Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion for clarification

1) Motion to request that the nature of this arbitration be specified clearly, that wikipolicies relevant be listed, that a time frame be set, and that irrelevant statements (most of which concern the justified indefinite block of User:Vintagekits) be removed or redacted, that it be stated what is being examined.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The block of Vintagekits is unlikely to be an issue. This arbitration, as its name suggests concerns the complex of contested editing of articles which relate to The Troubles and associated issues, apparently including British persons of interest (Baronet project). I don't think a formal motion is necessary. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Request by User:Kittybrewster.

Strong support. This motion is an obvious prerequisite if this case is ever going to reach a fair conclusion. Otherwise it will simply degenerate into an inchoate moan forum.

I also strongly deprecate the ongoing attempts at censorship unrelated to sensitive personal information and/or personal attacks. In particular I am unfairly being called a liar and a perjuror on Vintagekits talk page and every attempt I make to seek clarification (other than here, where Vintagekits can not reply) is censored within minutes. W. Frank talk ✉  23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Normally the statements (opening statements, as I believe they are) do not get revised after the opening of the case. I believe that certain arbitrators want to look at the full picture before determining anything while other ones have not voiced their opinion on what is being examined. However, since no arbitrators have voiced their intent to only look at the indefinite block of User:Vintagekits, I would believe that Fred Bauder's intention to look at the full picture is the current scope. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very important that a full picture and overview is obtained by the Arbcom. So complex are the problems encountered by those who edit the "The Troubles" pages that if a fully comprehensive overview is not obtained the Arbcom will find it impossible to determine anything. Giano 12:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So what are we submitting evidence on? I'm not interested in "the troubles". - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The disputes you are interested in regarding British nobility will be considered. (Unless I totally misunderstand the articles in dispute). Fred Bauder 15:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have information about Vintagekits? I believe that, if the whole case is looked at, surely Vintagekits would be a part of it? As such, I believe that you must have something to say if you said that you'd participate if the scope was just on that user. You can still provide that evidence. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The indefinite ban of Vintagekits is rather cut and dried. It seems appropriate, based on his specific acts viewed in the context of his general behavior. Fred Bauder 15:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• It is my view that Vintagekits became caught up in a web of unpleasantness centred on remarks of death and threats and God knows what. We see evidence of this from Kittybrewster in his remarks here concerning VK being dead and other remarks concerning VK's suicide. This was a nasty web of hate and sockpuppets and deceit. it is good it is being investigated but VK was not alone in this circle of accelerating nastiness . VK is hot headed and volatile but a dedicated Wikipedian, who contributes on other subjects besides the troubles. He has been blocked since 19th August and since that date has he has been very quiet, I do not see his talk page littered with threats, obscenities or blasphemies, or even insults to the grooming and hair care of distant members of the British Royal family which so upset Kittybrewster and his friends. I can seriously not see the harm in unblocking him to contribute to these findings, it is just remotely possible that by the time this case is over some members of the Arbcom may feel that the three week block he has already served is sufficient punishment for his behaviour, bearing in mind the conduct of the person "abused" and his friends. In short VK lost his temper, he regrets it. How many of us have not at one time or another not pressed "save" or "send" and not regretted it - I certainly have many times. Let he who is without sin etc.... Giano 18:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

dead in the water wiki-wise. wiki-suicide. "Dandruff" has nothing to do with hair care. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Kittybrewster, please stop playing mystifying games, that time is now past. The expression "dead on the water" was used by you to refer to VK as was suicide [1]. As for your comment " He referred to Lord Mountbatten as "dandruff", the extremely offensive meaning of which does not need to be spelled out" - quite frankly yes it does need to be spelt out, we can all speculate but here we need to be precise so that allegations can be properly assessed. What charge are you levelling? Giano 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• While I agree on the whole regarding the goading and provoking of Vintagekits, I am strongly opposed to his unblocking at this time. Regarding, "Let he who is without sin", I can't recall ever threatening anyone in the manner that he has done. Sorry, but it's unacceptable and heat-of-the-moment arguments (which it wasn't. Neither of the times) does not excuse it - Alison ☺ 19:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Alison, I completely understand where you are coming from and to an extent agree but at the moment there does seem to be one law for one and one law for another. I think the "dandruff" jibe from Vintagekits (if it refers to what I think it refers to) is disgusting, however in times of war, insurrection and common place death a type of black humour develops - I can assure you Vintagekits did not invent that comment, I won't dignify it with the word "joke". Whatever, Wikipedia is not the place for such dialogue. This applies also to Kittybrewster and his friends - Kittybrewster has referred to VK as "dead in the water" not once but twice (for all I know perhaps more) lets have this inference and point scoring out in the open and loose the snide hidden messages to each other - Lord Mountbatten was indeed "dead in the water" - I grasped the subtle jibe, and analogy to Lord Mountbatten, from Kittybrewster the first time, there was no need for him to repeat it a second time. So I say to both parties, especially the more currently vocal Kittybrewster (VK has hardly commented since this case began) cut the wisecracks out - we are not stupid - and there is little to choose between you - the only difference being VK has written some comprehensive and useful pages - and Kittybrewster writes mostly stubs pertaining to his own family [2] Kittybrewster claims to be a very educated "baronet" in real life - his age which he gave in his wikipedia autobiography is, to be kind - even he may forgive me this one, the wrong side of middle age - so I think it is about time he behaved in a way befitting someone having those benefits - Vintagekits I doubt very much is a baronet - I also doubt he was educated it Eton College and the London "College of Law" as Kittybrewster claims to have been [3]. Vintagekits is a hotheaded, and not particularly well educated young Irishman - doing what he feels is best for Wikipedia (and probably Ireland) his English, spelling and grammar are appalling but he means well. He needs to be firmly told that he has transgressed acceptable standards of behaviour - he needs to be shown the line that he may not cross - I suspect he already is learning where that is. Regarding Kittybrewster and the others if they do not already know where that line is then they never will. I believe Vintagekits should be allowed back into the fold at least pending a decision from the Arbcom concerning his future - if he were to go off the rails in anger again - it would at least prove yours and Kittybrewster's point wouldn't it? Giano 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Giano's statement: I think it is damaging, and very offensive, to start painting Vk as some form of heroic, downtrodden, Wikipedia Irish Freedom Fighter, fighting against priveleged British aristocrats opressing him. Can we please cut the melodrama (as well as these ridiculous "dead in the water" insinuations). Nationality, age, education, class are all irrelevent - how we act on Wikipedia is all that matters. Remember the fundamental rule: comment on content, not the contributors. In any case, I have strongly opposed Vk in the past, and definantly do not fit into this simple little plot structure you have set up. All it does is mislead and offend. Logoistic 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry you don't like it, but that is how it appears to me. I don't think it wise to start a debate of the value of Kittybrewster and Co's edits over Vintagekits but my view of the situation is compounded by diffs such as this [4] of the quartette celebrating with champagne and a less than sparkling wit; diffs such as that coupled with the aristocratic name-dropping such as this [5] (somehow I doubt the inference we are expected to draw is that Lauder is the Duke's butler) lead me to my thoughts. You draw your conclusions and I will draw mine. Giano 06:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Giano's statement: It is not true that my contributions are "mostly on the Arbuthnot family". I have made thousands of edits to my name, a few of which are on Arbuthnots. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Good for you KB. Giano 18:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this motion. Claims that any comments on "the justified indefinite block" on Vk should be redacted are provocative and unhelpful. The Vk block is one of the issues for arbitration. (Sarah777 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage to be added as an involved party

2) I will shortly be adding evidence to the evidence page that shows that Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs) should be added as an involved party. I apologize to ArbCom for not adding him prior to the case opening. SirFozzie 15:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Anyone who edits articles which relate to The Troubles in a disruptive way may be noticed in and added as a party. No motion is required. Fred Bauder 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Fully agree. He's involved in the Astrotrain/Padraig situation, so his conduct should be looked at too. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He's been one of the editors involved in the flag-warring - Alison ☺ 06:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose- selective move by SirFozzie, he has failed to explain why he tries to bring Bio into this Arbcom and not others involved in the Flag debate (such as User:Barryob). Astrotrain 20:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

CommentActually, Astrotrain, I have added evidence that shows why he should be here. And as I said, if you want to add evidence and make a motion to add others yourself, you are certainly welcome to SirFozzie 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed, I think both sides should still be able to add parties, SqueakBox 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Clerk note: Party notified by SirFozzie here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion to add User:Traditional unionist as a party

3) I propose that Traditional unionist is added to the arbitration -once that is done then I will put my submission together.--Vintagekits 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Anyone who edits articles which relate to The Troubles in a disruptive way may be noticed in and added as a party. No motion is required. Fred Bauder 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

agreed - he's yet another flag-warrior - Alison ☺ 21:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed - currently either proposing or adding unsourced commentary to articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed, I think both sides should still be able to add parties, SqueakBox 22:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does Vintagekits make one thing a precondition of his responding to something totally different? - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree- bias reasoning by the above Astrotrain 10:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• For the sake of keeping procedures easier, the ability to add/remove parties once a case is opened is left to the discretion of Arbitrators. (which means that I will revert the addition of parties until a motion is adopted and/or instruction/motion from Arbitrators.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Clerk note: Copied from Vintagekits' talk page (editor currently blocked from editing). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion on whether I be added or not, but can a decision be made one way or another? Also, ONiH's comment is untrue, I was adding verifiable information, which he is being rather childish about opposing. I also take great offense to Alison's comment, my edits are neutral and encyclopedic, I am not here to push my own view. I add material mostly as I find in when researching for other things, and change omissions, and challenge misconceptions.Traditional unionist 22:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Clerk note: Traditional unionist notified by me. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Emails are publicly produced

4) The emails that W. Frank claims were sent to him by Vintagekits are produced immediately, as there is serious debate about their existence. You accuse in public, you show the evidence to back up the accusation in public I say.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is little prospect that the indefinite block imposed on Vintagekits will be lifted. There is no point in continuing to stir that pot. Fred Bauder 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Premature until and unless Vintagekits answers clearly the question posed him at [6]

If Vintagekits denies sending me e-mails, then why should e-mails that are denied as originating from him be produced to unfairly (further) blacken his character? W. Frank talk ✉  18:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The question has already been answered before today, and he's requested their production. So, how about it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Inappropriate that they be publicly reproduced. Essential that they be circulated to Arbcom by Penwhale. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, there is a difference between a "grab all" and hasty denial on Vintagekits' talk page and a formal denial here. Vintagekits previously denied posting anything that could be construed as a threat and then later backtracked to say that revealing my personal information publicly was not intended to cause me any discomfort or threat and was merely a silly joke. I don't want him later claiming that the vile e-mails I received were also not intended seriously. If he didn't send any e-mails at all to me let him say so clearly and unequivocally here. W. Frank talk ✉  19:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Vk also denied drumming up socks on another forum. Proven guilty. (I have always wanted the guy who found him out to email me; I suspected it but failed to find it) - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed - it's a serious accusation that Frank made & I'd like to see some evidence for this - Alison ☺ 20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits has said to his knowledge no emails to W. Frank contained threats of violence (one drunken night, when he emailed Rockpocket abusively, is not clear in his memory). He has said that W. Frank should send copies of his (Vk's) emails to User:Alison.[7] If W. Frank fails to do this, we must assume that Vintagekits did not send any emails to W. Frank with threats of violence. Tyrenius 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note - I have received emails from Vintagekits dated last may. Vintagekits uses rather typical VK rhetoric within, robust language etc (as he does!) however in the mails he sent me, there were no apparent threats of violence or anything like them. Vintagekits has asked me to forward these emails to both User:Tyrenius and ArbCom, which I have now done - Alison ☺ 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor have I received any emails from W. Frank to-date, detailing any threats of violence from Vintagekits - Alison ☺ 18:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Fred - my request for the emails has nothing to do with Vintagekits block. I consider it wholly relevant to this case that one editor who is involved in a dispute with another editor claims he has received emails of that nature. Are these allegations true or not? If W. Frank has made false allegations I consider that to be a very serious matter. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed as per Tyrenius , Alison ☺ and One Night In Hackney₃₀₃. Serious accusation, I'd like to see some evidence. --Domer48 12:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

*I fail to grasp how Fred (the judge) is adamant the sentence on Vintagekits is correct, when there is no evidence produced. Alison the blocking admin has not seen these threats either. If I say Alison has sent me emails threatening to burn my house down but no one but me can see them; yes, she is denying it, but I'm still not going to show them to you, is Alison going to be blocked for ever? My word is as good, if not better that W Franks' so why not? - because the situation is ludicrous and Fred is behaving in an unprofessional manner. So bizarre is Fred's attitude to this situation that I think he should be removed from the case. Giano 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Giano, there has been evidence produced and Fred Bauder was one of the arb committee who was privy to that private, personal information. This has already been covered in detail. If there's anyone here who has the full facts, it's Fred Bauder - Alison ☺ 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion that the edit history and historical user talk pages of "vanished editors" be resurrected

5)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I may wish to be able to present evidence based on diffs (especially relevant to Conflict of Interest questions and Single Purpose Accounts and Meatpuppetry) with regard to "resurrected" editors (such as One NightInHackney, BrixtonBusters and GoldHeart) but can not since at least one of them have exercised a "Right to Vanish". This is inequitable and contrary to natural justice.

