbcom members as part of any appeal to sanctions imposed.
Consensus on proposed sanctions would have to be supported by diff's illustrating wrong doing. The time frame is from the sanctions on AE to the blocking of the article. Note, all personal sanctions on me were lifted after the AE. I like to think it was based on the volume of supporting diff's I provided. Emails I received would suggest this, and I was grateful for the support offered by some Admin's.
Now it is obvious, that I have not done anything wrong. If it takes a RfC to establish this, so be it. I've had one email asking if I'd object to having one filed on how this was handled, which I have declined. I'm holding out on common sense prevailing.
All Admin / Editors who agreed with sanctions were asked to support their opinions and all bar two declined. Of those who did offer supporting diff's one said they wanted no more to do with it, and the other had to strike their comments when it was illustrated to them that they were mistaken. Were do you suggest you'd get consensus based on the current situation?
Now I have no problem dealing with this via email, but I really think is past time the current discussion was folded up. It is only going to make us all look like fools if it carries on, and we both know that the discussion is being watched and actions and decisions noted.
Bottom line is, I'm an editor! I enjoy editing, and as far as I know I still contribute more to articles than talk pages. I have no interest in wiki politics or half the bull shit that goes on. I have no aspirations as far as wiki is concerned other than to build and improve articles. I've had more than my fair share of socks stalking me, and POV warriors challenge me. I reference everything I add to articles, and you'd be hard pressed to find one POV edit I've made. I'm an asset to the project, despite the limited protection I've received from socks and the warriors.
So again, any topic or page bans would be unacceptable. Voluntary topic ban on the (UDR) article for a set period is an act of good faith. Imposed meditation, mentoring or as suggested by Spartaz detailed RfC are all perfectly acceptable. Placed on 1RR probation as outlined under the Troubles ArbCom is voluntary and is perfectly acceptable.
Now I don't know you from Adam, but if we are to correspond through email, to only thing I'd insist on is we drop the formalities and just be frank with each other. I use bad language quite a lot to add emphasis to what I say, so don't take it personal. Thanks D
Tznkai:
The time frame you want is from AE to the blocking of the article, but that isn't what I am concerned with. There wasn't a general amnesty announced, offered, or given. It is also by the way, not what you asked for in your AE thread. Your tendency to write multipage screeds of diffs has been cited repeatedly as a PROBLEM, not an asset. In addition I have shown you diffs, recent and less recent of disruptive behavior. You disagree with the read, fine, thats your prerogative, but your insistence that I have not shown you diffs is wearing thin. It is self evident that you have been disrupting the wiki repeatedly, and your repeated instance that "I'm right, it was the other guy in the edit war that was the problem" is further proof of your failure to get it. When this recent AE came up Moreschi and Angus McLellan immediately singled you out. Doesn't that strike you as indicitive of something? Spartaz also singled you out. I think there is plenty of opinions that you, and you in particular, are problematic. Rockpocket, who has been in your corner defending you has admitted that his is a minority opinion. All of this should indicate to you, that you are doing something wrong, and that its been noticed, and its time to examine your own behavior.
Remember for a moment, the alternative to my proposals is your topic ban is maintained. Do you see admins lining up to overturn it? You insist they are unacceptable, and that is too damned bad, because those were imposed on you, by the way, not by me. I am propsing a lessening off the current sanctions, in effect, because if I do nothing, you remain topic banned. Keep that in mind.
It comes down to this. You can continue editing, and I am willing to bend over backwards to allow you to save some face and have some dignity, but there are things I am looking for. First, I want mediation to succeed, and quite frankly, it'll get off the ground faster without you mucking it up. You have a special talent for bringing out the worst in people especially in controversial articles of interest, like say, Ulster Defence Regiment. Second, you should be under some sort of restriction and that restriction should not be voluntary. There are others under imposed restrictions I note, and I have admittedly much more faith in others than in you. You can, for I call care "volunteer" whatever terms we agree to on this e-mail conversation, but after that, they become imposed and enforceable. So, a good start is avoiding article space in favor of articletalk space.