PS: For personal reasons, I won't be available much until 4 October 2007. W. Frank talk ✉  18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree- deleted talk pages makes it difficult to track some incidents Astrotrain 18:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Waste of time due to my temporary status. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But you can still return again as a differently named user account if we can not use diffs to show how you have single mindedly pursued a biassed slant especially sympathetic to the electoral hopes and public image of the Provo's with your edits, 303. W. Frank talk ✉  19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it me who removed Danny Morrison's opinions that were being presented as fact, and you restored them? Yes it was, you seem to have everything backwards. Take my advice, don't chase the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Any time you waste trying to find evidence against me is a waste of your time, it would be better used finding evidence against editors who will actually be here after the case. I'm gone no matter what, I'm not editing any more. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you here then? To cause trouble or some higher cause? Astrotrain 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find it was actually other people suggested I be added to the case, before I returned. As for my purpose, proposed remedies 4.3.7, 4.3.8, 4.3.10 & 4.3.11 are a good starting point. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And I was added by Rockpocket. I'd say he's sure sorry now!. Thepiper 20:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Far from it. I welcome ArbCom's consideration of my involvement. If one's actions are adjudged by neutral arbitrars to be so unhelpful as to hinder the smooth workings of the project, then its probably a good thing that one knows about it. I would expect anyone who has the interests of the project at heart to feel the same way. Don't you? Rockpocket 01:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I welcome your input, nevertheless I would disagree with your rather taking my input too much to heart. However, when you are up there, playing a lead role in the prosecution of events, I can only reason that you, as an honourable person, would welcome criticisms from whichever quarter, and without reservation be only too delighted to meet with such a challenge. Would you concur? -Thepiper 02:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Constructive criticism is most welcome from anyone. Though I would prefer to know who it is coming from, and prefer each person offered it just once. Rockpocket 03:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, all edit history is relevant. Conypiece 19:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Right to vanish should not be superseded by arbcopm, SqueakBox 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose now based on this diff. An IP editor believed by several people to be W. Frank makes reference to getting people from SIGINT to "fish out a little dirt". The deleted contents of my talk page have no bearing on this case, and due to the contentious area I edited in I do not wish any information that may identify me to be available to an editor who had made such a threat. There is no COI with my editing, as Alison and SirFozzie should be happy to confirm. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Was there stuff on your talk page that could identify you? In any case, I wouldn't take that comment about SIGNIT so seriously. I can't imagine the intelligence services being that interested in Wikipedia! Astrotrain 22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you name any people from Glasgow who are anti-Republican? For all I know W. Frank may have links with violent loyalists, and therefore I strongly object to the request. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I remember the local paper reporting a man painting his grass blue for the Orange walk to go past! Astrotrain 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Endorse comment of User:ConypieceTraditional unionist 14:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree, can't see why not. Frank, not the place to make political allegations especially as I am precluded from replying. Let's just say there are TWO sides playing dirty here. (Sarah777 20:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Problem, right to vanish is an inalienable right, not something an organisation or its agents can decide upon. Thepiper 20:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Learn something new every day - never heard of a "right to vanish"!(Sarah777 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Motion that no editor other than an arbitrator censor User talk:Vintagekits

6) Until and unless User:Vintagekits is able to comment/reply directly here no editor other than a current arbitrator should censor User talk:Vintagekits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'll put it on my watchlist. He may participate in this case, provided no further veiled threats are made. Fred Bauder 19:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

User:Giano II is pretending to call for everything to be out in the clear but is preventing pertinent questions from being posed and (consequently) answered on the only direct forum allowed to Vintagekits by removing the comments of others: [8]

This pattern of censorship of civil comments that do not fit User:Giano II's agenda is also revealed on User:Giano II's own attack page: [9] W. Frank talk ✉  22:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Despite Vintagekits being currently indefblocked, the harassment he was receiving was not good. Both Alison and I told you that the proper place to ask your questions was here in the ArbCom case. Also, disagree regarding Giano's page. It is evidence and musings important and just as important, germane to this case. SirFozzie 23:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per SirFozzie. Please don't use this page in such an inappropriate way. Tyrenius 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose - the correct forum for any comments or questions relating to Vintagekits and this case, is here at arbcom. Vintagekits has already got clear means to reply. Let's keep everything here, please - Alison ☺ 18:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose No reason why good faith editors shouldnt be ab,le to revert PA's or BLP vios re VK and his talk page, SqueakBox 01:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Traditional unionist 14:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose Vintagekits is behaving in a responsible way, he is on his very best behaviour and is anxious to remain on Wikipedia as an editor. It is easier for others to remove goading and unnecessary comment as if he does it too often it only leads to further criticism of him. Knowing VK as we do, I'm sure if he did not like a reversion on his page he would soon make his feelings clear. He is hardly a shrinking violet. Regarding my page is far from an attack page, it is some musings while I collect my own thoughts and opinions, anyone who has ever collected diffs knows how hard they are to find when one wants them in a hurry. They are no use stored in a word-processor file. The page's purpose is thoroughly explained in its lead. People on Wikipedia use the term "attack" far to often to describe anything they may not like from justified criticism to personal opinion. I can see some of the diffs may be embarrassing to certain people but some of my strongest opinions on that page are describing Vintagekits himself and I hear no complaint from him. Giano 14:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion to request CheckUser to determine if any accounts are violating WP:SOCK guidelines in this case

7) Requesting the Arbitration Committee to perform CheckUser on all parties in this case to determine whether any account which is either listed as involved parties or submitted evidence has violated rules on using multiple accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As an administrator in this case, I have been informed via email by multiple parties with an apparently valid belief that one or more account(s) in this Arbitration Committee case are being used to either edit war or to use multiple accounts to both provide statements/evidence and comment on evidence in this ArbCom case. Having done some investigation of these suspicions, I have identified two accounts that I am almost 100% sure that are/have been used by the same person in this case. I can submit this evidence privately to ArbCom, but I think that the best thing that could be done is that all involved parties are Checkuser'd to set these suspicions at ease. SirFozzie 16:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The two I am 99% sure of are User:Gold_heart (who asked me to do m:Right to Vanish, on this account, I am prepared to undelete the pages) and User:Thepiper. Please note, Gold_heart's account and Thepiper's account were active at the same time SirFozzie 17:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, both have provided evidence/statements to this case separately. Surely that would be an abusive use of sockpuppets (if confirmed)? Rockpocket 00:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur that a checkuser on all parties would be both directly helpful and clear the air as regards suspicions. However, if possible, the checkuser should pre-date the opening of this ArbCom and include accounts created since 3 April 2007. W. Frank talk ✉  18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

from a technical perspective, you will find that CheckUser doesn't go back that far, unfortunately - Alison ☺ 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed, yet again. People are gaming the ArbCom case right now - Alison ☺ 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Endorsed. One of the major problems in this is sockpuppetry, due to the culture of suspicion that results in, and allegations of sockpuppetry. Such is the level of conflict, everyone should be speaking and acting from one account and one account only, and everyone should be confident of that. Although, perhaps, unprecedented I would strongly support ArbCom carries out checkusers on all participants. Rockpocket 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse while remebering that check user is good at proving guilt and lousy at proving innocence, SqueakBox 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly endorsed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Endorsed. I strongly suspect suckpupetry is involved with two of the named parties.Traditional unionist 14:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now provided evidence for my suspicions.Traditional unionist 19:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Endorsed. I strongly suspect suckpupetry is involved.[10][11] --Domer48 20:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No problem here will a full check with whatever tools you got. You won't find anything I don't want you to find!! But I am a genuine singular non-sock non-meat using gal! (Sarah777 23:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Heavily reworded and moved from below. (This is a request, there's nothing to perform as injunction.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion to add User:BigDunc as a party

8) I propose BigDunc be added as an involved party for he has continuosly reverted articles (without consensus) to do with The Troubles

Comment by Arbitrators:

Anyone who edits articles which relate to The Troubles in a disruptive way may be noticed in and added as a party. No motion is required. Fred Bauder 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed Conypiece 10:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed - another revert-warrior - Alison ☺ 01:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse all parties should be listed, SqueakBox 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion to add User:Giano_II as an involved party

9) Obviously involved. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

He has certainly stuck his horn in, but does he actually edit in this area? Fred Bauder 16:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

You can add anyone you like apparenly. But without evidence (something sorely lacking from you and other editors) what are you hoping to accomplish? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Giano_II was added as an involved party at the outset. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Involved parties Scolaire 14:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Apart from during this case attempting to see Vintagekits gets a fair hearing, I don't think you will find I have ever edited a page concerning the troubles (I say that from memory) - I have written a few pages on Irish architects, Irish buildings, and one FA on an Irish boxer - my interest in boxing (I have written several boxing pages, is how I came across VK) I don't think any of those pages mention the Troubles or touch on them. The only possible exeption is this unfinished page which has a country house destroyed by the IRA but expresses no opinions that could upset anyone - I hope. It is purely architectural. My only dealings with an involved party are with Kittybrewster and his friends over some vanity pages concerning Kittybrewster's family which are now deleted. This was a highly publicised business and I had the support of some highly respected admins. It seems some of the parties do not like some of the facts which I publicise that is inevitable. I have no involvement with the Troubles as such or indeed any opinion on them at all. I do not think there are any diffs to prove otherwise. My views on the IRA and the British are very much my own and I don't beleive anyone on Wikipedia (including Vintagekits) knows them, it would be very unprofessional of me if they did. Giano 14:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

10)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

W. Frank is temporarily banned from articles relating to the Troubles

1) Due to his ongoing disruption (changing acronyms without consensus despite being asked not to and adding original research) W. Frank is article banned until this case is concluded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Better to let him perform Fred Bauder 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per [12] and [13]. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree W. Frank is continuing to ignore the discussion on this issue and is editing disruptively.--padraig 17:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Will not listen to reasoned discussion. --Domer48 17:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree, he may be editing against consensus, however that is one of the pages in which facts are not seen to be worth putting in and a group of editors will never agree to it. Therefore he either 1. edits against consensus to improve an article or 2. leaves it incorrect. I know which one is more useful to people using wiki as a source of information. Conypiece 22:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - but he seriously needs to stop edit-warring on certain articles. I don't think his behaviour warrants an article ban - Alison ☺ 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree There are broader issues here, and banning needs to be used sparingly. There are definitely users named here who are primarily about pushing POV, I do not see that with this user.Traditional unionist 14:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

All involved editors temporarily banned from editing articles relating to the Troubles

2) All involved editors (and those "uninvolved" editors such as Giano II who have posted evidence on these project pages) are temporarily banned from editing articles (but not their associated discussion pages) relating to the Troubles until this case is concluded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, better to let the parties perform for us. Fred Bauder 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

What defines a "Troubles" article? Astrotrain 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why, any article in which the parties to this case are causing Troubles, of course! I'm only half joking here. My point is that any article where certain individuals meet turns into a proxy for The Troubles. I'm with Fred Bauder on this one. Anyone stupid enough to edit war, insult, attack or goad another party during the case only makes things worse for themselves. Anyone that can edit these articles without doing that is not a problem. Rockpocket 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose should only apply to named parties. I, for instance, a, involved because I brought the case and there appear to be other editors who are also to be trusted to edit these articles, being a named party is simply not an adequate reason to ban anyone form editing these series of articles, SqueakBox 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose result would be counter productiveTraditional unionist 14:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per SqueakBox. I am hoping to make a significant contribution to an article that relates to the Troubles, but (a) it is not one of the articles involved in this dispute and (b) my edits are unlikely to be contentious. One Night In Hackney recently had an article promoted to FA, which would not have been possible under this kind of a ban. Scolaire 10:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - far to vague, open to misinterpretation and abuse, and somewhat extreme. Better to deal with abusive editors in the current manner while the arb case is ongoing; warn/discuss/report/block, etc - Alison ☺ 18:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Should the community waste any more time with Vintagekits? (3)

This afternoon I posed the following question on Vintagekits' talk page but it was deleted by an admin and suggested that I pose it here, instead:

"On 17:43, 19 August 2007 UTC I made the following comment... which I still believe to be both appropriate and proportionate: "Although you (Vinatagekits) have done some productive editing on boxing articles, since I and others are now being threatened by e-mail, should the community waste any more time with you, Vintagekits?

If you look at the administrator time involvement (and the time of other productive editors being expended in argumentation) in the sections above and counteracting your minority point of view, which is the lesser evil for our project - escalating edit blocks and subsequent appeals and recriminations for you, Vintagekits, or an indefinite project wide ban?

If this is you being on your "best behaviour" I'd hate to see your worst.

It's clear you have no real genuine interest whatsoever in "Biographical naming policy" since you have not even bothered to answer my neutrally worded query in the relevant titled section

I'm afraid I don't share the tolerance (or prescience) exhibited by G here: in his amended concrete proposals for your return from an "indefinite ban".

I'd also like you to give a less cryptic response to the "Conflict of Interest" question I raised here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A%C3%93gra_Shinn_F%C3%A9in&diff=152243318&oldid=152242061 "

This comment was itself first commented on by BrownHairedGirl some 17 minutes later, who wrote:

"I too have just had a highly abusive email from Vintagekits, my second this weekend."

I need to say, for the avoidance of doubt, that I was not in e-mail correspondence with BrownHairedGirl at that time but that I was in e-mail correspondence with Alison so it may well be that, although BrownHairedGirl's comments were indented as if they were in reply to mine, they may, in fact, not have been a direct response to my new section heading.

She continued:

"To give others a flavour of what's being written, here are the three emails, in full:

From Vintagekits, 18/08/07:

I hope you are ashamed of yourself today. You are a disgrace to your adminship. I cant believe you are still standing by that block. Surely you must see that it is wrong

From BrownHairedGirl, 19/08/07:

Vintagekits, any admin who disagrees with you gets called a disgrace, even if all they do is to decline to get stuck into another of the conflicts you generate.

Why do you do this? Why do you turn every disagreement into a fight in which you call people names?

I know full well that some members of the baronets project have behaved very badly wrt to Irish articles, but why do you respond by trying to damage the encyclopedia? (If you were actually trying to help, you'd have been able to answer the simple questions I asked you about what you were trying to achieve)

It's all very sad. You managed to haul yourself back from an indefinite block, with the help of a mentor who really truly did want to give you a second chance, and now you have gone back to all the tirades. This is an odd way to behave: you must know where it's all going to end up.

From Vintagekits, 19/08/07:

you are a disgrace, your actions were the lowest of the low - to be honest you will get whats coming to you - its wont be forgotten. Who the hell do you think you are. Three weeks because you didnt like it. All articles will be correctly titled - mark my words - and non notables will be deleted - its not just me that is pissed off with you know - the light has been shone on the farce that is the Baronet project and the articles they produce.. If you had approached this correctly instead of sneakily creating all those pointed disamb pages then something could have been sorted out - but instead of coming on my talk page and asking me why I moved them you came on and used my past against me and also made all sorts of unfounded accusation about me.

You have made a lot more enemies out of this than I have and its permanently blotted your copy - mines already blotted. All I had was the usual Scottish lackies come along and support you - if anything their appearence proved I was right (and also John's laughable switch in his position once he smelt that a block was on the cards. You've shown your hand now and your cards have been marked.

You are a disgrace. Enjoy your dessert.

Is this compatible with his unblock conditions?"

and I immediately responded with a comment on e-mails that I still believe is entirely truthful and accurate in that, in contrast to my own e-mails, BrownHairedGirls' quoted e-mails were (in my opinion) not really highly abusive (by Vintagekits' standards) and neither did they feature a direct threat of violence (if you discount the "you will get whats coming to you - its wont be forgotten"):

"That's mild. My e-mails featured graphical threats of violence and arson." at 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits has subsequently denied sending me any e-mails whatsoever so I now ask her/him/it/them the following simple question to which I expect a straight and unequivocal answer of either YES or NO:

Do you, Vintagekits, deny sending me, W. Frank, e-mails?" W. Frank talk ✉  18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"My e-mails featured graphical threats of violence and arson." That is the key statement frank; if you have such emails then you close this case for good. (section of previously contiguous comment by Sarah777)

As I understand it, this case is no longer just about Vintagekits but about how WP should handle consistent team and biassed editing that result in articles that are unbalanced and un-encyclopaedic because of the undeclared conflict of interest of a bunch of editors unduly sympathetic to the Provo viewpoint.

Vintagekits is just the easiest case to deal with because his stance and methods are so clear. The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is (was?) that we have procedures and protocols to ensure that (theoretically) editors of all party political persuasions (and none) should be able to work collegially to write a better encyclopaedia. Since my original stance was one of utility - that many hundreds of hours of good editor time was being wasted on an editor who's value to WP was simply not worth the argumentation time - I have moved on from there and now consider that it might be more utilitarian to give into the baying of the pack and simply unblock him - but with the tight conditions originally proposed by Gaimhreadhan.Frank

I will not speak another word in defence of Vk. But the "lawyering" around the issue, rather than simply producing the gawd-dam things and ending all this in a shot...that is making me wonder, Why? (section of previously contiguous comment by Sarah777)

I refer you to [this] for the answer.Frank

I can verify that Frank did actually say that - Alison ☺ 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That single statement above has coloured this whole case; I don't really care if Vk emailed you or not; my unequivocal question to you is:

Did those emails feature graphical threats of violence and arson? Yes or no? If yes, show them. (Sarah777 14:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Yes, Sarah the emails did feature graphical threats of violence and arson.

(And, as I've stated on this page, those graphic e-mails were not relevant or material to the original indefinite block by Alison - she didn't see any of them before she blocked and nobody (other than Solicitors and Fiscals) have seen them since - and neither are they relevant to any continuing block in my opinion.)

However, because G instructed me to deal with you in a specially sympathetic way I am prepared to make a unique exception in your case:-

Telephone me and I will arrange to pay your return flight from Dublin to Glasgow and accommodate you in my flat for not more than 2 nights before 21 September 2007. You can then examine the relevant e-mails on my portable where they were first read. You will need to give me your assurance that you will not ever disclose any of the contents (except by order of a court) but you can then also answer your own question publicly as to whether the emails did indeed feature graphical threats of violence and arson. W. Frank talk ✉  15:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of all this steam and bluster about "consistent team and biassed editing", how about you produce some evidence to back up your accusations? I'm really looking forward to seeing what you call "biassed" editing actually. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• CLERK NOTE: If full e-mail correspondence will be provided as evidence, ArbCom generally requests the e-mail be sent to an ArbCom member or an ArbCom clerk for forwarding. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Frank, I don't need to see them; if Alison confirmed that she'd seen what you describe that would be fine. As for looking at the computer I'd not be in any position to challenge what I'd see on technical grounds (I'm sure, without wishing to offend, these things can be faked). But as you value utility, the quickest way to dispatch Vk for good from Wiki would be to prove to the bods at Arbcom that they exist, surely? Also, as the clerk pointed out (gently!) I'm not an official, and can't assume the role of Arbcom members. (Sarah777 17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, for the record, I have never seen emails containing, "graphical threats of violence and arson" sent by Vintagekits to W. Frank. Frank also clarifies, above, that I have not and that apparently, these were sent before my block. I've never seen them, though, so that's neither here nor there - Alison ☺ 18:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm disappointed that I won't be getting the inside info on all the nicest "R" roads in Ireland, Sarah (equally I'm pleased to be saving on an Aer Lingus ticket - huge grin).

Seriously, though, Sarah I do stand by my comments [here] and whatever anyone says (now that you seem to have refused my offer), the only time these "non-existent" e-mails will see the light of day is if I meet with an early and unconvincing "accident" that my Solicitor becomes aware of. That's it. Schluss.

Good precedent, eh, Tyrenius?

I know that this is going to sound syrupy and insincere, but my primary concern in all this is that we have a better encyclopaedia. If you ever go to a third world country where the poor little kids and their struggling families have to scrape together school fees and uniforms, you'd appreciate the value of a great free encyclopaedia such as we can produce if we just fine tune our procedures a little.

All this "social" stuff is very enthralling and entertaining but seriously diverting effort and resources from the task at hand. That's why I think we should concentrate on mechanisms rather than personalities - remember I'm one of a minority of editors that have revealed too much of a real life existence to ever successfully "vanish" and then "resurrect" as a different user account (or even reverse that process - weak grin). That's why I made the utilitarian proposal to waive the "abusive sock" rules especially for VK so he can make a contribution using different user account name(s). W. Frank talk ✉  21:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you forward these emails to me? I have forwarded every email between me and you to Alison and she saw nothing like what you are talking about them in it! Forward them to me and I will let you know 1. if they are the same ones that went to Alison and 2. if its OK to reproduce on wiki.--Vintagekits 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You may forward them to me, either, in confidence and I will evaluate them - Alison ❤ 07:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Negotiation

1) Willingness to negotiate in a more or less civil way with the other editors of an article is a condition of editing the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted, and by the way, this applies even when you are right. Fred Bauder 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

With the principle, who can disagree? But, in relation to Irish/British matters we must find a neutral method of assessing civility. I don't believe this is happening. I won't give examples here as they might (would!) lead to an immediate "pov war". We should possibly have a separate workshop where this issue of "parity of abuse" is thrashed out. (Sarah777 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a Battleground

2) Wikipedia is not a Battleground

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Think it goes without saying.. but just in case. SirFozzie 01:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's self-evident - Alison ☺ 06:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If you have a new addition, please make sure to change the section headings too. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously it is! But, equally it shouldn't be. We can sort out the Irish/British battle in this little corner of Wiki unless one side insist on total dominance. The workshop I suggested above would be a very good place to start. (Sarah777 22:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia is a safe environment for all

3) Wikipedia is "The free encyclopedia which any one can edit" and all editors should be free to contribute here without being subject to threats, intimidation and harassment from their fellow editors. They are entitled to their privacy and should feel safe here. Cyber-bullying cannot be tolerated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - this should really be self-evident - Alison ☺ 03:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Absolutely. --Deskana (apples) 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely (Sarah777 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

Agreed: this is possibly the most fundamental thing which needs to be looked at. David Lauder 16:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring considered harmful

4) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This has been a common feature of articles on the Troubles. Scolaire 12:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - this has been a perennial problem on these articles - Alison ☺ 07:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Courtesy

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - goes without saying - Alison ☺ 07:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Again, who could disagree? But responding to personal attacks with same; that is something we need to tease out. From my (Irish nationalist) perspective it is responsive attacks by Irish editors that end up being lovingly quoted in RfCs and at Arbcom. Workshop? (Sarah777 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

Consensus

6) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Alison ☺ 07:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. [With the caveat that it can be difficult to engage in constructive dialogue when editors (and overly-protective admins) remove pertinent questions and polite relevant questions and comments from their User Talk page without entering into any sort of dialogue. (Please note that I am not referring to the removal of bogus and tendentious threats and tendentious templates from user talk pages or legitimate redaction or archiving to separate user space areas here)]. W. Frank talk ✉  22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

NeitherI can neither endorse nor oppose this. Consensus does not make a proposal right. Rosslea is not called Roslea, Londonderry is not called Derry, Carrickfergus is not called Carrick, Wikipedia is harmed by purveying falsehoods just because they have consensus amongst users.Traditional unionist 14:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment: there is much truth in what User:Traditional unionist says. Consensus is most agreeable on the fundamental tenets which govern Wikipedia, but one enters into deep water when fact is questioned by those who don't like it, who then gather together sufficient fellow-travellers to support the falsehood and set it up on Wikipedia as truth by consensus. This could ultimately bring Wikipedia into disrepute as an encyclopaedia. David Lauder 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

7) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree --padraig 03:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Verifiable information from reliable sources

8) Wikipedia:Attribution, requires that information included in an article on a subject be limited to verifiable information from reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree--padraig 03:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Caution: a grey area as who determines what "reliable" is. For instance whould you regard Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution as "reliable"? I certainly wouldn't. Likewise fanatical nationalists of whatever ilk who put pen to paper. David Lauder 07:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research

9) Wikipedia:Attribution prohibits original research; editors may not synthesize viewpoints or draw conclusions of their own from primary sources or other raw data. Instead, Wikipedia documents what reliable sources state about their subjects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree--padraig 03:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

10) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy requires all encyclopedic content to be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly and without bias all significant views on a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree--padraig 03:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

11) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

User:Astrotrain has edit-warred

1) Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has participated in several edit wars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported by the evidence I have posted. SirFozzie 18:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this also. Rockpocket 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You're probably missing either "dozen" or "hundred" from there, but agreed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, per evidence supplied - Alison ☺ 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, per evidence --Domer48 12:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as per One Night In Hackney comment.--padraig 03:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed per evidence.--Vintagekits 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Conypiece has participated in numerous edit wars as a Single Purpose Account.

2) Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has participated in numerous edit wars, and is a Single Purpose Account, to promote a point of view with regards to the Troubles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported by the evidence I have shown. SirFozzie 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland rather than the Troubles, proposed new version.

Agreed I strongly suspect that he is a sock but have no checkuser privilages the account has added nothing to wiki and usually just creates revert wars.--Vintagekits 21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Conypiece has participated in numerous edit wars as a Single Purpose Account.

2.1) Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has participated in numerous edit wars, and is a Single Purpose Account, to promote a point of view with regards to Northern Ireland.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this fully. Rockpocket 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. SirFozzie 14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, per evidence supplied, though he's only gone single-purpose of recent times. Guess that doesn't make him single-purpose! - Alison ☺ 01:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this.--padraig 10:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, per evidence --Domer48 12:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, is Portora Royal School troubles related? It came to my attention a few days ago that I know this user quite well. He is a legitimate editor with a lot to offer wikipedia.Traditional unionist 14:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read this finding of fact? I changed the wording of Fozzie's original proposal from "the Troubles" to "Northern Ireland". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I would be hard pushed to find an article outside of NI that I have contributed to. Does that make my account single purpose? This proposal is pretty weak.Traditional unionist 12:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed I strongly suspect that he is a sock but have no checkuser privilages the account has added nothing to wiki and usually just creates revert wars.--Vintagekits 21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you should provide evidence. For what it's worth I know this user is not a sockpuppet.Traditional unionist 22:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Single Purpose Account is an essay and not a policy or guideline, so why is this being quoted as a policy? Astrotrain 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Padraig has participated in numerous edit wars

3) Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has participated in numerous edit wars regarding The Troubles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported by my evidence. SirFozzie 18:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Scope of the edit wars isn't right, proposed more accurate version below. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Padraig has participated in numerous edit wars

3.1) Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has participated in numerous edit wars relating to Northern Ireland.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. SirFozzie 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And me. Rockpocket 08:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, per evidence supplied. I've already had to block him for edit-warring - Alison ☺ 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed per evidence Conypiece 11:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed per evidence Kittybrewster (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage has Edited Disruptively

4) Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has participated in several edit wars, and in general has edited disruptively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported by the evidence I have posted. This is of course, if Biofoundationsoflanguage is added as an involved party. SirFozzie 18:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Biofoundationsoflanguage has been a key player in the revert warring on articles and template involving regional flags - Alison ☺ 07:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This person is not a named party! Should this not be removed? Astrotrain 10:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a motion above to admit him as an involved party. SirFozzie 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Per This edit by Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder, User:Biofoundationsoflanguage can be listed as a named party. SirFozzie 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this.--padraig 10:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, per evidence --Domer48 12:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Like Conypiece I strongly suspect that he is a sock but have no checkuser privilages. The account also has added nothing to wiki and usually just creates revert wars.--Vintagekits 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:W. Frank has edited disruptively