What I have proposed now is not perfect, but it has some benefits which you apparently missed. The first and most important of which is it takes every admin who has commented on this, for good or for ill, out of play. That means I, in particular, am out, so as a benefit to both of us, no longer do you complain about me, or me, you.
Two, the proof is in the pudding. If the ref panel decides that your right, I'm wrong, and you're really a great asset to Wikipedia and always have been, you get cleared of imposed sanctions and viola: I get trouted, you'll get a barn star, and everyone gets back to editing. If totally unable to edit productively, that will be demonstrable and uncontroversial. If the truth is somewhere more in the middle, say where you've been disruptive, but you have great potential, and structured mediation will bring that out, great. End product, you get back to editing, and I get back to trying to clean the admin backlogs.
As a final note, I was happy to leave this with you topic banned until the next time some incident happens and we all have to have a knock down drag out on AE, but C asked me specificly to look out for you because of your knowledge and his faith that mediation will work for you. Furthermore, he has insisted that your behavior has improved subsntailly since the global 1RR restriction rule. Do not dissapoint him.
--Tznkai
Domer48
The time frame I want is from AE to the blocking of the article, but that isn't what your concerned with? Well that tough, because that is what it boils down to, or do you want to go back as far as it is suitable to you. My multipage screeds of diffs has been cited repeatedly as a PROBLEM, by you! The problem being they illustrate I have done nothing wrong. Now your diff's with all due respect are not worth jack shit. They prove noting other than a feeble attempt to show something as opposed to nothing.
Moreschi didn't bother to offer any diff's at all to support sanctions, having been asked and Angus McLellan says on their talk page they want nothing more to do with this. So you're right it dose strike me as indicative of something? Spartaz offered nothing in the way of diff's to support sanctions, again having been asked, and fucked off when he got told about the A emails. Rockpocket and I could not stand each other, and now we get on very well. They support my view on the recent issue, and know your wrong.
So your right again, All of this should dose indicate to me, that there is something wrong, very wrong. Now spare me the face saving, I don't need it you patronising gob shite. I'm not the one who has editors lining up and getting stuff together with a request for recall? I'm not the one running around with a stick and shouting the odds at editors making a fool of themselves. You just coming back from nowhere was not going to raise eyebrows? The old green eye is out, and it's not me being watched.
Now I think you should let C talk for him self, and I know he thinks sanctions on me are bull shit. Now I'll add my comments to the latest witch hunt on AE, and you'd better have a word with MBisanz about A and get them to remove that comment.
Tznkai:
You keep moving the goal posts around. First you claim that there is no one against you, then you insist that none of them count because they didn't play by your arbitrary rules. You demand evidence, then dismiss it. How dreadfully convient.
As for the recall, rfc, etc nonsense, I've not responded to it before, because it I'm not worried about it. Apparently, since you're insisting on repeating yourself, you don't understand that, so there it is, I'm not worried.
You can request Mbisanz remove the information if you want, but take a good look at WP:OUTING and WP:SOCK before you do anything stupid, or threaten to do the same.
Oh, by the way, this should probably seem like a replay to you, what with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Great_Irish_Famine#Domer48_edited_disruptively You were on thin ice then, yet you kept on hammering the ice. You probably want to stop.
Domer48:
Still acting the fool, check a little deeper. It was a sock I was up against on the Famine, loads of them, and guess what, they are all banned now. Now go ahead on the sanctions, because I'll be at ArbCom, and they will insist on support diff's, and yes I've been going through your edits also? Since you don't want to tell Mbisanz, I'll email them, and if they don't remove it I'll email everyone on ArbCom and ask that they watch this discussion. I have to be carful I'm not accused of WP:OUTING
Tznkai:
And yet, you were still placed on restriction. See how your terrible plight against the socks was irrelevant then? Still is irrelevant now.