5) User:W. Frank has edited disruptively

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported by the evidence of User:One Night in Hackney, and User:BigDunc. SirFozzie 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In particular, his use of IP addresses in a way to avoid identification was unhelpful, to say the least - Alison ☺ 07:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And the strongly suggestive evidence that he used sockpuppets accounts to do so should also be considered. Rockpocket 08:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree He has ignored ongoing discussions on talk pages, and continued to insert POV into articles.--padraig 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Supported by the evidence --Domer48 12:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this can not be disputed.--Vintagekits 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Having studied the facts this is an inevitable conclusion. Giano 18:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I wonder how truthful "our W Frank" actually is and how much store we should set by what he says - this diff here [14] once contained a post by him giving what he claimed to be his real name - (I'm sure some clever admin can check that) which is not what is not the name claimed here [15] note that W Frank leads to that new name. Even there it seems he is not happy with one identity. (he wrote Amber House for both projects). Not a brilliant start for Citizendum which demands complete honesty and lack of anonymity from its editors. User: Alison can confirm to the Arbcom the name he claimed to be his own. Giano 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note that CZ allows pseudonyms in certain special cases, and it does not make a secret of this. --76.2.94.57 17:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Citizendum "...currently grant pseudonyms only for certain special cases. Privacy concerns that apply to everyone are not a sufficient reason" strange that they have allowed him two such names linking to each other and then he blows the show by giving information about himself that clearly identifies him to half of Wikipedia. Very odd indeed! Oh well "it is an ill wind..." Giano 17:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• According to their block logs he has only one account, see here. 142.103.92.50 06:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He also claims the citizendum name is that on his passport [16] Alison claims another name has been proved to her as his legal name, it is begining to look like the whole Vintagekits's cas is based on some very dubious foundations indeed. Giano 17:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact. W.Frank never claimed the name "Wahib Frank" was on his passport. He pointed out that some of the more unusual names on his passport may be a problem to anglophones (true) - Alison ☺ 07:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh really: what dubious foundations are these? What relevence does this have on the way Vk has acted? Logoistic 20:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you are not able to work it out for yourself, let me spell it out for you. The allegations against Vintagekits are based on allegations made by W Frank, and interpretations he and some others chose to make of some diffs. Now if W Frank is not he claims to be, he positively proved his identity to User: Alison which prevented him being blocked as a sockpuppet. Now it seems his passport says he is someone else entirely. Alison is now having doubts over who exactly he is. This begs the question should he have been allowed to remain originally? To put it simply can his word be trusted? If someone wanted Vintagekits framed they certainly chose the wrong guy to do it this time. Whatever conclusions one begins to draw the case against Vintagekits is beginning to look rather shaky - Vintagkits uses bad language and is short tempered, does not make him a liar? Some people may think that his accuser W Frank is beginning to look somewhat untrustworthy. Giano 21:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

They're actually not based on "allegations made by W.Frank", that's just it. All W.Frank stated to me was that he felt intimidated and was concerned for his safety. Nothing else. This has nothing to do with any alleged letters or surnames or whatever. It's to do with what VK posted and what his home address is. VK has already admitted to doing this. QED. Note also that his revealing his personal information had nothing to do with his sockpuppet unblock. I didn't know W. Frank at that time and that was entirely handled by Fred Bauder, as a result of a telephone call from W. Frank. Nothing whatsoever to do with me - Alison ☺ 07:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less whether W Frank lies about his identity or not. All I, you, or some people should care about is whether the evidence he claims (i.e. the email) actually exists. You certaintly cannot make the jump to assume he is lying about the email (even if he is), but you are going out of your way to try and suggest it. I request that an admin stop these slanderous acusations, as well as the general goading of several users - namely KittyBrewster and W. Frank. If there is a case of "goading" to be heard in this arbcom, it is blatently obvious here, and ironically eminating from an apparantly "uninvolved" user. I don't know what has brought on such a campaign by Giano, but it needs looking into. He seems to have a plot worked out in his head and, to quote a critic of Thatcher - 'It's like reading Enid Blyton - nobody must be allowed to spoil her simple little plots.' Logoistic 00:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to promote conspiracy theories. Even if has a multitude of identities, it is not relevent to this proposed finding, neither does it have anything to do with Vk revealing personal information about (one) of them in a manner that was adjudged intimidate. Can we keep these discussions cogent to the finding proposed, rather than use them to promote POV? Rockpocket 02:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh but it most certainly is. It is very indicative of the many such antics surrounding this case. Regarding Logoistic's comment "goading" - looking into a matter here is not "goading" ". User:W. Frank has edited disruptively is the title here, itnow looks like W Frank should not have been editing at all. " It is now seems W Frank was only here because be convinced both Fred Bauder and Alison that he was someone else, he was about to be banned as a sockpuppet, now it seems he was someone else entirely. If he can lie so convincingly to Alison and Fred that they are completely taken it what else does he lied about? Giano 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty tenuous to say the least. I've have documentary evidence here as to his identity. I have copies of his passport, UK driver's license and utility bills & I highly doubt they are forgeries, somehow.. I've also spoken to him and I'm 100% certain as to his identity. I can't speak for Mr. Bauder, but his unblocking speaks volumes - Alison ☺ 07:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes of No answer Alison was the RL name "W Frank" proved to you to be his, "User:Wahib Frank" which he now infers is his true name? Giano 07:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not - Alison ☺ 07:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits has persistently made personal attacks

6) Over a period of 9 months Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked numerous times for persistent incivility and personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per my evidence. Rockpocket 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - repeatedly, both on and off-wiki which is inexcusable really - Alison ☺ 18:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - mostly off wiki in private emails which I consider to have nothing to do with wiki, also many or most of the emails were replies to editors who email my when I am blocked and know that I am going to bite and say something uncivil.--Vintagekits 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Like myself, Vk has also been subjected to personal attacks. Breach of WP:NPA is regrettable, but it is so widespread (on both sides) that I can't agree that it is fairly included in this indictment. Are we throwing in the proverbial 'kitchen sink' here? (I fully realise, from personal experience, that this seems to be how these "trials" operate on Wiki. But should that be an important issue? He is blocked for explicitly and (apparently) graphically threatening another Editor; if that fails I think investigating the group supporting the charges should take precedence over trying Vk for the remaining lesser alleged crimes. (Btw, I am NOT inferring in any way directly or indirectly, that Rockpocket (whom I respect) is in any way party to any "set-up"). But I disagree with his arguments to expand the areas for adjudication specifically in the case of Vk; this would not be either fair or appropriate if the emails are not produced. These alleged mails have coloured the whole issue and prejudiced Vk's chance of a "fair trial". (Sarah777 22:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, these are proposed findings of fact that are not at all based on disputed emails. They are resticted to a single editor by their nature. There should be other statements of fact that should address other editors' personal attacks, and ArbCom will consider them all in context. If you have evidence of these others, please provide it. Vk's 9 blocks, many for persistent personal attacks is surely something the committee should consider. Ignoring personal attacks, just because many editors on both sides have issued them, is completely missing the point of this. No-one should be making personal attacks, and this is our opportunity to ensure it stops, again, from everyone. Rockpocket 00:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree Rockpocket; your suggestion smacks of scapegoatism. Vk has served whatever punishments as due for past offences. This is a very specific and more serious NEW case, where (maybe) an invented explicit threat is created to provide false "context" for the earlier ones. Let us deal with THIS case now; and, as you advise me, other cases (whether the same editor or different ones) elsewhere. (Sarah777 01:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

When issuing a block, admins always consider the wider issue, not only the incident in isolation. If Vk had never put a foot wrong previously he would not be indef blocked for the current incident. To consider whether an indef block is appropriate one simply consider the extraordinary persistence of Vk's behaviour. I'm sorry you consider this scapegoatism, but my interactions in this mess has primarily been with Vk, therefore that (and a few other incidents) is all I can offer as evidence, and thus the findings of fact I propose. Vk ongoing behaviour is as much as part of this long running dispute as anyone else and the proposed findings are all based on verifiable evidence. ArbCom is free to discount this finding if they consider it inconsequent to the case, but I do not apologise for offering it. Rockpocket 01:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, I am not attacking or accusing you. I am expressing the view that the arguments/solutions you use/propose amount to, in this case, scapegoating. Of course an Admins decision is influenced by the past record; but even more so (as this is what triggered a block) by the current allegations. And the current allegations appear to have been fabricated to produce exactly the result they have succeeded in producing. I am at a loss to understand why you don't seem to appreciate the implications of this situation. (Sarah777 01:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

I do understand it, and realise you are not attacking me. But you must appreciate that you are not party to all the evidence ArbCom is (see below). The current allegations are absolutely not fabricated. There is dispute about motive and meaning, and that is critical to the block, but I assure you the comments were made. I saw them with my own eyes. This it is extremely important for Vk's past record to be clear so motive can be demonstrated. Rockpocket 01:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits has used sockpuppet and meatpuppet accounts

6.1) Vintagekits has used at least two sockpuppet accounts inappropriately, and recruited at least two meatpuppets to promote his partisan point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per my evidence. Rockpocket 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Diffs to show the meatpuppets promoting a partisan point of view please, I can't see any that obviously do that but I may be overlooking something. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The meatpuppets were recruited for that purpose, as indicated by the assertion that "huns" were behind the AfD [17] Rockpocket 00:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not seeing it based on the evidence. Ignoring Sligobhoy67, there are three alleged meatpuppets listed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits. TamB was created on 6 June 2006, Maplecelt on 2 December 2006 and Coeur-sang on 26 April 2007, none of those dates tie in to the image provided and one date even predates Sligobhoy67/Vintagekits on Wikipedia at all. If you're saying they were recruited for that purpose, where's the evidence of them engaging in helping to promote VK's partisan point of view? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In a thread on Celticminded entitled Any wikipedia users on?, Sligobhoy67/Vk notes, If you have used wiki then let my [sic] know or just reply here and I will contact you. I need help with a bit of voterigging! [18] A member of Celticminded responds to Sb67/Vk's request for meatpuppets. This member is called Coeur-sang. [19]. This request was posted on Celticminded on 26-04-07. Coeur-sang's first contribution to Wikipedia was a delete vote on that day, in an AfD proposed by Vintagekits. [20] The date of another of SB67's requests on that forum: 12-06-7 [21], this date is co-incident with Coeur-sang's fifth [22] and sixth [23] edits, again to an AfD of Vintagekits' supporting his position. Maplecelt's recruitment is more circumstantial, but still convincing considering the supporting evdience. This, and much more, is detailed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits. If you are concerned at the synthesis of the purpose of different recruitments, I am happy to change the proposal to "Vintagekits recruited at least two meatpuppets to help with a bit of voterigging and attempted to recruit others for partisan voting purposes". Is that more to your linking? Rockpocket 01:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends how you define partisan voting, as I try and define it quite narrowly so it's clear that it is actually partisan. In the evidence I've presented (some of which has yet to be presented regarding this very subject) I tried to limit examples of clear partisan voting to people either voting to delete an article that did meet notability guidelines or voting to keep an article that did not, and especially ones that do not mention notability guidelines in their arguments. I personally think those are the best examples to use, as it makes it obvious whether a vote is partisan or not. If partisan was removed entirely it would be better I think, I don't think any other change is required. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Vk obviously went to a sympathetic forum and explicitly requested !voting support from individuals previously uninvolved, suggests to me the motives are clearly partisan. His comments make it clear he will contact the individuals privately, presumably to coach on appropriate justification for the !vote to avoid the appearance of partisanship. This is also clear when he implores individuals to avoid "fenian" usernames and not jump straight into "fenian" articles. If one had genuine, non-partisan motives for !voting something down, why would one recruit meatpuppets in the first place? Nevertheless, if this is a point of dispute, I have no problem rewording to avoid use of the word. Rockpocket 01:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If they were participating in Irish republican AfDs I could see your point much more, but I think it's too much of a leap to say "Celtic forum = anti-nobility". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's Vk's motives that I state to be partisan, not the individuals he recruited. It doesn't really matter where you go to recruit when your stated goal is to "vote-rig", since you are only going to recuit those that suit your aims (Not that, as I'm sure you can appreciate, you would have to look too hard for people holding anti-nobility sentiments on Celticminded). Rockpocket 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that in itself would mean VK's attitude was itself partisan, when there is evidence to suggest that isn't quite the case. It's just that, like me, he found plenty of articles on "notable" people to be little more than genealogy entries - he was born, inherited a title, got married, sprogged then died. Like most forums that deal with popular culture, Celticminded will have a high proportion of young members who generally speaking don't tend to hold long dead minor title holders to be particularly relevant or interesting. Celticminded may have a slightly higher percentage than some others, but I don't really believe you'd have to look too hard for people holding anti-nobility sentiments anywhere on the internet. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not every single edit of Vk's is to promote a partisan point of view. I am familiar with many non-partisan edits of his, but also plenty of those that motivated to reflect his personal beliefs rather than any consideration for policy. Rockpocket 08:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't just call that an "edit", he created an article about a baronet. There's been a frequently levelled charge at him that he's anti-baronet/nobility/aristocracy, whereas that tends to suggest otherwise at least some of the time. Is he anti-baronet/nobility/aristocracy, or is he anti-articles that look like genealogy entries, or six of one and half a dozen of the other? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Vk's opinion on the aristocracy in general, why don't you ask him? However I simply believe that recruiting meatpuppets for the sole purpose of "vote-rigging" is a partisan act: its purpose is to bolster his personal position and beliefs. Whether this was out of ideological opposition to barontecies or, perhaps more likely, an ideological opposition of anything Kittybrewster et al, !voted for is open to debate. But it sure is a push to accept that he was "vote-rigging" out of respect for Wikipedia policy on notability, don't you think? Rockpocket 08:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again we're back to partisan. If I hold the point of a view that a certain article (regardless of subject matter) doesn't meet notability requirements, is that a partisan point of view or a personal point of view? I really don't think partisan is appropriate here, that's all. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And I hold the point of view that the very act of vote-rigging with meatpuppets pushes one's actions into the realm of partisanship since a "personal" point of view is, by definition, an expression of oneself, not by an recruited faction. I guess we differ on that. Rockpocket 10:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the evidence above is pretty damning, really. Yes, VK was recruiting others off-wiki, for the purpose of AfD votestacking. There may have been more, but that's pretty much the definition of meatpuppetry - Alison ☺ 04:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Vintagekits has made threats of violence against other editors

6.2) Vintagekits has made at least one explicit threat of violence using paramilitary rhetoric.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per my evidence. Rockpocket 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed' per "i'd bust yer nose wide open if I'd have ever met ya", "FUCK OFF ORANGE CHUNTS _ YA@LL GET WHAT BILLY WRONG DID!! TIOCFAIDH AR LA!!!" (Billy Wright was shot by the INLA), etc, etc, and that's just the on-wiki stuff. I have no idea as to the content of W. Frank's emails (which I doubt exist) but that largely doesn't matter here - Alison ☺ 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, that was one time at 2 am and I was pissed out of my head - yeah I shouldnt have even gone near the computer but try and get inside the mind of a man who is too many drinks worse for wear.--Vintagekits 21:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are disagreeing with a proposed finding of fact, then agreeing it actually took place. Which is it? Did happen or didn't it? Rockpocket 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Diminshed responsibility - which you accepted the following day but now are seeming not to!! Interesting! Also the full title of theis section is incorrect.--Vintagekits 22:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So you agree the proposed statement is factually correct, but that it should not be admitted as evidence due to diminshed responsibility? Rockpocket 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of things that should be admitted as evidence but you choose to ignore all of it that would paint me in any positive light because you are hell bent (and have been for months) on getting me blocked.--Vintagekits 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't This is Your Life - we are not here to praise you for all the good work you have done, we are here to remedy the problems that you have caused. For example, I don't see anyone providing all the evidence of the good work I have done, to counter the evidence provided against me. but am I bitching about it? No. Anyway, now you are unblocked you can provide all the evidence you please. However, since you appear to not dispute the propose finding of fact here, you might with to change your "disagree" to "agree". Rockpocket 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest will ya! You know what you are dojng and it looks from the comments of some that it has proved very effective - you are making outlandish assumptions and passing them off as facts, you as taking incident out of context and twisting them, you are making out that isolated incident are the norm and you are failing to highlight the many unsaviour incident made against me.--Vintagekits 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket; I was under the distinct impression that you had accepted that the emails from Vk to yourself that night were accepted for the drunken nonsense that they were and were not being used as evidence in this case? In defence of my client I must hope that following the collapse of the W. Frank allegations things that were important but not criminal back then are now being promoted to serious charges. (Sarah777 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Vk. I have provided evidence and made proposals based on those. Please comment on those, rather than unsubstatiated allegations.

Sarah. Let me ask you something. Both you and Giano have made a big deal about how the mysterious threatening emails must be discounted unless they are proven. Because otherwise all we have is the word of Frank who, according to Giano, is someone that has shown themselves to be trustworthy. Right? So, please tell me why we should all accept that Vk was drunk when he made those edits? Do we have proof he was drunk? I don't think so. So perhaps we are supposed to take his word for it? Except Vk has a history of lying (see the whole meatpuppet issue as a case in point). So it seems that we are supposed to take Vk's word as gospel ("I was only having the craic", "I was drunk", "I didn't use any sockpuppets or meatpuppets") when it suits him, but everyone else's word is dismissed without proof. Rockpocket 23:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you or did you not accept at the time that my posts (at 2am with even more spelling mistakes than usual) were made while I was drunk? --Vintagekits 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You said you were drunk, at that time I did not disbelieve you. Despite your record of being economical with the truth when it suits you, I still don't disbelieve you on that issue. However, you are an adult and are responsible for your own actions. You are the one that drank and you are the one that logged on and abused other editors. I have no reason to believe you have since abstained from alcohol, so therefore have no reason to believe that subsequent edits were not under the influence of alcohol, nor that any future ones will not be either. I really don't see how the fact that you get drunk before abusing others negates its seriousness. Moreover, this is all simply my personal opinion. It is not evidence, and we have already established that unless proof is provided, the word of participants is mere hearsay. So if thats how it works, lets have even playing field. If you can provide evidence you were drunk, then i'll include it as a fact in my evidence, otherwise its just another maybe-truth, maybe-lie among all the rest. Rockpocket 00:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

One question remains, so serious and so central that it cannot be ignored. Vk is blocked because of alleged threats made to Frank. Specifically they were emailed and were graphically explicit, or so it is claimed. If this is confirmed any support for Vk from this quarter will vanish in an instant. These alleged explicit threats have obviously coloured these entire proceedings. To maintain any perception of "justice being seen to be done" these allegations must be withdrawn or the evidence produced.

The reason the question of the alleged email is so central is precisely because of the "other evidence" that Rockpock refers to: I assume he is not going back to past incidents and conflating a different alleged threat with the specific one that has Vk banned. Sticking to the "threats" at issue here, if the email doesn't exist, that would make Frank not just an unreliable witness, but (if this were a court of law) a perjurer. All evidence of his alleged 'fears' would have to be completely disregarded as unreliable. (Until we know one way or the other I an NOT saying that Frank is lying, btw). But if it turns out the emails can't be produced it would be powerful support for Vk's feeling that he is the victim of some sort of set-up.(Sarah777 22:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

The one explicit threat I refer to in my evidence is not that claimed by W. Frank. It is primarily the one made on-wiki by Vintagekits (and a few others, less credible ones, made in email to me). Vk's history of making such threats is extremely germane to understanding the context of his more recent comments, and also important for establishing why Vk has been indefinitely blocked now. The current incident does not stand in isolation, it is Vk's persistance that must be considered. Rockpocket 00:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Vk was blocked for specific threats to Frank. If these prove to be invented, as increasingly appears likely, then we have a serious dilemma, on a number of fronts. (Sarah777 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

They are not invented. Alison, myself and ArbCom have seen them. The comments that were judged to be threats were there for all to see until they were oversighted. What is in dispute was the motive Vk had for making them, not that they were made. Rockpocket 01:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely what is in dispute is whether the words were threats or not threats? And Frank's claim that he felt threatened was what swung Alison to block, as I understand it. If Frank is shown to be lying regarding the emails then his interpretation of Vk's words must be dismissed and the case against Vk is "unsafe" - to say the very least! (Sarah777 01:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

You will have to ask Alison that. My actions and decision have been made entirely independent of W. Frank's claim's to have received email. I, personally, doubt those emails exist. But having seen the on-wiki comments and their context, I firmly believe Vk's goal was to intimidate W. Frank. Rockpocket 01:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits revealed personal information of another editor with intent to intimidate

6.3) Vintagekits admits revealing personal information, though disputes motive. A pattern of behaviour suggests the purpose was not benign.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per my evidence. Rockpocket 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - absolutely. As admitted by VK himself, although he claims he "was only having the craic with [W. Frank]" which he was most definitely not! - Alison ☺ 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Disgree, what exactly did I reveal and who did I reveal it to?-- Vintagekits 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You named the home address (street) of another wikipedian on wiki. Are you disagreeing with that now? Therefore you revealed it, potentially, to however million people use this site. As it happens, I know of 4 Wikipedians that noticed it for what it was. Again, read the porposed finding of fact and explain what exactly you disagree about. Is the revealing of personal information? Is it that you dispute the motive to intimidate? is it you disagree about the pattern of behaviour? Rockpocket 22:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As this charge is based primarily on Franks report to Alison; it must be rejected if the emails are not produced (see my comments above at 6.1) (Sarah777 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

As is clear in the statement, this charge is based on Vk revealing personal information (which he admits). Rockpocket 01:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No I didnt - dont put words in my mouth - who did I reveal information to?--Vintagekits 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

On 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC), Vintagekits admitted to "slipping the street name of an editor into a post (which I did)" Rockpocket 00:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your charge; but the block was for threats that it now appears may have been invented. I don't think, in fairness, old allegations can retried on the basis of false allegations of new and much more serious crimes. That would seem to confirm Vk's "set-up" belief. (Sarah777 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

I think you misunderstand. The block, as I understand it, was not issued for the threats that may or may not have been made by email. They were made for on-wiki comments by Vk, now oversighted. The email threats, if they exist, would be pretty damning. However Alison is quite clear that she has no idea if they exist at all, and therefore it is pretty obvious that she did not block because of them. Rockpocket 01:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Alison blocked (she will correct me if I'm wrong) because she had reason to believe that Frank's expressed fears and interpretation of Vk's words were genuine. It now appears they may have been part of a set-up. Would Alison have made the block if (let us speculate) she knew Frank was telling her lies about his interpretation of Vk's words, about Vk's emails and his claimed fear of Vk? If she knew that that was all just an act with the intention of getting Vk blocked? (Sarah777 02:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

I don't know. But I do know W. Frank did not make the edit in question, Vk did. And I know how I would feel if that comment had been made to me. Therefore, for me, Frank's alleged duplicity (while an issue that should be fully investigated) is secondary to Vk's actions/motives in considering the merits of his block. Rockpocket 02:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The complaint I made to Alison (that she acted upon) was solely about revealing personal information and not about vile e-mails.
It was made on Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:28:58 -0700 (PDT):
"Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:28:58 +0100
...
Subject: Re: Phone / fax, etc
...
"I'm sorry to trouble you again, A****, but F**** has still not
contacted me and, consequently, apart from G**** (who I have never
corresponded with or spoken with) you are currently the only
administrator that knows the name of the street I live in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%C3%93gra_Shinn_F%C3%A9in&diff=prev&oldid=152243318

Do you think these sort of "I know where you live" veiled threats from
Vintagekits are appropriate?

Can anything be done about it?

(I apologise for bringing this to you by e-mail, but I think you
probably appreciate my quandary)

Best wishes!

Frank."

and subsequently on Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:36:22 -0700 (PDT):
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:36:22 +0100
...
"Vintagekits has just made another clearer illusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:W._Frank&diff=prev&oldid=152248930

Frank."

I've also consistently made clear (to everyone that bothered to actually ask me) that vile private e-mails are irrelevant to Wikipedia in general - however hurtful their comments.

Unless both the sender and the intended recipient are crystal clear and both give their permission for public disclosure (as is the case with the two e-mails that I quote above), it is my longstanding practice to respect confidentiality.

I have already made clear to Alison by e-mail (on the very day she blocked Vintagekits for twice deliberately revealing an editor's street address on-wiki) that I did not believe that the e-mails clearly and unequivocally emanating from Vintagekits did pass the hurdle of credibility as to an actual physical threat posed.

I also made clear when speaking to Alison voice (after her block - not before) that, although I did not feel directly threatened by VK (since his identity and location were already known to the relevant police forces), I was perturbed (given the sectarian tensions in the city of Glasgow where I reside) at the potential for sundry loonies to "have a pop" at me if my street address was too publicly disclosed.

I also made clear to Alison that, if and when the e-mails (note the plural - it is not just VK that has been e-mailing) exceeded the threshold of being a credible (as opposed to vile, vicious and graphic) physical threat OR the quantity became such as to constitute stalking OR the contents were an attempt at blackmail OR constituted evidence of serious crimes, then I would still not send them to her or anyone else at Wikipedia but simply pass them on to the police for appropriate action. W. Frank talk ✉  19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Frank; the links provided above lead to a blanked-out or deleted pages. Whay was on them? (Sarah777 06:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

They've been oversighted for reasons of privacy. Both of them contained clear references to where W. Frank lives, and were decidedly unsubtle. VK has already admitted to this[24][25] - Alison ❤ 07:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Thepiper is a Single Purpose Account to promote a partisan agenda

7) Thepiper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a Single Purpose Account to promote a point of view with regards to the Troubles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per my evidence. Rockpocket 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed SirFozzie 14:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And what's my point of view????? Thepiper 15:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[26] sums it up pretty well, I think. SirFozzie 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And very worthy at that, and SirFozzie, you have claimed that you know very little about Irish history. Well, what have you to offer to the other Irish editors, you could out of your depth? Thepiper 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You have asked for us to show what your Point of View is. I have responded. What have I to offer the other Irish Editors? Once again, (and quite frankly, I'm tired of getting hit from both sides on this issue), I'm not here to help either side in this interminable edit war. I'm here to try to enforce Wikipedia's rules and regulations. As the song goes "It's always the same, it's just a shame, that's all.." (Genesis "That's All") SirFozzie 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - and as it says below, User:Thepiper turned out to be a sock-puppet of User:Gold heart / User:Gold Heart (Temp), which had both been used together in the past to evade 3RR (for example, on the Craic article), and now finally ended up trolling this Arbitration case - Alison ☺ 04:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I have decided to take a less subjective approach to the nature of Thepiper; I examined his record of contributions, especially those in mainspace. In the one year and 3 months since he started editing he has contributed a somewhat disappointing 33 edits. (Clearly Admin material by your own reckoning Piper). But look at the range;

Bobby Sands (7) Crack (3) Scotland Office (2) Bagpipes (2) British Isles (2) Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest (1) The Patriot Game (1) Sean O’Callaghan (1) Robin Cook (1) Charles Babbage (1) Provisional Irish Republican Army (1) Sinn Fein (1) Omagh Bombing (1) Antal Szerb (1) Pendragon (1) Kingdom of Scotland (1) Edinburgh (1) St. Andrew's Day (1) Scottish Clan (1) Stromness (1) Demography of Germany (1) Church of Scotland (1).

How could anyone describe Piper as a single issue man? Scotland seems his main interest followed by the Irish freedom struggle. That is clearly two issues.

(Sarah777 17:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

How clever, you forgot Germany. Alle Gute. Thepiper 17:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's listed but one entry in 15 months is tough to base a claim of a third issue. The cards I'm looking at contain no trumps - bum deal may be our only defence. Two issues are better than one. (Sarah777 17:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Gold Heart - it's about time you stopped this charade. Seriously. - Alison ☺ 17:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear Alison, you surprise me, not Gold Heart. Was he an Irish editor? Thepiper 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Three things. One) I'm the one who linked the accounts due to so many similarities, brought it to Alison and she agreed with me Two) I'm as sure as I can be of the evidence without actually observing you using the two accounts Three)I've asked for a checkuser to formally done on you... if "you're not Gold_heart".. you want to support it. SirFozzie 18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi SirFozie, how do mean support it? Also, I don't see corresponding discussion, are you emailing each other? Thepiper 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Thepiper: Due to the sensitive nature of this (trust me, this is not the kind of thing you want to be wrong at!) I communicated my concerns and the original request to compare the accounts to Alison off-wiki, and showed her diffs of activity and behaviour to support it. She let me know that she saw the exact same thing that I did. SirFozzie 18:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Produce the emails, make it all public! Thepiper 18:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeez..this is surreal. If ever there was a case to emphasise the case for registration, this is it. (Sarah777 18:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

SirFoz...am I still me according to your checkarooney thingy?!! (Sarah777 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

• chuckles* I dunno. I don't have checkuser priviliges. I'm just going by stylistic, time frame, and grammatical similarities. I know that Alison has also asked for a CheckUser to be done on Gold_heart and Thepiper. SirFozzie 19:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie, what's the exact same thing? Please produce the emails. I am waiting

Thepiper 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It might also be worth noting, considering Thepiper's unusual and apparently spontaneous interest, in my actions in this case, that Gold heart (talk · contribs) mounted a not dissimilar campaign against my involvement [27], that was pretty much dismissed by parties from all "sides". Soon after Gold Heart departed and Thepiper's campaign began. Since Thepiper is clearly not a new editor, and one with an obvious interest in this case, I would urge ArbCom to determine whether this account is being user appropriately or not. Rockpocket 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• With regret, I do admit that Gold_heart and Thepiper are the one same editor. Some months ago, I did try to close down the Gold_heart account and leave Wikipedia[28]. Then the ArbCom/Troubles case was instituted, which I wanted to be a part of, and I dug up an old account, Thepiper, which I had abandoned because I hadn't so much liked the name, and I proceeded to use it for editing purposes. I was not properly able to use the Gold_heart account, as I had it closed, and had my password was scrambled. This was to be my last foray into Wikipedia. So I found myself in a somewhat limbo-like state, and I made big-time mistakes. It was never my intention to manipulate the page by using the two accounts, but I know what I did was very wrong, I should have planted a notice somewhere about my new found status. Everything is closing in now, and at least two editors here are aware of my position, and it's imperative at this stage that I come clean on this, and not cause any discomfort to anyone else here, and especially to those who trusted me. I have Wikipedia at heart, it's really brilliant, and some lovely people here too. You can see here from a recent edit here [29], my stark beliefs about Wikipedia, and what the problems are. Gold Heart (Temp) 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Rockpocket is an unhelpful presence on Irish related articles

8) Rockpocket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an unhelpful presence on Irish related articles, and ArbCom to concern itself with this issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per my evidence. Thepiper 01:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I recuse myself from comment on this proposal. Rockpocket 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket has behaved in an exemplary fashion under considerable pressure and deserves a medal. Tyrenius 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly opposed. Absolutely agree with Tyrenius. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Opposed Rockpocket has been trying to keep the editors in this ArbCom case from edit warring for several months.. it should not be seen as his failure, but a black mark on the editors involved that they would not listen to him. SirFozzie 03:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is this evidence? As far as I can see, Rockepocket has been exemplary. Logoistic 10:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on a very British response, - I believe that Rockpocket has a condescending, irritating, supercilious attitude toward editors who disagree with him, which can be very unhelpful. Remember it's the editors who run Wikipedia, and not the administrators, the editors must be satisifed in this ArbCom above all else. Editors are the back-bone of Wikipedia -Thepiper 12:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a personal attack - please stop this incivility - nationality is irrelevent here. Also, you have provided no evidence for this "condescending, irritating, supercilious attitude". Without this, it is nothing more than slander, and constitutes nothing more than another personal attack. Please watch yourself. Logoistic 12:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is all about nationality, it seems to have a British V Irish dimension, if I'm not mistaken. Sorry you disagree, but it's my belief, hope you don't mind my input. Thepiper 12:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is nothing to do with nationality, as I aptly demonstrate. The dispute is to do with whether editors are prepared to ignore their own point of view and write from what sources say. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: This 'statement of fact' on the face of it seems to refer to Rockpocket the editor rather than Rockpocket the admin. In my experience Rockpocket, almost uniquely among editors on both sides of the fence, is quick to respond to any reasonable argument from any party, and will tend to steer the argument in the direction of consensus, rather than conflict. On Rockpocket the admin I would like to note (a) that he was very supportive of Vintagekits even after the personal abuse that led him to block him and (b) Thepiper, his most strident critic in this arbitration, recently awarded him a special barnstar with the words "Thepiper, award you the Special Barnstar for dealing with events in a sometimes engaging, but nevertheless, amicable manner, and to let you know, that we too are aware of the pressures that you Admins are under!" Scolaire 14:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Rockpocket has tried to engage with all sides in these disputes.--padraig 03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Rockpocket and SirFozzie have both been working extremely hard to get both factions to calm down, begin dialog and try to reach agreement. Neither of them have showed discernable bias here - Alison ☺ 04:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly Opposed - I think he strives to be fair at all times and appears to be reasonable. I certainly disagree with his excessively (IMO) unbending attitude to Vk but the description of him by Thepiper is not remotely what I have experienced. In any case a "condescending, irritating, supercilious attitude" is hardly a crime; irritation is in the mind of the irritated. (Sarah777 13:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Editors are the backbones of Wikipedia

10) Editors are the people who make Wikipedia work, and their views must be noted. Administrators are not some form of elite who run the show, they are there merely to serve Wikipedia, and its editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposal is self-evident, but its practice is often forgotten. Thepiper 12:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal doesn't make sense. Administrators are still editors. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does make a lot of sense, the only people looking for a permanent block of Vintagekists, are the Admin/s. Not the editors. Thepiper 14:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Administrators are still editors. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

They call themselves Administrators, not editors. Fine, a proportion do actually still edit, but it's not the rule. Thepiper 14:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Hackney. Doesn't make sense. SirFozzie 14:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators doesn't make any distinction, they are editors still. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thepiper is quite wrong in saying only Admins want VK indefinitely blocked. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well déjà vu, I don't want Vintagekits permo-blocked, but no-one listens to me. You just seem to talk amongst yourselves. I know that I have become enemy no2, because I am not afraid to stand out and be different from you. Maybe some listening, instead of talking might solve this British V Irish thing. There are not many Irish editors left on Wikipedia, please do not drive the remaining few away. It's up to you guys! -Thepiper 16:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I find myself in full agreement with this; it is rather annoying to find yourself being threatened/banned/blocked by some Admin with a rather skimpy editing history who is just six months on the scene. (They are nearly as bad as single-interest editors, in fact). There are, it might be prudent to add, many Admins who are prolific editors and also excellent Admins. (Sarah777 13:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Many Admins actually never edited much. Very often, much of their record is in reverting vandalism by IP's. Then, with 1,000 edits under their belt, they put themselves forward RfA. If they play their cards right, it's quite easy. Thepiper 13:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree the bar for putting oneself forward as an Admin is much too low; and while 5,000 edits should be the min that won't stop the comma-inserters getting there in a flash; there needs to be a calibrated series of requirements. (Sarah777 15:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Do any of the involved admins have "a rather skimpy editing history"? As far as I am away all of them have extensive histories as editors in addition to being admins. There are valid issues about the experience of admins, but I don't think they are relevent to this case. Its also somewhat ironic that this proposal has been put forward the with editor with the skimpiest edit history of any of the principal parties, somthing less than 50 article edits, most of which are minor. Isn't it about time you cam clean about your other account(s), Thepiper? Rockpocket 21:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah and Thepiper on this. Astrotrain 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I grant you the irony; especially now. But mine was a general comment on the fact that (IMO) it is too easy to become an Admin. (And it is too easy to become an editor, btw). Absolutely no reflection of the current crop here. Why do I always feel I should by apologising to you Rockpocket? You KNOW I wasn't talking about you, SirFoz or Alison. (Sarah777 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

I know you are not talking about me, Alison. And I don't disagree with you in general. But I just think we should try and keep our comments as directed as possible to the matter at hand here. If there is a problem with a specific administrator or administrative action in this case in particular then we should discuss that (as Thepiper has proposed about me). I think general problems with the RfA system should be addressed as a more appriopriate forum, as its not clear how it is relevent to this case when none of the admins involved fit that criteria. Rockpocket 00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Which of the admins on the list are open to recall? Perhaps we should consider if they are fit to remain admins based on their behaviour? Astrotrain 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm on that list (as is Alison), and if you think you can prove that I am unfit for holding the mop (as you have accused me of), all it takes is five people and I will either run for Admin again.. or voluntarily relinquish the mop. SirFozzie 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I've nothing to hide here & everthing I do is in the open. I'm also on the list of administrators open to recall - Alison ☺ 21:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not on the list, because I disagree with the process though not the principle. I am on record as saying I will voluntarily recall myself if a number of independent observers express reservation with my use of the tools. If it makes it easier, for the purposes of this case, I will abide by the recall conditions also. Rockpocket 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:W. Frank has persistently made personal attacks

11) For several months W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently been incivil and made personal attacks on other editors, despite warnings not to.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Supported by the evidence --Domer48 12:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed--padraig 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, supported by evidence.--Vintagekits 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Troubles

12) The Troubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be a remarkably good article, perhaps someone could clue me in on any problem with it. Perhaps most of the trouble is with auxiliary articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment Fred Bauder 16:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It's generally with articles associated with it, or Northern Ireland in general. Breaches of NPOV, adding of original research, the use (or lack of use) of the former flag of the government of Northern Ireland (currently waiting for a mediation case to open). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not related to that article, but rather to the entire gamut of articles related to that period and historical subject; articles related to Northern Ireland, its politics and events, people, organisations; articles related to sport, especially where flags are involved; regional navigation templates, especially those with controversial names (Londonderry/Derry, Rosslea/Roslea) and those with flags; even computer games with national/regional flags (like FIFA 08 where there's currently a flag dispute). It's a huge issue and easily covers dozens if not hundreds of articles - Alison ☺ 17:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the scope was widened to cover edit warring, incivility etc. on a range of articles, including articles in the Baronets project that are not related to the Troubles at all. "The Troubles" was chosen as a succinct title – perhaps too succinct. Scolaire 18:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the scope of the arbitration. The actual article "The Troubles" is not necessarily involved at all. Fred Bauder 18:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think BrownHairedGirl made a good summary of the dispute here.

David, as I and other admins have said before, there are POV missions on both sides of this dispute. Many of the people who you accuse of "promoting and sanitising terrorism" clearly regard themselves as trying to give a fair account of the activities of a guerilla campaign which arose out of a political conflict, and which had a significant degree of popular support; they would also point to the British establishment, and to a history which includes Burntollet, the driving of Catholics in Belfast out of their homes in 1969, to internment without trial, to large numbers of civilians injured by plastic bullets, and say that in that context it is unjust to accuse one side of using violence in a less legitimate sense. We all know that there is a very well-reasoned and widely-supported case to be made for the role of the British and Northern Irish governments, but you appear to be under the impression that wikipedia should somehow condemn one side, and that's the big problem here. Wikipedia is not the place to attach disparaging labels to things we don't like; our job as editors is to record the facts insofar as they agreed, and to note the areas of disagreement, both over fact and over interpretation. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, so rather than using terminology which suits either side of the debate, let's use neutral, descriptive terms (such sniper rather than assassin, killed rather than murdered or assassinated), and let the readers make up their own minds)

One of the major problems is that editors are inserting their own opinions into articles rather than attributing opinions to sources. If there's a source that describes the IRA/UDA/UVF as "cowardly murdering terrorists" then cite it, but editors are adding it based on their own opinion. The NPOV problems arise because the "British" (and other assorted) editors think that a neutral point of view of a "terrorist attack" is that it is a "terrorist attack", and state it as fact rather than attribute that to a source. The "Irish" editors get accused of "sanitising" articles for trying to use neutral language, even though Reuters have a similar policy to Wikipedia. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User: Kittybrewster has goaded Vintagekits

12) User:Kittybrewster has deliberately inflamed the problems by goading Vintagekits in the form of making many edits designed to upset and enrage him. Examples of these jibes include being blocked for insulting Vintagekits [30]; making a template which he intended to place by the edits of those he considered Republicans [31]; gloating on VKs page when there is no reason for him to be there [32]; a comment for which he received a warning [33]; this particular thread was particularly unnecessary gloating intended to further enrage VK [34]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Kittybrewster has attempted to stir and agitate this pot for some considerable time Giano 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree He has constantly goaded VK.--padraig 13:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

IRA or PIRA

12) The question of whether the Provisional Irish Republican Army should be be referred to as IRA or PIRA has been an issue. Discussions are at Talk:Dunmurry train explosion and at Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#Abreviate_to_.22PIRA.22_or_.22IRA.22_.3F. Edit warring over this point is a major complaint regarding W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Evidence#User:W._Frank_is_Editing_Disruptively. Supporting his position was Gaimhreadhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted by Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), "Why is this even an issue? Fred Bauder 14:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Collective 1 Revert Parole

1) The following users are placed on Revert Parole:

Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• I would also like to place Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on revert parole as well, but he is not currently an involved party (although I have requested him to be added as an involved party). This would be added to any blocks that are deemed necessary by the Arbitration Committee. SirFozzie 17:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Objection to my name being in this list. It is wholly unjustified on the evidence. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Objection to User:SirFozzie putting my name in this list. When I have been in an edit war? My only offence has been to respond to provocation when I should not have. David Lauder 19:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Vintage should be added as if he isd unblocked this would be essentail. Revert parole is never a bad thing as what is bad is edit warring, SqueakBox 20:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Conypiece suggested that the following people be added.

One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• SqueakBox suggested that the following person be added

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have no fundamental objections to this right now. SirFozzie 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• BigDunc isn't even an involved party, and there's been no evidence produced. I couldn't care less about me, it's irrelevant. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

David, first off, please do not edit my sections. You can create your own section for that Secondly, your attempt to once again link 303/One Night In Hackney is juvenile and counterproductive. If you ever looked at his signature, the 303 is not part of his username, but a link to User Talk:One Night In Hackney. SirFozzie 14:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with the above, including Kittybrewster, but feel Vintagekits needs also to be placed on this list in case the Arbcom do decided he does not need to be permanently blocked. Giano 18:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any evidence that Kittybrewster or David Lauder have been edit-warring, so I'm not sure why they have been included in this remedy. Catchpole 10:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Conypiece blocked for one year.

2) User:Conypiece's editing priviliges on Wikipedia are revoked for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed seeing him come back with his first edits after being blocked being restarting a fight on a protected article's talk page and incivil comments to another editor while resuming an edit war on another page... it's obvious he's not going to hew to Wikipedia policies and rules. SirFozzie 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked you a long time ago what to do with editors who refuse to discuss on talk pages but yet continue to edit war (which you never did anything about). You never replied. If I seem incivil it is only because they are too cowardly to answer and I was trying to get an answer out of them.Conypiece 18:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Too long. Suggest 6 months after which mentored by an Admin. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Way too excessive. He has been blocked twice - a year, or even 6 month ban is totally oppressive. Moreover, this ignores the fact that the user is consistently faced with disputes with other users, such is the user's topics of interest. It doesn't excuse the fact, but mediates it - just like Vk was given enough chances (take a look at his block log). I'll try and cool things down. Blocks never really work - we should all know that by now. Logoistic
• The problem is that not only has he perpetuated disputes with other editors despite blocks, he's also willingly gone head first into disputes that were already ongoing. His incivility is a major problem, as is his Unionist agenda. Looking through his contributions I've not seen a single one that justifies tolerating his current behaviour. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm gone willingly into disputes already happening, sorry? Explain that. Oh you mean the Orange Order dispute? I said my piece, I have not been back, however I can understand why it has annoyed you so much; what I said was not your POV... Conypiece 18:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, reading this gave me a laugh, thanks for that. Now I am quite looking forward as to what 'punishments' there are for certain other editors. I can already predict the cries from some of the people here. Conypiece 18:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strange that SirFozzie proposes to block Conypiece for one year when he made such an effort to unblock VK a few months ago. I would not say Conypiece is as disruptive as VK ever was. Astrotrain 10:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC). Anyway Oppose- biased evidence and biased comments above ("Unionist agenda"). Astrotrain 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Biased evidence and comments? Don't think so. Evidence are diffs of his editing, and my comment is backed up by the evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed, what do you hope to achieve by banning a good editor for such a long time? Seems to me that he wouldn't bother coming back, which makes this a de facto permanent ban, which is not in any way natural justice.Traditional unionist 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly opposed excessive and in my opinion unjustified. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Opposed - it's somewhat excessive & I'd like to see alternative avenues explored first - Alison ☺ 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Agree as per SirFozzie's comments. BigDunc 10:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, Supported by the evidence --Domer48 12:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits banned from Wikipedia

3) User:Vintagekits' editing privileges on Wikipedia are revoked and his indefinite block upheld.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. After multiple "last chances" and the gamut of policy violations to his name, Vintagekits continued to indulge in threatening and incivil behaviour. Rockpocket 08:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

These days ArbCom will only endorse indefinite blocks; it has not issued an indefinite ban on editors for a long time. Therefore, if this item is voted on, it will definitely need to be reworded. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Frank emails are produced, yes. If not, totally opposed as there would, in that situation, be serious suspicion that Vk has been a victim of a set-up. (Sarah777 22:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

In light of Penwhale comment, can I reword this one, or is it usually preferred to make a new, reworded proposal? Rockpocket 00:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing what you might say, I'll be happy for you to reword. I trust you will be, above all, fair. (Sarah777 00:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

• I would like to see the evidence - and then form an opinion as to the length of block. Giano 09:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is made on the combined weight of the evidence presented here, and the additional evidence ArbCom is party to. Rockpocket 18:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits editing privileges revoked for one year

3.1) User:Vintagekits's editing privileges are revoked for a period of one year. After the year is up, he is placed on indefinite civility and revert parole

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Alternate, if the ArbCom does not want to endorse the indefblock. SirFozzie 03:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves, and since indefinite does not mean infinite, I would support this also. Rockpocket 08:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly better than an indefinite block, though I think it excessively long I also think if their are to be blocks imposed on anyone of longer than one month it should be the same for all who are to be blocked for longer than this short period, SqueakBox 21:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, believe it or not. Indefinite does not necessarily mean infinite and that was not the spirit in which the current block was made. If VK continues to edit other wikis in the meantime and gains some perspective away from the battlefield that en.wp has become, that might work. However, he would only be allowed to return if mentored closely for a time by demonstrably neutral persons - Alison ☺ 18:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed per Alison. A one year ban does not mean VK will be editing after the year is up, as he would still need to find an admin willing to lift his indefinite block. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, only if other editors are handed the same restriction and if I can edit articles outside the sphere of conflict. To be honest I have given enough of my time and effort and could do with a year away from this subject.--Vintagekits 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There is absolutely no need, at this stage, to extend the block beyond certain articles or types of articles. (Sarah777 13:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Agree with Sarah777 with the caveat that a minimum team of 5 previously uninvolved admins (in different time zones) supervise VK to immediately (if possible) forestall incivility and personal attacks and oversight any more releases of personal "real life" information if it is thought that VK's potential contributions to Wikipedia outweigh the heavy admin time involvement.

The alternative would be to specifically grant an exemption to the abusive sockpuppet rules for VK so that VK can use VK's alternative editor accounts to edit constructively and uncontroversially. In the latter case, I would propose that Rockpocket be given the names of all accounts used by VK and an appropriate permanent template be placed on VK's user and user talk pages.

In any event, no exemption to our Conflict of Interest guidelines should be offered. W. Frank talk ✉  13:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• In the interest of parties, there has been once case (which I can't exactly name right now) that ArbCom both endorsed an indef block and imposed a 1 year ban. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC) EDIT: this case is what I was talking about. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• There is no need to ban him for a year, he has a valuable contribution to make He needs an enforced period away from the "Troubles pages" if he broke that ban then ban hin for ever. Giano 16:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• What's a "troubles page", so we'll know when he's overstepped the mark? I'm sure your definition is not the same as, say, Kittybrewster's. Are you going to be around after the arb case to assist in the ensuing mess, or is that just something for "the admins"? - Alison ☺ 17:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be throwing some form of hissy fit. I am sorry your trust in W Frank has proven misplaced but that is hardly my fault. It is perfectly obvious what I mean by "Troubles pages". Yes I expect I will be around after this case - I have been here since 2004, believe it or not I have seen far worse cases than this, and am still here. I have no interest in Kittybrewster;s definitions of anything on Wikipedia, I have said elsewhere he is not an editor whose opinion is of any interest to me. Regarding your comment above: "or is that just something for "the admins"? - That is immaterial to me, if people wish to propose themselves to rush around the site wielding a "mop and bucket" then they may as well wield them and make themselves useful. You certainly seem to enjoy doing so - so who am I to deprive them of the pleasure. Giano 18:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Quit trolling, Giano. There's no other term for it at this stage and it isn't helping anyone. Let me make it perfectly clear, so. There will be a conflict of definition over the incredibly broad and vague term, "troubles articles" and this will cause trouble again and again. Do boxing articles count? What about Barry McGuigan - zOMG - he's an MBE, too! And he's from Northern Ireland. And, for good measure, he's claimed himself to be 'British' or 'Irish' according to need. Spot the problem yet? "Troubles Articles" is a POV nightmare. You've already stated that you won't entertain Kitty's interpretation of that, so you're already at odds over the situation. Nobody can define the term properly and clearly to the satisfaction of all. Then there's also the minor matter of Baronetcies. Let's not go there, eh? - Alison ☺ 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My Dear,I am not trolling, simply replying to you - as always. I suggest you watch your accusations. "Troubles articles" <sigh> are obviously anything pertaining to the the Irish/British problem. I would just point out that there are very good attempts being made in London between Mr. Adams and his friends and the British Government to resolve these issued. I'm sure you and your very busy admin friends could find the time to start a Category: Troubles in order for us all to be quite clear, what VK and CO could edit or not, if not I will do so myself if the Arbcom give me absolute authority to do so - I'm not very good with committees - too many well meaning people with too little idea of reality for my liking. Have you made that proposed motion yet, by the way? Giano 19:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't call me "dear" - it's patronising and demeaning. I don't think that starting another category (esp. one titled "troubles" or similar) will fix anything, other than provide another vehicle for all of them to edit war over (What belongs in there? What doesn't? Who removed "Barry McGuigan"? etc etc). Yet another flashpoint - Alison ☺ 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I do understand your disappointment, it must be very distressing having had hour long telephone calls with W Franks to find you have been so cruelly used. However, that is no reason to take your anger out further on Vintagekits - I think he is almost as much a victim in this case as you are. We all make errors of judgement on the spur of the moment even you. perhaps there would be less flashpoints if you were a little more worldly in these matters. Giano 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits's indefblock ratified.

3.2) User:Vintagekits's indefinite block is ratified by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is likely, but I would welcome an alternative if I could be assured that further problems were unlikely. Fred Bauder 17:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Rewording Rockpocket's template SirFozzie 03:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, SirFozzie. This would be my preferred remedy. Rockpocket 08:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Fred's comment, it is my belief and understanding that we are the point of indef blocking because we cannot be confident further problems are unlikely. After 6 or 7 shorter blocks Vk was aware that further problems would lead to an indef block, yet continued to insult and abuse. Furthermore, even while indef blocked currently Vk (by his own admission) has been goading at least one participant of ArbCom by email. This offers me zero confidence that further problems are unlikely, at least in the short to medium term. Perhaps as Alison states above, a lengthy, but definite time away from en.wp would suffice. Rockpocket 18:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

qualified agree, but only if ratified by ArbCom. My first preference would be the 3.1 option above - Alison ☺ 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As above. Make it specific to the articles/areas that are giving rise to problems. (Sarah777 13:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

As above, let's see the evidence first. Giano 09:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is damning, but private. Fred Bauder 17:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred, You have some private evidence, is this evidence known only to you and W Frank, or is it from some other source - it is now impossible for Vintagekits to defend himself because no-one knows what the evidence consists of. I don't see how this case can continue in this vein, we have the accused (VK) making comments like this [35] which is actually quite reasonable and no one lifting a finger to change things. The way this case is progressing is not fair or just and is doing Wikipedia little credit. Am I the only person who can see that? C'mon Fred surely you can see this is a medieval (to put it kindly) way of investigating a problem. Why not send VK a copy of the evidence by email or is it secret from him too? Giano 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is made on the combined weight of the evidence presented here, and, as Fred notes, the additional evidence that remains private. Rockpocket 18:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Any admin named in the involved parties list should be banned from using their admin tools against anyone else in the involved parties list

4) There is clear evidence of bias in the decisions of admins in the involved parties list- and there is doubt if they can be trusted to continue to use their admin powers in a neutral manner against any of the involved parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Support- based on my evidence and that of others —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs)

I have yet to see any evidence of bias presented, and almost all admins involved have little or no interest in the Troubles beyond attempting to mediate content disputes between the other editors listed. It seems more likely this would simply result in further admins being drawn into the debate who, before long, will be accused of bias (if past experience is anything to go by, a "biased" admin in the eyes of some, is one who does something one of the factions does not agree with). However, if ArbCom are willing to appoint a panel of uninvolved admins charged with overseeing the warring and misbehaviour around these articles to the same degree the involved admins have, and if this would promote harmony among the warring editors, then I would not be adverse to it. The admins currently involved are not the problem here, but if they can be part of the solution by withdrawing, then that can only be welcomed. Rockpocket 10:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No. There has been no evidence presented, just allegations not backed up by any diffs. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposition is a contradiction in terms. Bias applies when one faction is favoured over another. The fact that admins are accused of bias against everyone shows they are even-handed. Tyrenius 11:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What Rockpocket said. Any admin who tries to keep these edit warriors from edit warring is soon accused of bias. SirFozzie 13:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Opposed. no evidence of bias. -- Kittybrewster (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Opposed The admins have not shown any bias in dealing with the problems arising from these issues, in fact they have done their best to calm things down all round.--padraig 18:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: The admins named in the involved parties list, in particular Rockpocket, SirFozzie and Alison, have at all times used their admin powers to cool the situation, and in an impartial way. Without them, things might have been much worse. Scolaire 14:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose'Traditional unionist 14:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm certainly not as convinced as the Admins above that ALL Admins act impartially! The trouble with the proposed remedy is that it is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I have found that biased Admins are usually brought into line by Admin peer-pressure. (Sarah777 13:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

• I have certainly seem some regrettable decisions but nothing which indicates a clear bias. Some (if not all) of the admins concerned have Irish connections and it may have been wiser if they had anticipated that they would be accused of bias by one side or the other and called for more independent seeming admin assistance. However, it is a little late in the day for this proposal - I don't think any of them have been deliberatly biased, they seem tried their best. Giano 17:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:W. Frank banned for one year

5) W. Frank's editing priviliges on Wikipedia are revoked for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is this evidence? Can you provide difs? Logoistic 10:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Support a fairly long term sanction. SirFozzie 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree He has edited disruptively and ignores talk page discussions that disagree with his POV, he is also very uncivil at times in his comments regarding those that disagree with him.--padraig 19:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Too harsh. I think W.Frank has an issue in that he really doesn't like the IRA. Of course, he's not alone - they're not outlawed in all of the relevent countries concerned because a couple of people disagree with them. However, he really doesn't seem comfortable with representing it in a way that doesn't highlight its negativity. And let's be honest now, he is not wrong that there is a group of Irish Republicans who often add a view that favours the IRA. Thus, the hunger strike page starts off with an image of "25 years commemoration" and is full of images of "memorials". They don't necessarilly present POV in that they word things positively, but in what they choose what to talk about/show. Thus, in the PIRA article, statements like "The IRA have killed more people than any other organisation since the Troubles began" are consigned to the murky depths of the article, while "expert opinion that the British Army had failed to defeat the IRA by force of arms" is deemed far more important and put in the lead. W.Frank feels infuriated. This is especially so when users like One Night seem to show an explicit admiration of the very thing he detests in his user name. He has gone the wrong way about solving his issues, and created an unecessary conspiracy theory where even Tyrenius gets included in this detested group. W.Frank states on his user page that he "will be back on Wikipedia on the day justice and common sense prevail at last". I think he is very misguided as to how he challenges his perceived POV and sees himself as unduly punished. A block would surely just infuriate him even further. I propose that whenever W.Frank is involved in any breakinbg of Wikipedia policies, that he be directed to me. I feel that because we share a similar view that many of these articles are POV, that I would be able to explain the situation from a position that would unlikely to be considered within this conspiracy. In short: a block would simply confirm his conspiracy theory - "justice" would not prevail in his opinion. On the other hand I could guide him. At least give me a chance. Logoistic 23:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Missing the point. Have you looked at all the evidence presented against him and not just mine? Look at W. Frank's edits to the relevant articles. There's been do attempt to improve any of them, only disruption and adding his own unsourced opinions, plus abusing any editor who disagrees with him. Who are these "Irish Republicans who often add a view that favours the IRA"? Diffs please, as I'm certainly not aware of this. I also think you'll find this diff quite revealing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I thought I already made that clear - articles are selective in what they say and where they say it. The fact that there was virtually no negative reaction to the death of Bobby Sands article in the Bobby Sands article (until I started to add it) is one example. It was ironic as the main source (the Cain site) did have a little negative reaction itself on there, but this was wholly selectively ignored by previous editors. Goldheart even had explcit praise of the RIRA - the "undefeated army". And surely you must have realised that having "IRA" as part of your username must have caused just a little bit of anger among some users. And yes I have looked at all of the evidence presented against W.Frank, and it's not half as bad as what Vk has done, but he has been given enough chances. The final diff you provide just goes to proove my point - he feels there is a group of pro-IRA editors who seek to glorify it. That edit shows that he is trying to get some of kind of resolution over the IRA/PIRA dispute. Logoistic 10:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was seeing if you had any better examples than the hunger strike, and clearly you don't. What other images would you like to see in the hunger strike featured article? Bear in mind if you check the FA nomination I had to remove the murals and replace them with other free images I tracked down. Bobby Sands is a terrible example. The article had existed for four years and been edited by all and sundry including yourself and Weggie, and you're suddenly trying to blame the "Irish republican" editors because nobody had added the information? The more time W. Frank wastes by being disruptive, the less time editors have to actually improve articles so it's a catch 22 situation. I take it you didn't read the final part of W. Frank's comment in the diff - "socialist heroes that fought a valiant (and partially successful) liberation struggle"? Check BigDunc's evidence, he wasn't interested in discussing the acronym at all. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You compeltely miss the point. You agree that these articles do indeed have a "Irish Republican" bias (if we can call it that) insofar as information such as negative reaction is either not considered, or demoted. Anything else, such as what editors such as me and Weggie should do about it is after the fact. The point being made is that this bias has clearly annoyed W.Frank, and he has gone about it the wrong way in expressing what he sees as what is 'right'. But he has done this misguidedly. Thus, when he added "terrorist", he did not detach it from the article persona, and was thus wrong to add it as such. I or Weggie would have either highlighted the fact that X country designates them terrorist, or that signfiicant person X has called it a "terrorist attrocity". As an aside, I'm sorry you blame me for the way these articles are, but I have tried. Anyway, I say we give W.Frank a chance whereby if he is involved in any dispute, he come through me and I try to sort it out properly. Oh, and I did read all of that actually, and it clearly demonstrates that he feels there are a lot of pro-IRA users who bias Wikipedia - but that's what I said before! Logoistic 20:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I never agreed any articles have an Irish republican bias. In fact, I asked you to provide examples and you really failed to do so. I don't blame you for the condition of any articles, I was merely pointing out that you repeatedly edited the Sands article since its creation in 2003. I can provide many examples of me adding negative information to Irish republican articles, so your accusation is without merit. If you've got evidence, feel free to post it. You only have to look at W. Frank's edits while this case is ongoing, such as this. Now, which source supports the addition of "and regards this heritage as important for continuing electoral success"? It's complete and total original research. The way to neutral articles is not through the addition of unsourced commentary and original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is starting to clutter up my watch list. The only bias on Republican Articles is by so called conscientious editors. They are not interested in improving the articles, or building up articles to FA status. All they want to do is push their own petty little agendas. If the editors of WP:IR, are pushing an agenda, they are doing it with cited references. Since becoming an editor, I have gone from being a net contributor, to being a maintenance man. That is, just trying to maintain the articles from the abuse by editors. I have an agenda, and its outlined on my user page for all to see. The next editor who accuses anyone of POV, should as a matter of course, be made to produce the diff’s to back it up. --Domer48 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Per SirFozzie, I would support a fairly long sanction, especially if the sockpuppetry allegations were confirmed by checkuser. A year may be a bit extreme though.Rockpocket 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, as with Conypeice.Traditional unionist 14:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, - banned from editors articles within the sphere of conflict - like others including myself, Kittybrewster and Astrtrain.--Vintagekits 21:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Much too harsh. (Sarah777 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

• Semi-agree: as Padraig says above "He has edited disruptively and ignores talk page discussions that disagree with his POV" - but that is not all, I beleive he one of those at the root of the problems here. A long term ban though rather depends on whether the alledged threatening emails exist or not. If he has deliberatly exagerated content of emails from VK - then a ban is called for, the length of that ban would have to depend on the degree of exageration. The disadvantages he brings to Wikipedia far outweigh the advantages. Giano 19:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree As per evidence I put forward.BigDunc 10:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree The evidence is all there, but the IP's should be added. --Domer48 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:W. Frank banned from affected articles

6) W. Frank is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia W. Frank engages in a dispute related in any way to the conflict in Northern Island.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree as for SirFozzie comment.--padraig 19:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If the above sanction doesn't pass. SirFozzie 15:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree: Of all the parties, W. Frank is the one with the biggest chip on his shoulder, and the least constructive input. Scolaire 14:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the "whole lot of them" comment by Giano, below, is not helpful. Scolaire 14:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support, if a ban is deemed necessary. (Sarah777 15:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Agree if block is not used as punishment. BigDunc 10:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, I dont think anyone should be banned from certain articles or for a ytear a period of longer than a year, SqueakBox 00:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree I think the lot of them, VK included, want banning from all effected articles for a few months at least. Giano 09:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Supported by the evidence --Domer48 12:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, seems the best way forward.--Vintagekits 21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits topic banned from articles

7) User:Vintagekits is topic-banned from articles pertaining to Northern Ireland/Irish republicanism/British politics/Peerage and nobility indefinitely. If he wishes this topic ban to be removed, he will need to make a request of the Arbitration Committee. This applies to both talk and article pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Vintagekits on his talk page. I am neutral on this and recuse myself from any discussion. SirFozzie 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He was banned from these before and it didn't work- what makes you think it will this time? (a question and not an endorsement of this suggestion)Astrotrain 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Even now, while currently indefinitely blocked, Vk is goading editors by email. It is clear his desire to engage in conflict with other editors has gone well beyond any specific pages. Vk has showed time and again he is unable or unwilling to behave in a civilised manner, and if he can't behave appropriately while blocked and under the scrutiny of an ArbCom case, why would he do so when unblocked? Rockpocket 19:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I dont think anyone should be banned from certain articles or for a ytear a period of longer than a year, SqueakBox 00:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it will give my head some peace and allow me time to solely edit on articles which I have never had any problems.--Vintagekits 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree, this appears to be acceptable to Vk in order to get back quickly to the boxing articles which he maintains. The circumstances surrounding the current ban are somewhat suspect so I think the risk that 'it won't work' is a small risk set against the possible injustice of leaving him banned. I think his own talk page should not be included in the topic-specific ban as we all need somewhere to express our views when relevant to improving the project; obviously WP:NPA etc would still apply. Also; there should be an absolute ban on provoking or goading him in relation to the topics he is precluded from commenting on; some of the "celebrations" that blocked folk are subject to are, in my view, deliberately calculated to inflame the victim so that he will end up being banned forever. I have been subjected to this myself and know just how hard it is to bite ones tongue in the circumstances. (Sarah777 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

• Agree He should be banned with the others for a set period of months, if during that period he has kept to these conditions and edited in a responsible way then this could be reviewed. Giano 09:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain banned for one year

8) Astrotrain's editing priviliges on Wikipedia are revoked for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Lengthy history of disruption, edit warring, breaches of NPOV, extensive block log for edit warring and attacks on other editors. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Excessive and too long. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Whilst he has made a good contribution to Wikipedia in the past, his contributions over the past six months have mainly been disruptive and starting edit wars he has also engaged in personal attacks against other editors, for which he has been block a number of times.--padraig 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose the edit wars it is claimed he was involved in are more interesting under the surface. Ie he may have warred but there were X number of editors making smaller number of very similar reverts against him. Some call it tag teaming. Consideration should be taken into account for this. Conypiece 21:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. As far as I can tell Astrotrain's issues come from edit-warring, there appears to be no evidence of personal abuse, sockpuppetry or incivility presented. I would argue a topic ban of some description would be much more appropriate to protect the project. Rockpocket 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent checkuser suggested it was possible Astrotrain was using an IP sockpuppet. For abuse see this where he described 8 editors (including 4 administrators) as "terrorist supporters", and this is questionable too. His block log does show various blocks for incivility and attacks, including the aforementioned. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Supported by the evidence --Domer48 12:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC

I withdraw my opposition on that basis. However, you might with to add evidence of abuse to the Evidence page, as it stands all the evidence I read appeared to be about editwarring and disruption to articles. Rockpocket 18:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose undeserving of a de facto permanent ban.Traditional unionist 14:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose absurd. His contributions to wikipedia over the years far outweigh any recent disruption, in which his part has been no greater than anyone else's. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, it should be an article banned and a revert ban rather than a blanket ban.--Vintagekits 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Despite Astrotrain's call for exactly this sanction against Vk, I think it is too harsh. Article specific ban for Astro along the lines of that proposed for Vk. (Sarah777 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Actually I haven't called for VK to be banned or blocked. I have added a comment to the above comment in case it was misinterpreted as that. Astrotrain 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Either way, I would not support a blanket ban on you. You are a fine editor and if a ban can be article specific I see absolutely no point whatsoever in imposing punitive bans. (Sarah777 23:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Oppose this proposed ban. I am unable to see that he is any worse than some of those on this page making the endless allegations about others. David Lauder 12:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain banned from affected articles

9) Astrotrain is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to Northern Ireland. The ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia Astrotrain engages in a dispute related in any way to Northern Island.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Lengthy history of disruption, edit warring, breaches of NPOV, extensive block log for edit warring and attacks on other editors. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree Whilst he has made a good contribution to Wikipedia in the past, his contributions over the past six months have mainly been disruptive and starting edit wars he has also engaged in personal attacks against other editors, for which he has been block a number of times.--padraig 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Talk pages? Strongly disagree with that and no precedent either, I dont think anyone should be banned from certain articles or for a ytear a period of longer than a year, SqueakBox 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Support a article ban, less convinced about a talkpage ban, as most of the evidence appears to result from article warring. Rockpocket 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My proposal was based on the Lapsed Pacifist one, and wasn't including a talk page ban as that didn't seem to include one. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose this can be seen as a form of reverse canvasing. Nationalists viting to remove a neutral editor from troubles related articles? That will have serious consequences for the credability of wikipedia.Traditional unionist 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose hear-hear. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree; and their talk pages; as per Vk. (Sarah777 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

No precedent for the ban, or for a talk page ban? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For a precedent see [[36]]. --Rocksanddirt 18:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And also Lapsed Pacifist. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - I wasn't clear - and the article talk pages; as per Vk. (Sarah777 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Agreed, since February of this year Astrotrain has used his account to create and spread problem and since April (see my evidence) has primarily used his account as a revert tool. In the past he has made great contributions Banking and Aeronautical articles and maybe he needs to be restricted to those for a year.--Vintagekits 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits six week ban on contentious articles

10) Vintagekits block is lifted, and a ban for six weeks would be imposed on the contentious articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. And, under all of the circumstances, Vintagekits has shown exemplary loyalty to Wikipedia. Thepiper 11:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. A six month ban was violated last time, why would a six week one be effective? When Vk is continuing his poor behaviour when indef blocked, why would unblocking help? Rockpocket 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose, a 6 week ban seems bizarre after all his recent behaviour. Conypiece 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - this approach has been proven to be ineffective, unfortunately - Alison ☺ 19:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• VK and all involved in this matter need to be banned from these pages for a few months, after a period of responsible editing from them all on other pages, then this could be reviewed. Giano 09:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Padraig banned from affected articles

11) Padraig is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia. He engages in a dispute related in any way to the conflict in Northern Island.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as padraig often reverts and then refuses to answer on talk pages, see here where he deletes requests for answers on his talk page. He is one of the most foremost editors involved with the flag editting war. Conypiece 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not based on that evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here, here, here, here,. He edited that page many more times but I assume you've got the general idea by now. This is just another one of the many pages he warred on here, here, here, here Conypiece 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use the evidence page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I dont think anyone should be banned from certain articles or for a ytear a period of longer than a year, SqueakBox 00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree Often uses false reasons to revert, reverts in disguise, ignores talk pages or misrepresents wikipedia articles as being wikipedia policy to backup his reverts. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. While there is evidence that Padraig has edit warred in the past, I don't believe it is persistent enough to warrant this remedy. Moreover, while I had run into him in a few POV issues, I find his is generally civil and willing to accept consensus. Rockpocket 04:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. No evidence provided; can't keep going back into history. (Sarah777 20:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

User:Conypiece banned from affected articles for one year

12) Conypiece is banned for one year from articles which relate to Northern Ireland. The ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia Conypiece engages in a dispute related in any way to Northern Island.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Supported by the evidence --Domer48 12:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose reverse canvassing.Traditional unionist 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree His account is solely intended to promote a particular POV.--padraig 15:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

comment Were it true, he certainly wouldn't be the only one! Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

comment that accusation does not stand up to scrutiny.Traditional unionist 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this editor has contributed nothing to wiki except striff - what articles has he improved or made significant contributions to? None! --Vintagekits 21:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Padraig banned from affected articles for 6 months

13) Padraig is banned for six months, from articles which relate to Northern Ireland and is also banned from editing flag associated material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed following User:Squeakbox's comments above. I thought it more reasonable to use a practical ban of 6 months instead of 1 year. Padraig would be unable to edit any article related to NI and also any flag related pages. Conypiece 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Still no evidence presented that would justify this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose; whoever suggested that need to be reprimanded.--Vintagekits 21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That isn't particularly helpful Vk. Anyone is permitted propose these for comment, without fear of a reprimand because someone disagrees. Rockpocket 23:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not like you to jump on my back not matter what. All you are doing is showing your agenda. Who proposed this anyway?--Vintagekits 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose; no evidence of any recent infringements. (Sarah777 20:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

User: Kittybrewster paroled and given a mentor

14) Kittybrewster is provided with a mentor who will oversee his edits for a period of six months, during that period if his edits fail to live up to the standard expected by Wikipedia he is blocked for a period to be determined by the Arbcom

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Propose and support. Giano 13:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: