User talk:Vintagekits

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vintagekits (talk | contribs) at 21:28, 16 September 2007 (→‎POV voting at AfD's: sdf). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a troll-free zone.

This editor has full permission to remove, without replying, any comments he feels are likely to inflame dispute. If you have a problem with this editor, you are invited to bring that concern to the attention of User:SirFozzie or another member of the administrator community, but please bear in mind that we have a zero-tolerance approach to harassment. Constructive dialogue is always welcome, but if your message is removed it is safe to assume that User:Vintagekits has read it and chooses not to debate with you at this time.


Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 - 5 August 2006 to 25 January 2007
  2. Archive 2 - 25 January 2007 - 5 February 2007
  3. Archive 3 - 5 February 2007 - 8 March 2007
  4. Archive 4 - 9 March - 14 May 2007
  5. Archive 5 - 14 May - 7 July 2007
  6. Archive 6



Comments from unregistered users will be deleted!

Thanks for inviting me ☺

Hi thanks for inviting me to join! I will be looking forward to taking an active part in the site once i finish college in september. I probably will have more questions for you but its great to finally see a proper Irish Republican area to Wikipedia at last. take care mo chara --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baronet renamings

Vintagekits, please stop this splurge if moving articles on baronets from the format Sir X Y, Nth baronet to plain "NY". Many of those who you have moved are ambiguous names, being shared by other notable baronets, not all of whom yet have articles. Moving the articles to the undisambiguated name has in several cases led to links pointing to the wrong articles. I know hat you dislike baronets, but please don't let that lead you to disrupt wikipedia by removing titles which are needed for disambiguation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not " disrupt wikipedia by removing titles which are needed for disambiguation" - I moved article titles that were over disambiguated and against wiki guidelines - you as an admin should know that and shouldnt have moved them back or created a load of bogus disamb pages with nothing but redlinks to avoid wiki guidelines.--Vintagekits 21:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they havent got articles yet then in wiki terms they are not notable. If they are 1st Baronets then I will listen to reason but secondary and further Baronets are not inherantly notable. I am sure there are thousands of articles yet to be created - should all pages be disambiguated in anticipation of those articles being created?--Vintagekits 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, don't let you're PoV get in the way, as it did in the past (before you were indefinitely blocked) try not to let it happen again. --Counter-revolutionary 16:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are just going to troll me talkpage please dont not post here again. I was never blocked for POV pushing - if you want to go down that childish route please remind me what you were blocked for!? Please step down from your soapbox CR, dont not accuse me of POV pushing when I am following wiki guidelines.--Vintagekits 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that much-needed disambiguation is being removed, but there have been no efforts made to fix any resulting double-redirects, even though the move page clearly places that as the responsibility of the editor performing the move. These moves were done at a rate of up to five per minute, which makes it impossible for there to have been meaningful checks carried out. Please count this as a formal warning: a repetition of this may lead to you being blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong to issue a warning - if some redirects name to be sorted then fine - but I checked all article moves before I moved them - I have been squeaky clean since my return to wiki and deeply resent your slur - I am following wiki guidelines with relation to the moves and you are out of order with the line you are taking here.--Vintagekits 17:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think to be fair that Vk is right on the naming issue. It may be that he needs help clearing up the loose ends created by his moves. --John 17:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No he is not right at all. By notable I'm a very sure that User:BrownHairedGirl meant that many of the baronets were MPs etc, whose pages have not yet been created but have automatic notablity as MPs. By moving all on mass, which is very disruptive, during a discussion and not fixing the links, he should really be blocked again. There is no excuse for this disruption, or this blantant POV attitude.--UpDown 18:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That to be honest is pure nonsense - if you want to create articles for people who dont have articles then please crack on and I would be more than happy to reassess the situation. Also to go through the rest of your points - 1. "I'm a very sure that User:BrownHairedGirl meant that many of the baronets were MPs etc" - you know what BHG is thinking now before she even says it do you?? 2. "By moving all on mass, which is very disruptive, during a discussion and not fixing the links" - you have a point about not fixing the links - however, I have amended a number of those now. Also there was a discussion on a number of pages and it was unopposed - also I dont see that there is a real problem not having a discussion when wiki guidelines are being followed. 3. "he should really be blocked again" - blocked because I follow wiki guidelines - maybe you shoujld ask for those to be blocked because they didnt name the articles correctly in the first place! 4. "There is no excuse for this disruption, or this blantant POV attitude" - please explain what POV attitude. The is possibly the least logical post that has ever been posted on my talk page.--Vintagekits 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right so we should move pages, them move them back when the pages are created! Well that is certainly logical and saves time!! And I may not be a mind-reader, but I use common sense. And fixing the links "now" is not good enough, you fix them as you go along, a very basic and simple policy to follow. The discussion was not finished, so you should not have moved the articles. And you know you have a POV, everyone is this discussion knows your POV, so please don't pretend you don't have one. We all know you do.--UpDown 18:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be reasonable, VK. You know very well that there is currently a discussion about naming formats for Baronets on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) where you have taken part. Would it not be right to leave baronets alone until that is resolved? Regards, David Lauder 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very reasonable on this issue - however, accusations from some editors would editors want to ensure ALL articles are named correctly! The discussion is to change the guidline, so far there is no concensus to change it, however, after I a little annoyed at BHG's accusation and unless she apologies for her accusations I will ensure that all Baronets are titled correctly - if she apologies then I will put a hold on any changes until the issues if fully sorted out. regards--Vintagekits 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, I was not aware of any change being discussed, but as you well know, the existing guidance at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names is to use the "the format Sir X Y, Nth baronet" when disambiguation is necessary. In plenty of the cases where you have renamed articles, when disambiguation clearly is necessary, even if the other articles do not yet exist.
It is also clearly not true that you checked before making your article moves. Very few checks are possible when moving articles at the rate of five per minute, and the result was many cases where incorrect links were created as a result of the move, where double redirects were not corrected, and were articles were moved to undisambiguated namespaces which would be more appropriately used for a disambiguation page. Your comment on my talk page that disambiguation pages should only be created at "foo (disambiguation)" is clearly wrong: read WP:DAB#Page_naming_conventions.
Finally, however, I take your latest comment as a clear threat to engage in disruptive editing, to make a WP:POINT. Your editing actions should not be conditional on whether or not you think that anyone else is being nice to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read point four of the guideline that you have quoted and then come back and apologies for YOUR disruption and YOUR breach of WP:POINT not mine - if you followed policy instead of making false accusation then there would have been no need for any of this.--Vintagekits 18:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for "It is also clearly not true that you checked before making your article moves" - nice breach of WP:AGF there - I did check all the page and after I made the checks I changed the articles titles to the correct format. As for no previous unopposed discussions see - Talk:George_Acheson, Talk:Nicholas Acheson and others.--Vintagekits 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your comment on my TalkPage, as BrownHairedGirl says above read WP:DAB#Page_naming_conventions. It is very clear. --UpDown 18:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought I ought to add that UpDown was entirely correct in assessing my comments above about there being other notable articles. Vintagekits has a point in saying that if there are other notable people of those names, the articles should be created ... except that some editors are indeed working hard to create such articles, and their work is impeded by disruptions such as Vintagekits's insistence on ambiguous article names.
And, as to WP:AGF, I stand by my points above. Articles were being moved at a rate if up to five minute. In the course of that process, no other links were corrected, even though the article moves created double redirects and misdirected links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If articles are created there should be a disamb page - you disgracefully and pointed created a load of redlink diamb pages to create this situation and blatantly just bloody made up some nonsense about me "threatening" to breach WP:POINT dispite the fact I didnt and despite the fact you breached WP:POINT by creating a load of red link disamb page. Your actions today have disgusted me to be honest.--Vintagekits 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3 weeks

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This block has been issued for your clear threat above to disrupt wikipedia by renaming articles based on your misinterpretation of the current guidelines. A block such as this would usually follow several warnings and be for a short period, but in view of your long history of disruptive editing and of targetted campaigns against particular classes of article, I have blocked you for three weeks.
In view of your history, other admins may choose to extend the block. I note in particular that before your indefinite block was lifted, you asked that "a strict nonosense approach taken by admin to edit warring and POV pushing". Threatening to mass-rename articles if someone doesn't apologise to you is absolutely unacceptable under the no-nonsense approach you asked for, particularly when you are already part to a discussion about a proposed change in the guidelines which would forbid such moves in all circumstances, Since some editors may consider it inappropriate for me to make the block having been the admin who set about undoing some of the damage caused above, I will post to WP:ANI to ask other admins to review this case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a digrace, I made those changes in line with wiki policy. The issue was discussed on a number of article pages and was unopposed. I made no threats whatsoever - You shoiuld not have made a block like this as you were the one who was disputing it and especially as another admin (who usually disagrees with me) User:John agreed that my edits were correct.--Vintagekits 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking admin is involved in a dispute with me, and my actions were supported above by administrator User:John above. After I started moving Baronets to the correct place per Wiki guidelines, BHG started creating redlinked disambiguation pages have been created to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines on the naming of articles about baronets. Look at this edit where BHG creates a disambigution page with redlinks and only one bluelinked article. This was created just to keep Sir Ralph Gore, 4th Baronet at the current name instead of at Ralph Gore. Look at WP:NCNT, Baronets should only be at their full titles for disambiguation, so unless articles exist no disambiguation is needed. Creating disambiguation pages when articles don't exist is in itself disruptive, surely you only need to disambiguate if articles exist? Then I beleive that she wanted to just block me for an reason and choose WP:POINT which is totally unsubstantiated.--Vintagekits 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{[[Template:The blocking admin is involved in a dispute with me, and my actions were supported above by administrator User:John above. After I started moving Baronets to the correct place per Wiki guidelines, BHG started creating redlinked disambiguation pages have been created to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines on the naming of articles about baronets. Look at this edit where BHG creates a disambigution page with redlinks and only one bluelinked article. This was created just to keep Sir Ralph Gore, 4th Baronet at the current name instead of at Ralph Gore. Look at WP:NCNT, Baronets should only be at their full titles for disambiguation, so unless articles exist no disambiguation is needed. Creating disambiguation pages when articles don't exist is in itself disruptive, surely you only need to disambiguate if articles exist? Then I beleive that she wanted to just block me for an reason and choose WP:POINT which is totally unsubstantiated. I have calmly discussed the issue and this admin is just using my past against me despite the fact that I have been squeaky clean since my return. This is not how an admin should be using their powers.|The blocking admin is involved in a dispute with me, and my actions were supported above by administrator User:John above. After I started moving Baronets to the correct place per Wiki guidelines, BHG started creating redlinked disambiguation pages have been created to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines on the naming of articles about baronets. Look at this edit where BHG creates a disambigution page with redlinks and only one bluelinked article. This was created just to keep Sir Ralph Gore, 4th Baronet at the current name instead of at Ralph Gore. Look at WP:NCNT, Baronets should only be at their full titles for disambiguation, so unless articles exist no disambiguation is needed. Creating disambiguation pages when articles don't exist is in itself disruptive, surely you only need to disambiguate if articles exist? Then I beleive that she wanted to just block me for an reason and choose WP:POINT which is totally unsubstantiated. I have calmly discussed the issue and this admin is just using my past against me despite the fact that I have been squeaky clean since my return. This is not how an admin should be using their powers.]]}}

checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

unblocked by the blocking admin

Request handled by: Alison ☺ 19:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vintagekits, I did not say I supported your actions, particularly not your threat to rename other articles in a way which others are unhappy with. I said I thought you were right on the content issue. As you know, this is a cooperative venture and we must all work together harmoniously so that it works properly. That said, I think the block is on the harsh side and I would support shortening it if you acknowledge your error and guarantee to avoid repeating it. --John 20:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you said I was right not in changing the names - I dont understand why you are changing your story now! Puzzling. I did not threaten to do anything - I offered to stop changing the names in line with wiki policy if BHG apologised but would continue if she didnt withdraw the unfounded accusatiuon - nothing wrong with that.--Vintagekits 20:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SHORTENING IT!!!! WHat the hell am I supposed to have done?????? Editing to wiki guidlines after discussions is disruting?? I would say that creating a load of redlink disamb pages to avoid wiki guidelines is disruption and a brach of POINT not what I did - this is bloody crazy.--Vintagekits 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sAm I supposed to be psychic. If no articles exists and there's no mention of these people in other articles (I'm sure that applies to some, there will be a few where you're guilty) how are you supposed to know if disambiguation was needed? As for no discussion - see Talk:Sir Windham Carmichael-Anstruther, 7th Baronet!!--Vintagekits 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said I agreed with you on the naming issue. However, you were wrong to threaten to continue renaming articles unless you received an apology. BHG asked you nicely not to do that while a discussion was in progress. That seemed like a reasonable request, and not one necessitating an apology. --John 20:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevertheless I have left a message with the blocking admin to see if she will agree to unblock if you realise your mistake. Good luck. --John 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didnt threaten to do anything thats such a smokescreen for an admin who was indispute with me just to block me - if you can call it a threat to follow wiki policy - I also threaten to assume good faith and threaten to make not personal attack. BHG never asked me to do anything BHG just made accusation and gave out warnings and created redlink disamb pages to avoid wiki policy - yet I am blocked - this is a bloody disgrace. It just seems a convieniant made up excuse to block me because she didnt like my edits - also did I change any new articles after I "threatened" to follow policy. Am I in a mad house here? By the way I am very calm here--Vintagekits 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This block is totaly out of order, VK was following WP policy by moving these articles to the correct article titles, I have moved about 10 of these articles myself over the past few weeks, if the editors that create these articles can't do so in accordance to policy then other editors have the right to move these articles.--padraig 20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second Padraig. If VK really is in the wrong a 24 hour maximum block might be appropriate, SqueakBox 20:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that the blocking admin is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Interested_Wikipedians this is a COI that he is involved in both the Wikiproject and also in a edit dispute with VK on this.--padraig 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that this admin blocked me before for edit warring on an article about a Baronet and didnt block another member of the Baronet project despite the fact that that editor had reverted that page more than me that day - interesting!!--Vintagekits 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me evidence this whole British/Irish editors disputes should be up in front of arbcom and not left in the hands of individual and often biased editors. But the arbcom authority is being undermined every day by comm sanctions board and individual admins, SqueakBox 21:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt disagree with that at all. However, there should not be a dispute here. I was following WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names Point 4 to the letter of the law. BHG created a load of red link disamb pages to avoid this guideline despite there being no other articles about people with the same name. To turn this around on me is a disgrace - truely some action should be taken against this admin for his actions here.--Vintagekits 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is so out of order, so bang out of order. Guilty of creating a problem that dose not exist? And guilty of addressing a problem that dose? Having played by the rules, to be blocked by an admin with a declared bias!Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Interested_Wikipedians Logic turned on its head. Could someone explain to me how this works? To abide by the guidelines is considered POV pushing, by editors who breach the guidelines in order to push their POV. Have I got that right? --Domer48 22:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid that you haven't got that right. Please bear with me while I finish writing a (neccessarily rather lengthy) explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
For some, no explanation is necessary, for others, none is possible. --Domer48 23:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wait the explanantion eagerly, SqueakBox 23:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This block is totally out of order. How can a user be blocked for following wiki rules and rectifying a problem that exists on WP? Total madness. Also no offence to BHG, but she definetly has a conflict of interest here. An admin who is a member of the wikiproject and an admin, certainly isn't a fair referee in this case. The block is 100% unfair. Derry Boi 00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned here re. this block but I'd like to see what BHG has to say, so suggest people hold off until she has written up her explanation - Alison ☺ 00:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The real issue here is the incorrect naming of articles to suit POV. These articles are named contrary to wikiguides and we should really be focused on those that create these over disambiguated titles rather than block those how actually would prefer if wikiguideliens are adhered to. Here is a taste of some more unnecessarily over disambiguated articles about Baronets are -

I could go on and on - and on - but I think the above highlights the real issue here - articles are incorrectly titled - members of the Baronet project have a default policy of incorrectly naming their article - this is the issue here - but god forbide that you you try and rectify that issue our else "friendly admin" will silence you.--Vintagekits 11:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VK, you do go on and on, and have gone on and on :(
But please consider the two examples I have shown below, one from this list, and one from a move by Padraig, where there is clear ambiguity. And, again: The naming conventions are not a policy and are not set in stone. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples below? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extended reasons for the block

The underlying problem here is that VK has been on one pole of a lengthy and bitter dispute over baronets. Some editors have argued that all Baronets should be regarded as inherently notable by virtue of their baronetcies, which is a proposition I have argued against at length on the wikiproject, and which is not supported by the proposed guideline WP:NOBLE (which was itself rejected because it was too inclusive).

At the other pole, VK has a very strong bias against what he perceives as the British establishment. There's nothing wrong at all with that, and the presence of opposing POVs is one of the checking mechanisms which keeps Wikipedia balanced, but in this case it has gotten right out if hand. I don't know who started it, but so far as I can see the disputes arose when some editors working on the British aristocracy got into arguments with VK over two things: where to find NPOV in articles relating to Northern Ireland. The British crew objected strongly (and angrily) to the use of neutral words like "kill", insisting on "murder" etc, a position which seems to me to be a very poor one (I much prefer the Reuters policy of using neutral terminology). They ended up block-voting and various other no-nos on articles about Irish Republicanism, and VK and a few of his friends proceeded to launch a lengthy deletion campaign against baronets and nobility, but particularly the boaronets (apparently because Kittybrewster, one of the most energetic members of the Baronets project was one of those who had offended VK). Some of their targets were indeed non-notable, but many were not, and a huge amount of time was taken up in what became a pitched battle. There were numerous AfDs, and some outrageous behaviour on both sides.

I was frequently called on by both sides to intervene, and my talk page archives are full of lengthy arguments; I began to loathe them and wished they would all calm down (see e.g. Anti-aristocracy) and some (such as this thread) appeared and grew on my talk page withut even any involvement from me). Two features are notable: both sides have been deeply inflexible, and Vintagekit takes it all very personally. My archives are full of deep hostility from him, and gross incivility; but the most notable and destructive thing is that if VK feels offended, his response has on countless occasions been to set out to disrupt the area of wikipedia worked on by those he feels are his opponents.

My thanks for this has largely been to earn the displeasure of both sides. Kittybrewster was deeply offended that I eventually came down hard on his persistent breaches of WP:COI (I imposed several blocks), and Vintagekits assumed that any time I didn't weigh in his side that it was due to deep partisanship on my part. One particularly bizarre example is a thread called What is it with these people, where VK launches a tirade at me because I don't want to commit a whole further dose of my time to the never-ending conflict. :(

I would happily avoid the while thing, except that unfortunately it overlaps with my core area of work: British Members of Parliament and parliamentary constituencies. If you look at my contribs list, you will find that I have created many hundreds of articles on them, and had a big hand in building and populating the categories, lists etc.

(Bear with me, I'm getting to the point).

The problem is that many MPs became peers (either through ennoblement or succession), and in previous centuries many many baronets were MPs, so many of the articles I edit are on baronets, and it can be very hard wor to get them right. Some baronetted families held parliamentary seats pretty much as personal fiefdoms for many generations, and many of them recycled one or two or three firstnames. So there could be several "Sir John Smith, xth baronet"s in parliament, through generations; in many cases there is more than one baronetcy of the same name, so one can find two or more "Sir John Smith 2nd Baronet, of X" being notable MPs and in many cases several other untitled family members with the same names sharing the same cluster of parliamentary seats; some of them are also very notable in other contexts. Disambiguating these people can be a nightmare: there are times I have spent a dozen or more hours sorting out the links to members of just one family, who may have a five or ten very similarly-named people who on investigation have an automatic presumption of notability per WP:MOSBIO.

Slowly, with some families, we are getting to the point where we can identify with reasonable certainty which family members are definitely non-notable, as Choess has just done very neatly with the Glynne Baronets. But until that is done, and the non-notable family members identified, it is very important to use the precise titles until it is clear which title-holers are notable and which are not.

Please note that is not because I think that baronets are automatically notable: under all current and proposed guidelines, they are not. But, under current guidelines, many of them are notable, because of their military, parliamentary, naval, commercial or other careers. (Yes, onlya minority overall, but that's still often several in each family).

Once the list of X baronets (e.g. Beckett Baronets) has been checked, I have no problem with the articles being renamed without titles if here is no clash; but until then, it is immensely disruptive to lose the precision of linking which cones from using the titles.

That's all I seek here: don't remove the titles until sufficient checks have been done to ensure that there really is no ambiguity. That's entirely compliant with the guidelines to use the titles when necessary for disambiguation.

Vintagekits, however, has shown no interest at all in making those checks, renaming articles at a rate of up to five per minute, despite creating some mistaken links in the process, and hindering he process of disambiguating articles under construction. It appears that VK's checks consist of looking at the bare list of names of baronets, seeing if there are any other blue links of the same name, but not looking behind the redlinks, or at other incoming links.

Other editors are doing those checks, and I myself rename baronet articles without the titles when I have checked that I am not creating ambiguity. That's all this is about: not creating ambiguity which will lead the reader to the wrong page, as some of VK's edits did

In other cases, that would be no problem: the overwhelming majority of editors are keen to try ensure that the encyclopaedia is accurate, and will happily discuss the issues and in many cases join in the work of doing the mountains of cross-checking. Unfortunately, because of the long and bitter dispute, Vintagekits is not prepared to do that: his main interest is in deleting as many baronets as possible, and talk page archives are full of his sneering comments about them. He's entitled to his views (and I am not a devotee of the hereditary principle either), but what he is doing here is not about improving the encyclopaedia: it is the latest round in what has become a war by VK against anything to do with baronets.

The reason I implemented the block was very simple: that having already inappropriately renamed a dozen or so articles, VK threatened to set off and wreak havoc across the rest of them purely as a matter because of a personal dispute arising from his personal conflicts with some other editors who work on baronetcies. I acted to protect the encyclopaedia from further damage.

Just as well, I did too: in the time between first messaging Vintagekits and blocking him, he made a long list of edits such as this one in which he not only bypassed a redirect from Sir Gervase Beckett, 1st Baronet to Gervase Beckett, but also removed his title. Why? That's not policy or guidelines, it's VK's anti-baronetcy POV. The block at least put a stop to that of disruption. (And before anyone accuses me of taking a POV stance on this, do not assume that wanting something accurately recorded is the same as championing it. I just want links to point in the right place).

Could I have imposed a block for a shorter time? Yes, of course. But in imposing blocks, admins are advised to bear in mind the previous record of the offender. And in this case we have some with a clear and lengthy history of trying to disrupt content associated with editors he dislikes or subjects he dislikes, and indeed some clear guidance from VK himself.

Please folks, re-read the lengthy discussions above when VK was indefinitely blocked. (start at the section beginning User_talk:Vintagekits#Indef_block, and read the discussion of conditions for he lifting of the block). One particularly relevant contribution is where, Vintagekits asked that "a strict nonosense approach taken by admin to edit warring and POV pushing". When he threatened a disruptive mass-renaming of articles, I took him at his word.

One final point: accusations of a COI. If VK performs this threatened mass-renaming, the result will be many hundreds of ambiguous links, which will taken many many hours for editors to sort out. To get an idea of the sort of ambiguity problems which arise with baronets, look at John Cotton (disambiguation); consider the consequences for link integrity if very great care is not taken to make detailed prior checks before renaming.

If trying to avoid the morass of broken links that arises from unchecked removal of precision in naming is a COI, them it's a COI which I hope is shared by every other editor on wikipedia. I have no desire to be involved in any of this, and no inherent dispute with VK: I just find myself, as so many others have, being accused of deep hostility for having dared not to support him on something (consider again his response here when I asked him to go to ANI with a problem beacuse I hadn't the energy to try to resolve yet another of his conflicts), or in this case to disagree with him. We see exactly the same thing here: Vintagekits threatens to disrupt Wikipedia by performing a mass-renaming as a way of forcing an apology, and when bocked denies making a threat.

The core of this simple. Do you want to give free rein to an editor with a long track record of disruption who has repeatedly expressed his deep hostility to a subject where he wants to perform lots of edits?

The document on which VK is relying is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). It does not ban the use of titles where disambiguation is needed, and in any case it is not a policy, it is a guideline, whose header says "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Is it common sense to seek an interpretation of a guideline which makes it harder for readers and editors to ensure that links point where they should, and that article names err on the side of ambiguity rather than precision? That's what VK claims. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my French but that is a crock of bs, you just ramble in a hope that editors see my previous poor history and think I must have done something here but dont address reason for this block - what has my history got to do with this either, I have been squeaky clean since I came back to wiki, I have engaged with those who have opposed me and infact quelled situations on many occasion, I dont deny my previously poor behaviour but I havent put a foot wrong since I came back and I thought that that was the whole reason I came back with a block on republican articles so I could start with a clean slate - when I retitled the articles they were all moved to what they should have been correctly titled in line with wiki policy - you obviously did not like that then YOU went and created a load of disamb pages with the only article actually on it being the article I rename being the that of the article I renamed and the rest being redlinks - a pure breach of WP:POINT and then you try and turn this around on me!!! For proof see - William Bowyer-Smijth, Ralph Gore, Thomas Bowyer, Windham Carmichael-Anstruther, George Bonham, Theodore Brinckman, Brook Bridges, Robert Gore-Booth for proof of the stunt that this admin has pull to try avoid wiki policy.
Lets get on to the threat that I made - I threatened to ensure ALL articles are named correctly - that is what I threatened to do - I threatened to follow the rules and I am blocked for three weeks by an admin who is in dispute with me and a member of the Baronet project.
As for having no positive interest in Baronets - thats an interesting point especially as I created Sir Henry Gore-Booth, 5th Baronet only a week ago - and may I add that I changed the article title on that page also after I found that it was unecessarily disambiguated.--Vintagekits 09:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I disagree with you on a number of points, firstly if members of the baronetcies project titled these articles correctly in the first place instead on insisting that titles be used in all cases then this problem wouldn't arise.
You say VK moved these without checking them first, because in your opinion they where moved to quickly, how do you know he didn't check through them all before starting to move any of them. In any case the first instance of the use of the name has no need to use the title, only from the second or more occurence. You haven't explained your setting up of disambig pages containing redlinks, it is not common practice to do this, as your well aware.
VK was editing in accordance to the policies and guidelines of WK, and has not breached any policy in his edits in these articles, so his edits are not disruptive as you claim. Nor do members of the baronetcies project have the right to ignore the naming conventions of WP that all other editors have to obey.
The ban on VK should be lifted as it should not have been imposed in the first place and as you where involved in the same dispute you should have been the one to impose it anyway even if he breached any policy which he clearly hasn't.--padraig 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved admin... the claims by both sides that they're not disrupting the project ring pretty false. You all are wikilawyering.
These actions, probably on both sides, were disruptive and damaging to the project. Maybe blocking everyone involved would be more fair, but this is what happened so far. If the two "sides" can't work out a reasonable cooperative way to deal with this, as opposed to resuming edit warring over it, I am going to predict more blocks in the future.
If you're using policy to attempt to justify being a dick and disrupting stuff, expect to get swatted on the nose and told to knock it off.
I don't want to ascribe blame for starting it, but everyone involved needs to handle it in a more cooperative and adult manner going forwards, or this will not be the last administrator intervention. This behavior is absolutely not acceptable.
I don't personally know or care what the answer ends up being. If it's "we're still edit warring" in another few weeks, a pox on all your houses, and away you go. Georgewilliamherbert 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of brouhaha is exactly what was hoped to be avoided by banning Vk from "contentious" subjects as a condition of his recent unblocking. The specific terms of the ban were articles relating to Irish Republicanism, broadly based. (IE, VK will have to show that it isn't tangentially related to the subject, not that others will have to prove that it is). The purpose of this was to allow Vk to contribute while avoiding situations where he had trouble dealing with conflict. That Vk almost immediately started editing baronetcy articles worried me, because the past conflicts associated with the Irish republicanism pages spilled across to these too. It depresses me that Vk rushed to get involved into this situation, barely weeks after his very last chance. It really doesn't fill me with confidence that Vk can deal with conflict in an acceptable way. I don't know the ins and outs of the baronetcy issue, I'm going to decline to offer an opinion on that. I will note, however, that is never a good idea to threaten to edit an article in any manner unless another editor makes an apology. Rockpocket 03:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me exactly what this massive threat was!!!! Also did I carry out this massive threat??--Vintagekits 09:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Padraig, this isue actually has little to do with the baronetcies project: I only joined it for help with baronet-MPs, as you can see here, and I don't support the argument that baronets should be treated as automatically notable. It is really about disambiguating Members of Patrliament (MPs)
The question of what you call "titling the articles properly" is the nub of it. First thing is that I am not arguing that naming conventions should be ignored, far from it: simply that they should be interpeted, as the guidelines themselves require, with common sense. Interpreting the guidelines in a way guaranteed to cause disruption, when there is a clear history on VK's part of a desire the disrupt and delete articles on baronets, is 'not common sense.
I asked you on my talk page to consider some particular situations, to explain why it is disruptive, and I'm sorry to see that you haven't addressed the details, so let me set it out here.
Take the example of Sir John Cotton, 3rd Baronet, of Connington (1621–1702): an article should be written on him because he was a Member of Parliament for Huntingdon from 1661-1679 and for Huntingdonshire 1685-1687: he therefore has automatic presumption of notability per WP:MOSBIO.
Now look at Cotton Baronets, and you will see lots of other John Cottons listed, all of them redlinked. By your logic, an article on him should be at John Cotton (unless there is, as in this case, another article on a John Cotton).
If you look at the list of Cotton Baronets, you'll just see a list of names. You won't be aware that there were in fact no less than five John Cottons who were MPs (I have created that list on the dab page at John Cotton, and one of these days must incorporate that info into the list of Baronets). If I hadn't done the research you probably won't be aware too that here were actually two people called Sir John Cotton, 3rd Baronet who were MPs (and similarly with Sir John Cotton, 4th Baronet)
The Cotton Baronets are an extreme example, but there are many dozens (probably hundreds) of baronet-MPs who also had a namesake baronet in parliament. Leigh Rayment's useful list of baronets appears to offer some assistance by listing beside baronets which ones are MPs, but unfortunately it is misleading, because it misses 25% or more. The peerage/baronetage guides such as Debretts can be moe helpful, but it usually takes multiple sources to unravel who was who, and building list of MPs in constituency articles such as Ipswich requires a lot of cross-referencing of birth dates to ensure that links are accurate.
Because so often identically-named members of the same family represented the same constituency, there are only two ways to do this: disambiguate pre-emptively by date of birth, or by title. According to the guideline, the correct method is by title, which is what editors have been doing.
The reason I can say with a high degree of certainty that Vintagekits didn't make such checks is that I know from bitter experience that they are very time-consuming. To check all the articles that VK renamed would take days; and to check all of those he was threatening to rename would take many months. Given VK's oft-stated dislike of baronetcies, it's stretching credibility beyond breaking point to suggest that he has been doing that work.
It's common sense to try to avoid creating ambiguous links. It's not common sense to try to use a flexible guideline as a tool to justify turning carefully-researched precise links into ambiguous ons.
Aren't we here to try to improve the encyclopedia? How on earth is it improved by deliberately renaming article in a way which reverses the efforts of other editors to ensure that links point where they are supposoed to?
WP:IAR says "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it"; VK is doing the reverse, trying to use a narrow interpretation of a rule to damage the encyclopedia because he despises the subject matter. Vintagekits is quite entitled to despise baronets, and to despise the system of title, but not to disrupt wikipedia because of it.
Faced with a clear threat to continue continue that disruption, I acted promptly to prevent it. As it turned out it was more than a threat: more disruptive editing was actually underway when he was blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a false argument - I checked wiki to see if there was another article of the same name - there was not, there was only redlinks - if they are redlnks then an account of there notability does not need to be taken into account. I was following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) to the letter of the law - you caused the problem after this by creating redlink disamb pages.--Vintagekits 09:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Georgewilliamherbert thanks for your comment: I agree that the whole situation is far from ideal. But seriously, what should I have done?
Ignore the dusruption? Take it to somewhere like WP:ANI and while I took time to explain the nuances give VK more time to do the damage he was threatening, undoing hundreds of not thousands of hours of work by other editors?
The bottom line here is that is rare to find a situation where these issues cannot be reserved with an editor genuinely seeking to improve the subject area, regardless of their POV. (It happens, but it's nearly always possible to edit an article to accommodate both sides of an issue). This is the only case I have ever encountered of an editor who is setting out with he main objective of removing as much trace of a subject as possible.
Here's one interesting point: so far as I can see, nowhere in any of these discussions, have seen any effort by Vintagekits to extend or improve coverage of MPs or of baronets, or even any desire to do so. All I have ever seen has been negative: arguments to delete articles or otherwise disrupt them. Isn't it time to extend his ban to cover other areas such as MPs and baronets, where he has such a long track record of conflict? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support your actions 100% BrownHairedGirl, I had no idea Vk was doing this. Per Rockpocket, I am horrified that he has rushed back into a contentious area. When I naively supported my own stylistic preference for the naming, I did not know this had been a whole area of conflict. Vintagekits, you have been told a good few times now you cannot use this encyclopedia for POV-pushing. Threatening editors with making edits unless they apologise is ridiculous behaviour. That is what you are blocked for and if I were you, knowing the whole story and everything, I would just accept the block and be thankful it isn't a longer one. --John 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have hated me since I joined wiki and have tried at every turn to get me banned - initially you actually agree that my edits were correct but now that there is a sniff of a banned and that this may impeed my from getting back to editing republican articles now all of a sudden you are supporting 100% BrownHairedGirl despite the opposite above and are also now "horrified" - please explain the threat that I made - this threat BS is a total smokescreen to take away from BHG creating this problem.--Vintagekits 09:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I'm largely satisfied with that explanation from BHG and am somewhat disappointed that VK went straight back into the baronetcy controversy like that. From what I remember, there was a slew of RfCs last year over this whole thing. VK's move logs show a lot of activity, all with the comment "per MOS". Personally, I'd not have applied a block of that duration; rather I'd have started at a day or even a week, from the agreed unblock resolutions above. Though I'm not familiar with/interested in the subject, I can follow BHG's rationale for the existing naming scheme and, unfortunately, I find it hard to do the WP:AGF thing here, given VK's past history. There are over a million articles here and VK's stepping back into the whole baronetcies thing was not in the spirit of his unblock agreement. In short - it's a long block, but I have to endorse it here - Alison ☺ 04:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alidon - why block me - why, what reason I have done NOTHING wrong - please read WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names and then explain why I am blocked. Earlier this week Padraig moved a number of these articles unopposed and cited the same reason - there was nothing said about this as it was within wiki guidelines - then I do the same a couple of days later and I am blocked for three weeks. This makes me sick - I have done nothing whatsoever wrong here, I dont deny my previous bad behaviour but this is wrong, completely wrong.--Vintagekits 09:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a shorter block. Actually on this issue I tend to be on VK's side (see Jeffrey Archer) but we should surely be using blocks to stop bad behaviour which a 24 or even 72 hour block would do well, plus it would avoid any tiresome accusations about the validity of the admin's action, SqueakBox 04:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issues with Jeffrey Archer are rather different, because a) he's clearly v. notable on several counts, and b) there doesn't appear to be anyone else of the same name even potentially notable enough to merit an article.
However, on Vintagekits's block, how about shortening it if his ban is explicitly extended to cover baronets and British MPs (as a more limited version of a suggestion above at #Suggested_conditions)? These are clearly-defined topics where his passions run high, and where as a result he regularly gets into conflicts when he ventures into those territories. --09:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I was blocked from articles within the WP:IR - not articles on Baronets - I edited within wiki guidelines, no matter how manner bogus smoke screen you try to throw up to ignore that - it is the facts - you then subsequently created the issue with all of your redlink disamb pages - that was the breach of WP:POINT - you should really have the issue with those creating articles with incorrect titles and not me. --Vintagekits 09:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously" - really!!! Seems that here you have used it arbitrarially and as a weapon to silence editors who dare to disagree with you - all you have actually done is shown a massive lights on how wiki guidlines and policies are being ignored in this area.--Vintagekits 09:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the above explanation, I can see a lot of what passes for motivation, personal motivation that is. In fact, there is a lot there for editors to disagree on and at the same time lose the substance of the real discussion at hand.

Therefore, as to the commentary, weasel word and peacock terms. I suggest editors park it for the moment, and address it in a RfC. VK has been the subject of an indefinite block, which has been addressed, rehashing it now, is to mitigate the actions BHG, in place of dealing with this issue at hand. That is VK actions in this case, and did he breach the conditions outlined in their lifting of the Block.

VK inappropriately renamed a dozen or so articles. What were they, list them?

Threatened to wreak havoc. (BHG acted to protect the encyclopaedia ). What did VK threaten to do? “I will ensure that all Baronets are titled correctly - if she apologies then I will put a hold on any changes until the issues if fully sorted out.” Apply guidelines, or cause BHG problems. I totally disagree with VK suppressing their views and opinions, to facilitate ambiguity, rather than insisting on the problem being address.

I would suggest BHG address the ambiguity, and not the editor. BHG keeps going on about disruption, and then lists the problems they are having with the articles, and how this will discomfiture them. Wanting VK banned from BHG’s area of interest is an abuse of position, in other words, it will be ok to have this ambiguous situation if there is no one to question it.

VK bypassed a redirect Gervase Beckett. The problem associated with Baronets is not a problem for VK, and their interpretation of guidelines. If there is ambiguity address it!

Assuming VK did not do their homework, maybe they did to make sure they got it right, because of past experience. It’s up to editors to get it right if there is a possible problem with disambiguation.

I would suggest that this guideline be address, as its interpretation is the cause of conflict. That the block be lifted, and VK agree to engage in the discussion, and they retract and strike through their statement to “put a hold on any changes until the issues if fully sorted out.”--Domer48 09:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits, you are wikilawyering, in a deeply unproductive and mistaken fashion. As above, WP:NCNT is a guideline, not a policy (as you keep on calling it).
It is intended to reflect a convention, not to be used as an edict to cause problems. Read the header: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". It's common sense to try to avoid creating ambiguous links. It's not common sense to try to use a flexible guideline as a tool to justify turning carefully-researched precise links into ambiguous ones.
You did indeed do some moves of baronets which were correct, such as Gervase Beckett (where there is no ambiguity, and which I did not revert), tho you rather spoilt that one by then going around a stripping his title out of lots of links to him (see e.g. [1], [2] and [3]])
However, there were others which you moved despite the existence of another article , e.g. Sir Thomas Burnett, 3rd Baronet, which you moved to Thomas Burnett despite the existence of Sir Thomas Burnett, 1st Baronet. When you go around stripping out titles without checking on the notability of other similarly-named title-holders, that's what happens.
What exactly are you trying to achieve by interpreting the guideline so narrowly and rigidly as to create the sort ambiguity I outlined above as a problem wrt to the Cotton Baronets?
Remember the naming conventions are not set in stone. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates avoidable ambiguity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If as you point out the Gervase Beckett move was correct then why did you move it back?--Vintagekits 10:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did I strip out the titles?? You bloody told me to thats why!!!! You said the main issue was that I didnt fix the redirect - so I was going back and fixing the redirect - then you blocked me - you are a bloody disgrace using your admin powers to silence those you oppose - I was editing in line with wiki policy (not guidelines - really sorry!) but you didnt like that this is the root of this abuse. All you have done is show yourself up - I have done nothing wrong here and you are proving that by relying on my previous poor history to justify your actions despite the fact I did nothing wrong - I am not wikilawyering you are, if we strip this arguement down to its basic facts it is obvious who is in the wrong.--Vintagekits 10:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I made ONE mistake by moving Sir Thomas Burnett, 3rd Baronet, then sorry for that but if that was raised as an issue the I would have gladly changed it back.--Vintagekits 10:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ambiguity - you created disamb pages to create the ambiguity - you are the root cause of this problem not I - why was there no issue when PAdraig moved the articles that he did - based on the same principle and policy - but when I do the EXACT same thing citing the EXACT same policy then I get blocked for 3 weeks - you have shown your cards and your POV and it disgusts me.--Vintagekits 10:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage, please be WP:CIVIL. I'm sorry, I made a mistake in reverting Gervase Beckett. We all make mistakes, as nicely illustratred here.

However, If you look above, you'll see that I asked you to fix double-redirects, not other redirects. Not necessarily any harm in fixing the single redirects, but you didn't content yourself with that: in repeated edits (e.g. [4], [5] and [6]]) you not only bypassed a redirect but removed the title "Sir" from the displayed text. What was that about?

Padraig moved some articles, but I didn't notice those moves. When I noticed yours, and queried them you threaten to engage in a mass-renaming. That's why you got blocked.

Again, remember the naming conventions are not set in stone. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates avoidable ambiguity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so you admit we all make mistakes! I fixing the redirects was not to go and remove the "Sir" it has to fix the links to the correct articles. There is no ambiguty so thats not an issue. Please show me where I threatened "to engage in a mass-renaming". Lets see you justify yourself without the smoke screens - you breach wikipolicy and I dont = I get blocked for 3 weeks - this stinks of, shall we say, rotten fish!--Vintagekits 10:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vinatgekits, two points:
  • this is the edit in which you threatened "to engage in a mass-renaming"
  • the naming conventions are not a policy and are not set in stone. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates avoidable ambiguity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather edit to policy rather than have it ambiguous - if nothing it set in stone lets just title articles what we want to suit us shall he - I see no special reason to ignore wiki policy to suit your POV. Also the edit you highlight as "mass naming" - actually proves my point in two way - I state that I would rename articles to their correct title - 1. I am saying that articles should be correctly titled for god sake - what the hell is wrong with that and 2. if you consider that that would consist of "mass renaming" shows that you consider that a mass amount of articles are incorrectly named - check and mate - I will happily sit out the three weeks block, infact I would be happy to, as it shows you for what you really are. This is a serious shame on wiki and your silencing of me wont make the problem go away no matter how much you try - your actions have brought disgrace on your adminship. Three week block for saying that articles should be correctly titled but an admin can WP:POINT and create numberous redlink disamb pages to avoid wiki policy and get away with it - thats a disgrace.--Vintagekits 11:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The real issue here is the incorrect naming of articles to suit POV. These articles are named contrary to wikiguides and we should really be focused on those that create these over disambiguated titles rather than block those how actually would prefer if wikiguideliens are adhered to. Here is a taste of some more unnecessarily over disambiguated articles about Baronets are -

Many created by BHG - I could go on and on - and on - but I think the above highlights the real issue here - articles are incorrectly titled - members of the Baronet project have a default policy of incorrectly naming their article - this is the issue here - but god forbide that you you try and rectify that issue our else "friendly admin" will silence you.--Vintagekits 11:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also its kind of funny to just see USer:Kittybrewster (a friend of BHG) go around in a quick, quick! hurry up and fix those] manner on a number of the articles highlighted. Like I said I could provide another 40, 50, 60 or more if needed to prove the point that this issue has highlighted a long running issue which the Baronet project obviously wantto be kept quiet.--Vintagekits 11:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, You are clearly in the wrong here and abusing your power as an admin, VK hasn't broke any WP policy or guideline so this block is totaly unjustified and should be lifted.--padraig 11:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some admins are like football referees - they will never change their mind or change a decision even when it is plainly and grossly wrong. This is a master class is "deflect and dodge" - we should all learn from this - 1. I moved articles correctly 2. BHG moved them back and created bogus redlink disamb pages 3. BHG makes accusations against me 4. I refute them and ask her to withdraw them 5. BHG creates a smokescreen to block me and ignores the facts. However, will not make the issue go away - if I have to sit out an unjust block to highlight the issue then that is a small price to show BHG POV and shine a light on the issue.--Vintagekits 11:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you were only moving those articles to make a point and you have no real interest in correct policy on Baronet titles. Astrotrain 11:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It never takes the vultures long to circle does it - "Vk is weak at the moment, put the boot in" - your not the first. Please read point four here - also you will have noted that I created one of the better and more interesting articles on Baronets recently so that scuppers that argument. --Vintagekits 11:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, can you explain this this where you moved Isaac Holden to Sir Isaac Holden, 1st Baronet in Oct 2006 when there was no need any still isn't any, and which seems to contradict your early claim that you don't support the members of Wikiproject Baroncety doing this.--padraig 11:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lets hear your answer to that please BHG--Vintagekits 12:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VK, please stay out of my email inbox until such point as you can control yourself. That was just uncalled-for - Alison ☺ 11:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are supposed to be my mentor - I cannot understand your stance here - I have done nothing whatsoever wrong yet you "endorse the block" - that baffles me - and you expect me to be happy with that!!! Follow wiki policy and get blocked - Breach wiki policy and have fellow admin slap you on the back. Its a total joke.--Vintagekits 11:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need that kind of abuse from your or anyone else. I campaigned to have your indef block lifted where others wouldn't, offered to mediate and help out despite the fact that I clearly and repeatedly stressed that I don't like working in this area (ask Padraig). When this block went on, I strongly suggested that it was overly long and wouldn't be averse to having it reduced. In return, you send me abusive emails. Now, I know you're annoyed by what's gone down here but answer this; why on earth should I stick around here and put up with that? - Alison ☺ 12:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pádraig, based on the repetitions of the accusation of “threatening,” for you to suggest changing any of those, even before you do so is considered a threat. VK, based on the observations of those, based on the rational for the block, and not on BHG’s difficulties with those articles, you have a very strong case for having the block lifted. Weather an Admin, has the willingness to do so, is another matter. Do not be goaded by the repetition of nonsensical arguments, or deviate from the issue at hand. If the logic of your position is not endorsed, then it 1. Establishes the guidelines on these pages according to BHG interpretation, and 2. Sets a precedent that will be pointed to by others in a similar position. --Domer48 11:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, please can you clarify exactly why it is so important to you prevent the use a naming format which avoids he sort of tangles set out in my examples below? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two examples of the effect of removing titles

section break added later --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig, I am just in the middle of fixing the tangles created by your move of one of the Ansteuther abronets to John Anstruther, even tho theev are three baronets aclled John Anstruther (and, as happens in othe cases, two people called Sir John Anstruther, 1st Baronet. That tangle illustrates very clearly why stripping off titles is not a good idea, unless thorough checks have been done to ensure that there is no room for ambiguity. That's precisely why I was concened about the disruptive ptential of VK's threatened mass renaming
Vintakekits list above is interesting: some of those article names are clearly wrong (Sir Firstname Middlename, Nth Baronet is not a format supported by the MoS)
However, I'll take one example from that list which ilustrates the problem very neatly: Sir William Gordon-Cumming, 4th Baronet has a redirect of William Gordon-Cumming
If you look at Gordon-Cumming Baronets, you'll see that this is the only article so far on a person called William Gordon-Cumming, and there is no indication of the notability of the others. However, an an external source (Rayment's list of baronets and his list of MPs) shows that the secnd baronet was MP for Elgin Burghs (UK Parliament constituency), and therefore carries an automatic presumption of notatbility.
Please refer again to he guidelines, which support he use of the titke where needed for disambiguation. In both these cases it clearly is' needed.
And that brings me back again to the same qustion, which CK and padraig need to answer. The naming conventions are not a policy and are not set in stone. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates avoidable ambiguity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STOP SAYING THAT I SAID I WOULD UNDERTAKE MASS RENAMING!!!!!!! I NEVER SAID THAT! I SAID I WOULD ENSURE ARTICLES ARE CORRECTLY TITLED!!!!!!!!!!!--Vintagekits 12:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You unambiguously threatened to do a mass renaming of articles, based on what you believe to be a correct interpretation of the guidelines, applied by you without the common sense and exceptions clearly set out in bold in the header of the guideline.
Once again: The naming conventions are not a policy and are not set in stone. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out above by VK Kittybrewster_contribs] clearly show that he is trying to cover BHG tracks here, but a look at some of these moves he was made are proof that many of these articles are wrongly titled,

All these move today, and all cleary mis-titled to cover BHG.--padraig 12:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig, that's a red herring. Kittybrwster's moves are correct, and do not create ambiguity.
Once again: The naming conventions are not a policy and are not set in stone. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Kitty's moves - just like your creation of the disamb pages were the create ambiguity to enforce your POV.--Vintagekits 12:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kitty's moves were from a format which the guidelines never recommend to one whoch they do recommend in some circumstances.
Once again: The naming conventions are not a policy and are not set in stone. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above, one of which was created by you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As BHG has blocked someone who she was in dispute with why hasnt she raised the issue at ANI?? The farce continues!--Vintagekits 12:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kittybrewsters moves are not correct, they where done specificly to cause a need for disambig, on the first name, the use of first & second names is correct to avoid disambig when necessary, you keep arguing that the naming conventions are not a policy and not set in stone, if thats the case why have members of the Baroncey project been argueing to have it altered to allow every baronet the right to have their full title used in WP as a right, they failed to achieve consenus for this change and are now trying to enforce the change regardless.--padraig 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Padraig, check Hamilton Baronets: there is clear ambiguity, because there are five baronets called Charles Hamilton. Have you researched the notability of all of them before criicising the use of he article title Sir Charles Hamilton, 3rd Baronet?
Also I have not been party to the duscussion on changing the guidelines, tho if imlemented it woukd avoid all his trouble. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: The naming conventions are not a policy and are not set in stone. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? --BrownHairedGirl
Bury your head in the sand to suit your POV - but only when its suits you - the policies are not set in stone - fine, but I see no reason to ignore them - you are a disgrace to your adminship for blocking me over this - THREE WEEKS when you are in the wrong not I - you are a disgrace!!!!!! Bury your head in the sand!--Vintagekits 12:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VK, these are guidelines not policies. There is a difference.
And I am not ignoring them: I am pointing out that in some case, a rigid adherence to a narrow interpetation of them creates avoidable ambiguity. Why are you treating them as if they rigid and immutable, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? What are you really trying to achieve here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deflect and dodge - you are not at all acting fair here at all - you have been shown up for what you are - sledgehammer to crack a nut - you know you are in the wrong and no matter how much wikilawyering you do can change that - you block was wrong - plain wrong, you know that, I know that, everyone reading this knows that - I am not trying to convience you my audience is those reading this.--Vintagekits 12:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No deflection, no dodge. Why are you treating guidelines as if they rigid and immutable, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? Again, what are you really trying to achieve here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could turn that question on you! "why are you ignoring guidelines"! Why are you trying to silence your critics? What are you trying to achieve by this block? Dont you want articles to be titled correctly?--Vintagekits 13:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your quote BrownHairedGirl on your user page "I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously" is a bit rich considering it is a dispute you are involved in would it not have been wise to ask another admin to look at this case as you are too involved and any decision you make will always be seen as bias by one side of this argument. BigDunc 12:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, tho if you look at Vintagekits's history I'm afraid that you'll find that any instance of an admin not backing him is treated by him as evidence of deep bias and an occasional for more vitriol, so in practice I don't think it would have made much difference :(
This a complex situation: in the face of a clear threat from Vk to cause disruption, I acted promptly to stop further disruption, and I asked for it to be reviewed. As above, I wrote a lengthy explanation of the decision (which also took a long time to write), an explanation which has satisfied the admins who reviewed it this morning. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, BHG is giving us a run down on their problems, created by articles with so much disambiguation. That is not the issue, being discussed here. If BHG has a problem with the articles sort them out. Blocking VK is not a solution. I’m only interested in this block at the minute, and the justification for it. Lets stick to the subject shall we. --Domer48 12:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that VK instead of helping to sort out the articles, VK is busy undoing any disambiguation without proper checks. That's precisely what we are discussing: how to stop the damage being done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did the checks - please stop stating facts which are infact Lies - also I didnt not threaten to breach wiki guides or policy - I said I would follow them - you have blocked me for saying I would follow wiki rules. Anyway that is a smokescreen to cover your bias and your attempt to silence opposition.--Vintagekits 13:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vk, I'll try again. Why are you treating guidelines as if they rigid and immutable, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? Again, what are you really trying to achieve here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well BHG then sort out the cause of the problem, and don’t be issuing block based on the symptom. --Domer48 13:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of the problem is simple: that Vk (who despises titles) is busy removing them from articles which need disambiguation, even when that creates ambuguity.
It is also relevant to read the exchange above between Vk and his mentor, Alison, who also supports the block, and has now had abusive email from him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deflect, dodge, avoid!!! Ssave yourself - I didnt not send her an abusive email I said that I was pissed off that she supported it without fully investigating the issue - I also sent her another email apologising for for my tone, no wonder my nerves are frayed with the way you have treated me - imagine if you were on the other end of this!!!!!!!!! - do those emails excuse you bias, conflict of interest and disgraceful actions? Silence that man! He is showing my true colours.--Vintagekits 13:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vk, I don't want to silence you. On the contrary, I want you to answer the simple question: Why are you treating guidelines as if they rigid and immutable, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? Again, what are you really trying to achieve here? --
I could turn that question on you! "why are you ignoring guidelines"! Why are you trying to silence your critics? What are you trying to achieve by this block? Dont you want articles to be titled correctly?--Vintagekits 13:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As explained countless times, what I am trying to achieve is disambiguation of closely-realted articles with ambigious names, to ensure that readers get to where they wnat to. The purpose of that block is stop a clearly threateneed effort to disrupt that by someone with a huge long history aof antagonism towards towards the subject area.
Now, how about you answer my question. Why are you treating guidelines as if they rigid and immutable, even when your a rigid adherence to a narrow interpetation creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? What are you really trying to achieve here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no threat to disrupt WP, VK like any other editor has a right to move any article that is wrongly titled in WP, you are using VK as an example to warn off any other editors that if they move any of these Baronet articles they will be blocked your doing so is against WP policy and guidelines. Many of these articles are incorrectly titled, and we don't disamdig articles to create redlinks in the hope that in future these redlinks will be created, we only disambig when necessary for existing articles.
I was accused of vandalism by a member of the Baroncey project because I moved a number of articles not long ago, which turned out some had been created by him, they then tried to have the guidelines changed to prevent any editors from moving any more of these incorrectly titled articles and failed, so this seems to be a backdoor attempt to push the change through, and it won't work, because I will follow the guidelines in any article I feel is incorrectly titled.--padraig 13:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So now we are introducing material which has transpired as a result of your block. If VK is getting steamed I can well understand it, while not condoning it. But do not attempt to now use this as a reason for the block. Again, I’m not interested in the problems you have with disambiguation. You have interpreted VK’s comment as a threat, and I completely disagree. That is the issue, can we please stay on topic, I’m getting steamed, and not even the one blocked? --Domer48 13:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Padraig, I have illustrated above an example of where you stripping of a title created ambiguity amongst articles which were not redlinked. I have not accused you of vandalism, but please can you explain what you were trying to achieve?
Again, stripping the titles makes it much much harder to create those new articles accurately, because the disambiguation has to be done afresh each time. What exactly are you trying to achieve by rigid adherence to a narrow interpetation which creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this discussion is about BHG blocking VK for 3 weeks. You are not going to sort out that problem at VK’s expense are you. If you like, start a discussion on another page about the problems you have with the articles. The question is, are you going to remove the block, and if not, justify it, to the satisfaction of editors. I’m not convinced on the basis of the evidence produced so far. So please stop trying to address the collateral problems here. Thanks --Domer48 13:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not going to remove the block, which has already been endorsed by several admins, including Vk's own mentor. This isn't about doing anything at Vk's expense, it about preventing him from re-introducing a problem which is being resolved by other editors through a methodology permitted in the guidelines which Vk is trying to wikilawyer his way into disrupting. That is not a collateral problem: is the core of the issue, that Vk was blocked to stop him causibg the disruption he threatened to a series of articles on people whose names are very similar to others with similar career paths, and near-identical names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles I moved I checked by doing a search for the name without the title on WP I also checked the Baroncey Categories to ensure that there wasn't any others by the same name, so I fail to see how the problem arose. Also it is convention to only disambig for the secon or more instance of the name not from the first as in the first we create a link to the disambig page.--padraig 13:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Padraig, I want to assume that you acted in good faith here, but do you see now how the checks you made turned out not to be adequate with the Anstruthers, in the example above? (Maybe because he articles were not categorised as expected or indexed as expected). That's precisely why I am urging caution in these renamings, and why a mass-renaming as threatened by VK is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They may not have been categorised correctly, that dosen't explain how they didn't show in a search on WP for the name, and the issue of categories is the problem of the creator of the articles and those thatmay have edited them afterwards if they failed to do it correctly. It is not a excuse to block an editor for following the guidelines in this case.--padraig 14:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the report to ANI - dont you think that because you were at the core of the dispute that you had a COI and would be biased in any block you made? I never said I would make mass changes - you did! If I say I will not make mass changes then what is the reason for the block now! Blocks are preventative not punitive - now justify your stance.--Vintagekits 13:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input from uninvolved admin

(outdent) An uninvolved admin here...If VK threatened to disrupt the 'pedia (which diff I cannot at this moment locate), then a block surely is in order although three weeks seems a bit long to me as it does to others. But BHG should not have been the one to issue the block but should have asked another admin to take a look and make the decision. This would have avoided much of this discussion. Now, can anyone show me the diff where the threat was made? I'm sure I overlooked it. The questions of notability and naming should be settled via the dispute resolution processes. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 14:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • this is the edit in question which she is using to block me. She says that when I say I will "ensure ALL articles are named correctly!" that this is a threat to rename mass amount of articles. It was not, I have already said this - and if it was then she herself is admitted that a "mass amount" of articles are titled incorrectrly - either ways this is unjust.--Vintagekits 14:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the problem he didn't threaten to disrupt, he said he would continue to edit in accordance to WP guidelines on this, they fail to have the guidelines changes and are trying to enforce their wanted change against guidelines. BHG should not have blocked this user as she is involved in the dispute and also a member of the baroncey Wikiproject as well that was behind the proposed change to the guidelines.--padraig 14:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REply to JodyB: Look, what Vk was doing was to take a rigid approach narrow interpretation of the guidelines and thereby to remove from many hundreds of articles the titles which distinguish them from other notable people who share he same name, and who frequently did exactly the same notable job (being MP for a a particular constituency). That's disruptive.
I have asked Vk over a dozen times what he was trying to achieve by this, and have not had an answer. It's the crucial question: where there is a clear dismabiguation reason for proceeding with caution in these renamings (see the examples above, including Padraig's mistake), what was Vk trying to achieve by his threat?
As I have told Padraig before, and which you can check for yourself, I have had no part in any effort to change the guidelines ... but after this brouhaha, it looks to me that a change in the direction of that proposed would be a good idea if removes the toehold which the current guidelines allow to a wikilawyering editor with a long history of efforts to disrupt work in this area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. "rigid approach narrow interpretation of the guidelines" - that is your interpretation, that is not a cause to block someone you disagree with! 2. "many hundreds of articles" - I moved scarily 20 - you then created redlink disamb pages to avoid the guide (I do not doubt if I had done that then you would have blocked me for that). 3. Again dragging up my past - since I have returned to wiki I have acted immaculately.--Vintagekits 14:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also categorically stated here that it was not my intention to make "mass movals"--Vintagekits 14:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is rubbish, I didn't make any mistake I carried out all necessary checks on WP before moving any articles, don't try and blame others for the failure of the creating editors to title articles or categorise them correctly. The guidelines as they stand allow for the moving of incorrectly titled articles, and I will continue to follow that guideline and the normal checks I have been doing in those cases where I come across wrongly titled articles. If there is a problem with the guidelines in your view that try and have them changed, but don't abuse your admin powers against editors following the current guidelines. The current proposal Here failed to achieve consensus. I this case you should lift this block and bring this to ANI to be sorted out.--padraig 14:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Padraig, so the article on Anstruther Baronets was there when you made the move, and could have been checked at the time: it was linked from the article you moved. I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith, I'm just pointing out that a mistake was made which could have been avoided.
You moved an article which was correctly named, even on the strictest interpretation of the guidelines, because you'd missed one of the places you could have looked. It's an oversight, it's a mistake, but illustrates my concern here: that when removing titles, very careful checks need to be made to avoid breaking links.
AS I have stated repeatedly, my only concern here is that editors do not systematically make changes which will break links. That requires no change in guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Anstruther Baronets article has been edited alot since I moved any of those articles and I am not sure without checking back on my own edits which one I moved at that time, so I would need to check that first, but as I recall at the time the I checked the category for these baronets articles and they weren't listed, nor did they show in a search on WP. But that is a different issue to this are you now prepared to lift this block and take this to ANI.--padraig 15:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BHG the only issue, we are here to discuss, like I have said repeatedly, is weather A) did VK make a threat, and b) if they did, is the block appropriate and proportionate. Your constant raising of problems you have on baronets is not an issue here. --Domer48 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Padraig: That's my point, you checked, in good faith, and missed the article which has since April listed and linked to all the John Anstruther baronet-MPs. Caution needed; category checks are clearly not enough, as that incident demonstrates. Best to check the on-line external sources too.
As to whether I will lift the block, the answer is no: it has been endorsed here by several other admins, including Vk's mentor Alison. But I will take the matter to ANI within the next hour, to seek a review.
Domer: yes, Vk did indeed make a threat to disrupt. The reason that the other issues keep on popping up is because Vk and one other keeps wikilawyering to claim that his threat was not disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I DID NOT say I was going to disrupte wiki. I have further clarified this on a number of occasions - you are a disgrace to your adminship and a bully.--Vintagekits 15:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this now goes to ANI would VKs block prevent him from defending himself against this, if it does then the block should be lifted to allow him to do so.--padraig 15:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - how can I defend myself or put my side of the story across at ANI if I am block. BHG - you have had a number of admin now tell you that you have acted incorrectly. Lift the block and let ANI sort it out. I have already said I wont move further articles until it is sorted at ANI - so therefore your block is now redundant.--Vintagekits 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vk, I have had a number of admins support the block, and much fewer opposing it.
However, if you are not going to do the moves, there is nothing for ANI to consider, is there?
So I will lift the block, and we can all save time at WP:ANI. However, a block may be reimposed if you resume disruptive editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Given the undertaking above, I endorse this unblock. However, I strongly recommend that VK steer clear of the baronetcy articles in the future and would like to see these going into the same category of contentious articles as the previous ones defined above in the original unblock criteria. Failing that, I predict we're all going to be back here again in a few days. - Alison ☺ 18:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The block should not have been imposed in the first, it was a content dispute in which the imposing admin was involved, this is prohibited blocking policy it should have been taken to WP:ANI --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Think back to two weeks ago

Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of this block - even if it was totally unwarranted - calling another editor "a disgrace to your adminship and a bully" and then sending an abusive email to your mentor for taking a position you do not agree with is not consistent with the terms of your recent unblocking. You agreed to demotrate the "utmost level of civility" and agreed that an "admin may ban you from these if they consider you to be disruptive." SirFozzie made it explicitly clear that "this means you're going to have to be on your best behavior no matter what". You told us that, if you were unblocked, you could prove that you could edit without getting into these sorts of conflicts, and if you did, you would remain civil in attempting to resolve it. Just 8 days later we find ourselves in the same position, lashing out at all and sundry (even those that have gone out of their way to heelp you). And again, everyone is to blame but you, despite the fact that the biased admins change and you are the common denominator. Since you have failed to adhere to the most basic conditions of your last chance, is there a reason we shouldn't just replace the indefinite block and be done with it? Rockpocket 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you will see that my mentor supported the unblock. BHG has a history of blocking editors she is in dispute with and it seems I am the latest one.--Vintagekits 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be highly interested in your reason for supporting the block in the first place, it was so obviously wrong yet you supported it! Highly unusual.--Vintagekits 19:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If she supported the unblock, why did you send her, in her words, "abusive emails"? You did the same to me, you may recall. I, too, would be interested in my reasons for supporting the block, since I don't recall doing so. Perhaps you could provide me with a dif? Rockpocket 19:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I initially supported the block, though I found the duration excessive. Blocks are meant to stop disruption and VK was clearly being disruptive, IMO. I now support the unblock given his undertaking above - Alison ☺ 19:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How was I being disruptive? Why is no one condemning BHG - is this a case of "all admins together".--Vintagekits 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How were you being disruptive? You could answer that question yourself, by answering the questions I asked you repeatedly above. Why are you treating guidelines as if they rigid and immutable, even when your a rigid adherence to a narrow interpetation creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? And what are you really trying to achieve here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would say that you were being far more disruptive than I - I was following wiki guide - I never said the were set in stone but I bet if they suited you then you wold use them as if they were - I was simply following the guides - you were avoiding them and abusing your admin powers. The was not on - just because someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to, firstly accuse them of things they havent done and then block them. If you cant see that you were more disruptive than I then I dispear.--Vintagekits 19:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered the question, and I'm not going to ask again. But it's revealing that you are so determined to duck it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the question - I am not ducking anything, but have ducked your responsibility as an admin today with your behaviour. I will answer any question you have as long as you answer this - do you think you should have blocked me when you were the centre of the dispute?--Vintagekits 20:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, yes. Close call, plenty of reservations from the outset, but yes. But no more answers from me unless you answer my simple questions to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are not in the business of "condemning" editors for doing their best to take action to stop what they consider to be disruptive behaviour. There is a due process where you can request comments on BHG's actions - and I will happily offer my thoughts there. Instead of trying to deflect attention on to her, perhaps you could address the point here: why should you remain unblocked when you clearly have demonstrated you couldn't even last 10 days without resorting to gross incivility that led to the indef block in the first place? Rockpocket 19:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem more than happy to condemn me despite I the fact I have done nothing yet I have been subjected to this today.--Vintagekits 19:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... apart from sending abusive emails to your mentor and accusing others of be a bully. Ignoring it isn't going to help, Vk. You were unblocked on the condition this sort of behaviour ceased completely. You, yourself, advocated a zero tolerance policy towards it. No-one else has been name-calling here, and no-one else has been sending abusive emails. How many more last chances do you expect to receive? Rockpocket 20:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VK, it's time to move on here. Either initiate a formal complaint against BHG or start article editing or something, because this constant sniping and lashing out at anyone who's within range isn't helping your case one whit - Alison ☺ 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty dimayed with the stance that some admin have taken here - I have taken such an amount today, its really pissed me off. BHG blocked me on a whim just so she could stamp her power and none of ye and willing to come out and say that that was wrong. --Vintagekits 20:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty dismayed with your behaviour today, quite frankly. BHG did not "block you on a whim", either and right now, you're listening to nobody. That I'm mentor does not mean that I'm your supporter. I'm here to be neutral (believe it or not) and right now, I'm suggesting that you either file a complaint re. this issue or move on. Because all you're doing right now is generating a lot of heat. I'm not suggesting the matter be dropped or anything; just that you need to deal and move on with editing, which is why we're all here. Right now, all you're doing is making more enemies - Alison ☺ 20:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are dismayed!! I was dismayed that you are even defending BHG and castigating me! Did you even look into the issue - I cant believe that you that is your opinion.--Vintagekits 12:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this whole situation even arose is astonishing. Its disgraceful that an admin with a COI, has blocked a user for correctly renaming articles. Its disgusting that such an abuse of privlege can happen. If anything RHG should be held accountable for abusing the privleges she has as an admin. I won't hold my breath. Derry Boi 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, there is a lot of bluster about how disgraceful an admin's behaviour is, and how something must be done about it. Yet, as usual, no-one is willing to go through the process to deal with it. If you think BHG needs to be held accountable, make your case at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges. Holding a kangaroo count on Vk's talkpage isn't going to get you very far, Derry Boi. Rockpocket 22:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical naming policy

Elizabeth Windsor redirects to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I'm interested on your take on this, Vintagekits. Do you think a common-sense change on our naming policy is indicated for biographical articles on baronets?

Our main policy, after all, is "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature".  W. Frank talk ✉  21:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

Thanks for your help but is it necessary to stalk me? That said, I will do my best to tidy up my references. How I can prove a village is charming & remote I do not know. Maybe you should visit Witham Friary. --MJB 14:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking a question like that I really think you need to read WP:OR - as for stalking you I have asked you to read WP:CIVIL, you my also want to read WP:NPA while you are at it. regards--Vintagekits 14:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress" It does not upset me, but you have deliberately targetted sites on my userpage to generate conflict. --MJB 14:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that articles should not be referenced, please tell me why that should be so. Also you now might want ot read WP:OWN if you think that putting a fact tag on an articles is personally targetting you. You have breach a number of policies in the past half hour - I would suggest that you read those policies before editing again because you are digging a whole for yourself. You have been provided with the policies - now please read them. regards--Vintagekits 14:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Sands

I am just trying to get some balance into the article. Besides, I think it is best that you keep away from these pages altogether or you're going to get yourself thrown off indefinately. Long time no see though! Logoistic 14:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting some balance is fine, but editorialising and adding WP:OR isnt, if you know what I mean. Its cool if I stay on the talk pages and remain polite, so I'll be adding my 2c. regards--Vintagekits 14:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the community waste any more time with Vintagekits?

Although you 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  W. Frank talk ✉  17:43, 19 August 2007 UTC

I too have just had a highly abusive email from Vintagekits, my second this weekend. 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? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
That's mild. My e-mails featured graphical threats of violence and arson. W. Frank talk ✉  18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are living in a fantasy world - please forward that email to an admin - I have never dfone that.--Vintagekits 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BHG considering your own behaviour in this issue I see nothing wrong with VKs email to you, you shouldn't have issued a block in the first place, and place the matter with ANI for a decision, you failed to do that as you knew there was nothing wrong with VK moving those articles under the guidelines on naming. I think that you and W. Frank should now leave VK alone, especially W. Frank who is spamming WP article talk pages to accuse anyone that disagrees with him of being part of a team, his post above is just another stage in that harassment from him.--padraig 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, your supposed to be an Admin, are you trying to provoke an argument. There is nothing in those emails that was not said on the talk page. You had to lift an unjustifiable block, and this appears just like sour grapes. Vintagekits just ignore these comments. The block was lifted because it was wrong. You have been vindicated by the block been lifted. Delete all these comments, as there purpose is to provoke a response. --Domer48 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, the block was lifted because Vk withdrew his threat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Show me were I withdrew the threat! I didnt make a threat and I didnt withdraw any threat.--Vintagekits 09:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer to this heading has to be no, he continually throws all chances back in our faces. --Counter-revolutionary 18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

VK I have indefinitely blocked your account for making clear threats regarding another editor's home address. It's was one of those "I know where you live" moments and you did it twice today. I cannot state exactly who you are referring to or where they live as only myself and User:Fred Bauder know this, but it was unequivocal as to what you meant. Admins can email me on this one - you may not, as this relates to privacy and security of an individual. If you want to use the {{unblock}} template, you may or you may email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

I can't believe you just did that. I really can't. It's truly over, VK - Alison ☺ 18:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Alison ☺ 18:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about??? I'm baffled!--Vintagekits 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse that for the mean-spirited and nasty statements in the emails reproduced above and elsewhere recently. This was your last chance and I'm afraid you have blown it. --John 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How cute!--Quick Reference 12:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Vk was entirely justified in all his objections to the actions of other editors and admins, threats against another editor's home address are surely an absolute and irrevocable no-no per Wikipedia:Harassment. No-one should have any reason to be concerned about their physical safety as a result of their work on wikipedia, and Alison was quite right to block Vintagekits indefinitely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz! "threats against another editor's home address" - what the hell are you talking about?--Quick Reference 12:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a disinterested party, who stumbled upon this, and has read all the comments relating to the last 2 blocks before this permanent one (tedious at times!), I fully support the permanent ban on VintageKits. This user was given more than enough 'last' chances and he blew every single one. I hope the Admins have the courage of their convictions and that the ban is indeed a permanent one, and that this horrible person is not given yet another last chance. Snappy56 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably going to ask for oversight on the two diffs concerned, but I'll keep a local copy of them here. They're still up at the moment - Alison ☺ 19:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was over as soon as Vk started sending abusive email again, as far as I am concerned. He make similar personal threats by email against me when I last blocked him, but since he claimed he was so drunk he was no aware of their contents, I didn't make an issue of it at the time. Its now clear that his MO is to use threats of violence to attempt to intimidate other editors. Whether they are credible or not, I don't know. But his use of paramilitary rhetoric is sufficiently common for the threats to have genuine impact. This is entirely unacceptable behaviour. I endorse this block and suggest we all move on now. If anyone (and on past evidence there will be a few) feels Vk is the victim of an admin conspiracy, then I suggest the either open a RfC to sample the opinion of the community, or else go to ArbCom. However, I firmly believe any outside the poisonous atmosphere Vk moved in will be amazed his behaviour was tolerated this long. Rockpocket 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness. I didn't object to the unblock in the first place primarily because I thought, naively, that he would stick to boxing-related articles. Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If anyone (and on past evidence there will be a few) feels Vk is the victim of an admin conspiracy...I firmly believe any outside the poisonous atmosphere Vk moved in." Rockpocket care to explaine who, and what you are going on about? --Domer48 12:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is about time one of the aggrieved parties here decided that this mess is best sorted by the arbcom. It seems to me that most of those commenting here are too involved. BHG and co obviously feel they have been wronged and misunderstood and VK obviously feels he has been victimised and cornered. It seems strange to me that BHG has not felt the need to call in some more "professional help" before the problem reached the level it is at now. Now that things have reached this flashpoint level someone more detached and uninvolved needs to come in and sort the mess out. Giano 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is not being victimised, but you are correct in that he has continually been given special treatment. I hope that ends now, this block is long-overdue. --Counter-revolutionary 13:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think CR that some of your comments could be inflaming the situation. After all we all make our mistakes and errors, don't we? I merely say that it would be a good idea if an admin or an arb more detatched from the situation were to evaluate it. Giano 13:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we all make errors, but when they are done continually and threaten "violence and arson" I feel something must be done. --Counter-revolutionary 13:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The perhaps the corcumstances leading to these "threats" (I have not seen them) need to be investigated - by someone a little more detatched. Giano 13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only encountered VK yesterday and found him aggressive. That said, an indefinite block seems unfair. He is unpleasant but also clearly industrious and through. Can we consider a short suspension? --MJB 14:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tried. Look at his block log. --John 14:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should be taken to admins not involved in this dispute.--padraig 14:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I had the opportunity to speak, in person, with Alison today. I put to her my suspicions based on both my experience of Vk's MO and on two edits made by Vk that appeared highly suspect to me. She confirmed exactly what I had suspected. Based on this, I reiterate me complete and fully support Alison's indef block and would strongly protest any move to unblock Vk, now or in the future. I am 100% sure any editor who was privy to the sensitive information Alison has would make the same call and she should be applauded for moving quickly to protect our editors, rather than vilified, as has happened here. Rockpocket 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, really this is not doing much good either. The editors can see Vintagekits edits, and nothing appears to be wrong them, so full marks to Vintagekits. Then we see an abusive process against Vintagekits, by some of the admins, and a whole clatter of editors, and Vintages appears to remain cool. You are telling us now that you have secret information from another admin that justifies all the abuses by the Admins, probably even before this secret evidence became existant. If Vintagekits blew his lid with all the abuse he received the other day, well I will not hold that against him. Nobody is coming out of this clean, and the ordinary editors, are sick to their teeth of this extended saga. Thepiper 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This following section removed from my talk page, it should be hereThepiper 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all respect, Thepiper, you really have no clue what you are talking about. Vk's abusive behaviour has been ongoing for over a year, ranging across a number of articles, and by email, and and in conflict with a number of editors. Your account was created just 2 months ago, so I find it difficult to imagine that you are anywhere near familiar with his history. Moreover, if you have gone through Vk's edits from the previous few days and find nothing unusual, then you are clearly not familiar enough with what is going here to make the accusations of bias. There is a lot more going on here than you are aware of, and I assure you admin bias has nothing to do with it. All you are doing is muddying the water and Vk - who knows exactly what he has done - is taking full advantage of it. I wish I could tell you what exactly is going on, because you would be embarrassed with your allegations about Alison and other admins when her actions have been nothing but exemplary. If you have an accusation to make, I suggest you do so to ArbCom. I look forward to your apologies when ArbCom confirms Alison's actions are entirely justified. Rockpocket 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And my response. _________ There you go assuming. I made no allegations against any named Admin, only what I wrote on BHG page, and I believe that that particular Admin was unjustified in much of what she wrote. Quite the contrary I do have a clue, and please don't try and read my thoughts, for you may be totally surprised with what you might glean. And please, with all due respect, I have made no allegations about Admin Alison, and for you to say so is totally unfounded and so creates other question marks over this sorry saga. The editors are not fools, they see the edits, please treat them with respect, and "publish or be d---", if I'm allowed use that phrase. There are many other questions which I will not ask now, but will in the next couple of days if the opportunity pervails. Also I cannot understand why you came onto my page with your argument, surely this page is not the forum to be addressing the issue/s. Thepiper 03:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have reconsidered this, and will now defer to the judgement of Alison, and supported by Rockpocket. It doesn't take away from the sorry saga leading up to this state of affairs. It has been very very badly managed indeed, and not least by yourself Rockpocket. You might owe an apology too. Thepiper 05:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Quite what I have I done leading up to this "state of affairs" (difs would be helpful)? The BHG block, if that is what you are referring to, had nothing to do with me whatsoever. Rockpocket 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows you have been trying to block Vintagekits for quite a while, it's in your history edits, it sometimes seems to be your sole purpose as an admin. Well you got your wish, and at a price, and some price too. Vintagekits got a lot of abuse, and it's plain for anyone to see. Well, to use your own words, don't expect me to do your dirty work for you. If you want the diffs, you find them, they are all over the place. Thepiper 10:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly read WP:NPA and refrain from making personal attacks: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack." Your comments on Rockpocket are quite unjustified and unsubstantiated. Tyrenius 12:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And kindly Tyrenius, please ask Rockpocket not to make false allegations on my personal talk page, and he also made a personal attack on that page today. Please give warning if you get the chance. Thanks! Thepiper 12:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it, but thanks for pointing me to this other edit of yours, which is also an attack.[7] Please continue on your talk page. Tyrenius 13:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I respect other people's opinions, and do listen, no bother. As I said to you earlier, I am rather busy today, so will get back later. Have a nice day! Thepiper 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedia account names used by User:Vintagekits

(1) Is there an automatic procedure to block other Wikipedia account names used by User:Vintagekits?

(2) Is there an automatic procedure of analysing the IP's historically used by User:Vintagekits to edit in order to pre-emptively prevent the creation of new account(s) by him - or is this latest block only another temporary remedy?

(3) Does User:Vintagekits still have "full permission to remove, without replying, any comments" he doesn't like on this page?
 W. Frank talk ✉  14:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's always CheckUser, though I don't think this is neccessary here as I don't see any immediate evidence of sockery here - Alison ☺ 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vk's known socks have already been indef blocked (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits). I think meatpuppetry is a possibility though, since he has done that in the past, and threatened it a few times since (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits) Rockpocket 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

For the record, VK made two clear and unequivocal references to the home address of another Wikipedian and it was done solely to intimidate that person. I am in absolutely no doubt about this. Any other admin can email me for details.

I have no qualms whatsoever in this whole mess going before the Arbitration Committee at this stage, in fact I look forward to it and will be glad to provide as much evidence as I have to ArbCom. There is no "admin conspiracy" here, at least not on my part, and I'd certainly like to see that cleared up. If a "neutral" admin (whatever that means) wishes to get involved, that may work instead. - Alison ☺ 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one for one second is claiming an admin conspiracy, although I see you are only offering "your evidence" to other admins. What perhaps need to be independently assessed is did VK jump to these actions or was he pushed. If threats of this nature have been made by him in earnest then some form of sanction needs to be taken against him. However, it should also be assessed to see if there are any mitigating factors, is everyone else concerned whiter than white. I have been quietly watching the "adventures of VK" for sometime and I don't believe he is all bad, at times he is misguided and a little single minded but often the root of his arguments do carry some weight. Others here I too have been watching and at times their actions and comments have in my view been questionable - so several things here need to be looked at. I also think you and BHG should not have made these lengthy and severe blocks yourself but called in someone less involved. At times VKs page has seemed more like a kangaroo court and lynch mob combined - and that cannot be the right course of action. So I suggest the blocking admins now unblock him pending a request for an arbcom case to allow VK a more open and fair hearing. If after hearing all facts and opinions the arbcom feel a perma-ban is required then so be it. Giano 15:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, I've got no axe to grind with VK, and I agree with much of what you've said. There are *most definitely* elements of this that the arbcom should look into. But...I'm afraid I don't agree that VK should be unblocked. If these latest allegations (off-wiki threats etc.) are true (I am taking it on good faith that they are, but it would be useful to see more of the actual evidence) then that is just totally unacceptable. There cannot be any toleration of threats of violence or threats to kill. This is an encyclopaedia, not a battleground. Badgerpatrol 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I wish you'd stop using scare quotes like that here. Are you in doubt as to any "evidence"? The reason I'm not plastering it about the place is that it "outs" personal information on an editor; one who already feels threatened by what's happened. I'm not going to excaberate the situation by posting it here for all to see but I will gladly provide it to any member of the ArbCom. Can you see the rationale for that here? Far as I'm concerned there are no "mitigating factors" in what happened here and actions like his are never justifiable nor excusable coming from anyone. I have long been an advocate for neutrality and balance when it comes to VK, already weighing in heavily on his last indefblock. But this - this is too much and I am disappointed that you are making insinuations of imbalance here. Nobody doubts that VK can be a "fine editor" he has shown that in the past and that's not what's at issue here.
I 100% stand by my block here and refuse to lift it at this point. It's not in my nature to be like this - ask any other admin - but I'm doing it here, and with good reason. VK can quite readily provide evidence to ArbCom from his current position if required, and policy states this quite clearly. - Alison ☺ 15:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind the issue revolves not around was he pushed but when he was in the last chance saloon, how did he behave. He continued to be didactic, mean-spirited, unpleasant and provocative.
I think VK should be indefiitely blocked for being disruptive, malicious, spiteful and vindictive, for failure to WP:AGF, for threatening to use wikirules outwith common sense, for adding inappropriate fact tags, and because he has never shown willingness to take responsibility for his actions, and for being didactic. I have seen no evidence of messages threatening editors at their home addresses. Too much time has been wasted on him. I trust the decisions made at today’s date.- Kittybrewster (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the kangaroo prosecutor has arrived. Completely disinterested, of course. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I've sent an email request to a member of ArbCom to allow evidence to be submitted to the committee - Alison ☺ 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest that the Arbitration Committee's attention be drawn to this ongoing situation. If a case is posted on-wiki, I (or if I am away another Arbitration Committee Clerk) will copy any response that Vintagekits may post on this page. Evidence unsuited for presentation on-wiki may be e-mailed to any active arbitrator or clerk for forwarding to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. Newyorkbrad 15:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just sent a message to User:Mackensen on this - Alison ☺ 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, please do not accuse me of using scare quotes when I am merely trying to obtain a fair hearing for VK. I suggest that blocks by BHG and yourself were performed without sufficient consultation and thought. The fact that we now have Kittybrewster jumping up and down with glee merely confirm my earlier suspicions about goading and provocation. I have not noticed VK blanking his page in a fit of pique when unwelcome information is posted which is the case with both Kittybrewster and Counter revolution. The more I look at this case there more questions there seem to be to be answered. It is appalling that only now are you considering the arbcom. Giano 15:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of information: Vintagekits had full permission to remove any comments he did not like, and used that permission relatively sparingly and judiciously. Here are just 3 examples you may have missed: [8], [9], [10]. It is perhaps ironic that the last example I give is of a comment removed by Vintagekits (an undisclosed IP contribution) that also suggested that an arbcom was the appropriate venue for adjudicating a lifetime ban for Vintagekits.  W. Frank talk ✉  16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right I had missed those diffs - but they just further confirm my view that this will prove to be 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. VKs biggest enemy is himself that is obvious, the next question is who are his next biggest enemies. My view here is (I think this is what the English say:) "what is sauce for the goose is gravy for the gander" using obscenities and threats is not acceptable, no one disagrees on that, but pushing a person to such a point that they see no other option is also unaceptable. It needs to be investigated to see if that scenario has happened. Giano 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, you used scare quotes - they're up there for all to see. I'm sure your intentions are honourable but you still used them. I'm unimpressed with Kittybrewster doing the dance of victory also - it's uncalled for. It's high time this went to arbitration - Alison ☺ 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly are the "scare quotes" - I'm begining to wonder if you are not seeing too many threats. Undoubtedly VK has behaved badly the question is how badly and why. I have only been an observer here but I can clearly see some others who too should be examining their consciences Giano 16:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, after BrownHairedGirl applied the 3-week block, but before it escalated to indefinite, I posted a rough outline for mediation to her talk page [11]. I think this would be a sounder solution than an ArbCom case because, as she observed, an ArbCom case would involve compiling endless diffs of who did what and probably end with lengthy blocks for editors on both sides. There is, indeed, a lot to be answered for on both sides. However, many of the participants seem to have been decent and well-behaved editors before getting embroiled in the conflict, and I think it would be more productive to redeem than to block them. Indeed, this was my hope for Vintagekits as well — when editing in areas like the history of Ireland or boxing, his perspective has driven him to improve, expand, and source articles, an essentially constructive endeavor, albeit colored by a partisan viewpoint. It was when he became embroiled in articles about the baronetage and nobility, where he was largely attempting to remove or condense information he had a poor grasp of, that his actions became disruptive. I think the interests of the encyclopedia would be better served by setting some intermediary body between the parties, so that they no longer feel the need to push every point to the utmost of their advantage, than by a general collection of scalps. However, I'd be interested in the opinions of others on the feasibility and scope of such an effort. Choess 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are quite correct and I agree. The problem is in my experience some of those who edit the baronetcy pages (or whatever they are called) can be just as blinkered and single minded as VK, the only difference between some of them and VK is that they tend to hunt as a pack. Here is the root of VK's problems - he feels cornered and isoalated so lashes out. The charges against him now are very serious indeed. I'm not sure anything but an arb case can resolve it, they need all to have their say. The jubilation demonstrated by Kittybrewster above is repulsive to see. Perhaps now others cabn see just what pressure VK has been under. Giano 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I set down my reasons for thinking an indefinite block is justified. And I am perfectly certain that noone has been provoking or goading him into the actions he has taken. Also that he operated within a "pack" which actually did him a disservice by encouraging him to think he was behaving appropriately. He would probably still be unbanned if his original indefinite block had been replaced with a ban on editing any pages (including talk) which were not related to boxing. His edits there were entirely uncontroversial. At the moment I think he is best helped by being encouraged to stand well back. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giano, I'm sorry, but I don't believe Vintagekits has been isolated. In both the moving of baronets and in recent disputes over their naming, he's had the consistent support of Padraig, and during the AfD phase (wherein, as I recall, you fell out with Kittybrewster over his defense of his nn articles), he was generally seconded by OneNightinHackney, who has since left over, I think, a different Ireland-related dispute. Perhaps we differ a bit in perspective because I've been familiar with Kittybrewster's baronet-related editing before that point. What happened in the area of Northern Ireland, I do not know, but my recollection is that it took about a month of hammering by Vintagekits and others on Arbuthnot and baronet-related AfDs before I really started to see Kittybrewster's behavior decline. That's no excuse for what's been done since on the pro/Scots side; on the other hand, the fact that an editing dispute was occurring over Northern Ireland doesn't excuse the anti/Irish side from extending it to a general attack on Kittybrewster's opus, even if they were able to justify some of it in policy. (Indeed, the cleanup of excess Arbuthnot articles was later handled effectively by third parties.) Just as we've discussed above the impropriety of administrators blocking while involved in content disputes, I think Vintagekits' decision to involve himself with unrelated parts of Kittybrewster's work (and in a remarkably litigious manner, cross-examining all participants in the AfDs) was improper, and that much of the tension presently surrounding him can be traced to this extension of whatever was going on in articles on Northern Ireland. Now, maybe we won't be able to untangle these particular perspectives without arbitration. I would rather try to pry the sides apart — both seem to be fighting so hard because they fear that the others will get away with something if they don't, so what sureties can we provide that their concerns will be heard and acted on if they back down? But if people really want to sort out the whole history of it at ArbCom, so be it, although I think it will be a lot of editors' funerals. Choess 17:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that all of the e-mails in question be forwarded to one or more arbitrators. I also suggest that copies be provided to Vintagekits himself with the inquiry whether he in fact was the author of each of them, as above he appears to be possibly denying that he wrote some of them. Newyorkbrad 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete proposals drafted by a competent attorney were largely ignored W. Frank talk ✉  17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano I have to say I admire your nerve. But coming from someone who “I firmly believe” not “outside the poisonous atmosphere Vk moved in.", will not count for much. All I can offer is my thoughts, because the backlash you are going to experience is more than even you are ready for. I must say, your opinions were like a bolt of lighting, and certainly woke me up. I have to say, that was some entrance. --Domer48 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can start off with an appology for that remark - I have never heard of you. I do not mix in any poisonous atmospheres. If these are the threats and comments which VK has been subject too, I am begining to understand where he was coming from. Giano 18:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand Giano. Domer is referring to himself with that comment, not you. Rockpocket 18:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No wonder the Irish are always misunderstood if they will persist in speaking in double negatives. Whatever, any back lash will be as water off a duck's back to me - I care not one jot for people's opinion. I have no interest in climbing wikipedia's slippery pole of promotion. Or in writing about my own POV or relations. I merely write pages and air my views on talk pages when they are required and this is one of them. If there is any justice if VK goes down there are quite a few who should go with him. Giano 18:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So when are we going to see this going to Arbcom??--Vintagekits 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bigger Picture

I think people are in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees here. Its all fine and well to accuse others of inciting Vk - and that certainly has happened on occasions - but Vk has spent a fair proportion of his time inciting those same people. He isn't some innocent editor caught up in a situation, he is among the principle actors that has created this dire state of affairs in the first place. Focusing on any particular single incident in isolation is missing the point. It is the weight of Vks ongoing disruption that has led to an indef block. Putting aside his history of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry and his nine or ten blocks already this year, just last month I blocked Vk for 31 hours for a number of attacks, culminating in this edit (which is typical of his attitude towards other editors). The result? Attacks, threats, paramilitary rhetoric etc, etc, etc. So I indef blocked and immediately asked for an independent review at ANI. The consensus, even among Vk's mentors, was to maintain the indef block. In the meantime, the abuse continued by email, along the same lines, but with the added threat of personal violence against me and some hints that he indended to get revenge off wiki etc.
  • whats the fuckin craic now ya secret dob bassa chunt? blockin me me for fuck all = ypur as much of a total wank as that orange bassa pick cumt as that orange prick cunt organge prick porgange nassa as John - ya lick arse traitor bassa traitor bassa wanker traitor bassa traitor two faced drumpellier chunt
  • yer a wanker! yer a lick arse hun luvin chunt and a wanker - if you ewver stepped foot inside a CP I'd break yer nose inta 40 places ya fuckin fanyny
  • UP YER ARSE YA WANKERS !! YOU WONT BE FORGOTTIN - YOU AND YER GEEK LIFE ARE ABOUT TO GET ASHOICK -WAIT 5 DAYS AND IT WILL START - YA TRAITOR HUN LOVIMG CHUNT
After much campaigning on his behalf by supporters, Vk was unblocked, given a very last chance, and agreed to a set of conditions aimed at avoiding conflict. These included avoiding articles that were a source of prior conflict. However, the agreement was not to form a precise list articles that he could and could not edit, because the onus was on him to avoid conflict, or if he found himself in it, to behave in an acceptable manner. The other condition was maintaining the utmost level of civility, or else the block would be re-instated. Vk waited barely a day before getting stuck into baronetcy articles (which have been a huge source of conflict in the past). Then, just 8 days later he makes personal threats to an editor that wasn't even directly involved in the "controversy" around BHG's block (in addition to sending abusive emails to a mentor of his).
So, while I also don't think the crowing about Vk's block is at all becoming behaviour, neither do I think there is any independent editor who would have any problem with Vk's indef block. The reason I say this is because each time he had been indef blocked in the past, the consensus has always been to support it. It is only the intense lobbying by a group of supporters that has given him so many chances. How many more chances to we propose giving an editor who has demonstrated time and again that even the most basic levels of civililty are beyond him? Does anyone really think unblocking will lead to anything but this same behaviour again?
That all said, if someone wishes to bring this to ArbCom, I am perfectly happy to co-operate and provide all the evidence of Vk's violations of policy in my possession. I just think we have wasted enough time on this, and I can't see ArbCom taking anything other than a dim view when its all laid out in front of them. Alternatively, an "neutral admin" (who, on past experience, is immedately labelled as non-neutral as soon as they disagree with one lobby's position) is welcome to review it. However, they should be willing and able to review a years worth of ongoing behaviour, rather than an isolated incident. Rockpocket 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to support Rockpocket. As someone who has tried to work with Vk for the past year, I lost faith in his ability to edit according to our norms a while ago. His mixture of provocative POV-pushing and abusive and threatening behaviour is not compatible with our working practices. He has had enough last chances now. He has certainly made good additions to articles but that is far outweighed by the drain of others' energy and the poisoning of the atmosphere his involvement here brings about. I challenge anyone reading the history of Vintagekits' interactions with others to come up with a solution other than an indefinite block for him. We have all tried very hard to be flexible, and it's a great shame, but enough is enough. --John 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sure this will all come out in the ArbCom, and everyone will get to talk about the poison and invective that is around. Or is this contrabution, suggesting we do not need ArbCom? --Domer48 18:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me? I don't believe we need ArbCom to rule on Vk's indef block. Irrespective of the behaviour of others, I don't see what possible justification there is for Vk's. Though, regarding his assertion below, that he is innocent of making the comments that Alison blocked him for. Due to the sensitive nature of the information, It would be helpful if an arbitar look over this and confirm (or not) Alison's take on the matter. If the arbiter found otherwise, then I may reconsider, though I see no reason to disbelieve Alison on this.
I would not be adverse to contributing to an ArbCom on the wider issue. However, this dispute is so wide ranging that it would be a huge undertaking. In addition it would, I think, create a bit of a shitstorm for a number of editors. However, I keep hearing editors saying "take it to ArbCom" yet no-one is willing to do just that. Is anyone actually going to act this time? Rockpocket 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see all this go to arbcom. If I am indef blocked then so be it - as long as the law is laid down fairly and squarely for all instead of it just being me on the firing line.--Vintagekits 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

Note that your talk page for some reason has duplication of topics: Topic 67 duplicates Topic 1, etc. Best wishes. Edison 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My side of the story (for what its worth)

  • Lets make this clear since my return I have not threatened anyone. W.Frank's assertion that I threatened to burn his house down and attack him are false, but there seems to be some who are only too happy to believe him. Have I acted poorly in the past? - too right I have, very poor - the worst I have behaved was the night I came in pissed at 3am and had a pop at Rocketpocket and threw the toys out of the pram. However, after the terms of my return were agreed I was happy to return and I had a different take on my editing - I was polite, helpful, tried to engage with and compromise with editors who I have butted heads with before and even created an article about a Baronet!!!!. All I wanted to do was get on with editing, and I was getting on fine with that. However, it all went to pot when I dared to cross BHG. I was acting well within wiki rules when I moved a number (about 10 I'd say) of over disambiguated - this issue is an old one and the Baronet project have a policy of over disambiguating the title of their articles in an attempt to include their titles along with their name - an admin confirmed the position on Kittybrewster page. Anyway BHG blocked me for three weeks for sauying that all articles on wiki should be correctly titled. This block was endorsed by my so called mentor - I do not mean ot be rude by saying so called but it is a fact that Alison has never made any attempt to ever mentor me, unlike Sir Fozzie (oh I wish you were around) - the block was wrong, very wrong - BHG had a content dispute with me and blocked me for following wiki policy so I emailed Alison asking if she was going to do something about it - I got no reply so I sent another email using some "industrial language" - I did not threaten her like some are making out I just point out that I was really pissed off at her lack of support for me when I was obviously in the right and BHG was very wrong to block me when she was in a dispute with me - I also within minutes sent her two more emails apologising for the language I used (the point behind the email still stood but I was sorry for the language I used). As for me emails to BHG yesterday - I see nothing wrong with them - there is no threats there either, I do say she will get her just desserts but that is referring to the RfC that is being produced off wiki which shows her bias and abuse of her admin powers. Now lets get to the crux of the issue - good old W.Frank - an interesting editor - I have had many people email me to say that he is a sockpuppet, I have no proof of that but I do have my suspicions about him. Lets get this clear - I never threatened him, I never said I would come to his house, I never said that I would burn his house down, I never said I would attack him - either explicitly or implicitly. If he has that email where I say I am going to down his house down then someone please make him forward it to me and a neutral admin. If I have said anything like that then I will volunterily leave wiki for good and never return (no cheering please!) if he cannot provide this then that is a serious lie to make about someone and I hope that this block will then be lifted and appropriate action taken against W.Frank.

All I have ever wanted was to make wiki a better place and to improve the articles I am interested in - but I am never allowed to get on with it without harassment for a very small minority of editors and admins.--Vintagekits 18:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall anyone (least of all, me) mentioning that it was W. Frank who you threatened yesterday, which ultimately got you blocked. Please elaborate. You know what you said & all your diffs are still available to everyone - Alison ☺ 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, an ArbCom representative has replied and I'm currently drafting a message detailing the evidence that I have here - Alison ☺ 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we all going to be able to see this or is this a secret discussion between you and the arbcom? Giano 19:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
W.Frank said that I threatened arson and attacks - I never did this. Thank you for your hours and hours of mentoring and assitance.--Vintagekits 18:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's nothing to do with what happened yesterday, as well you know. I have no idea as to the contents of W.Frank's inbox. Now please answer the question - Alison ☺ 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well he has said I was going to burn his gaff - I thought that that is why you blocked me. What exactly is the question you are asking?--Vintagekits 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"That's mild. My e-mails featured graphical threats of violence and arson. W. Frank talk ✉ 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)" Is this true, is this the evidence! If VK did not do any of this, I think questions need to be asked! --Domer48 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly I thought that it was that quote that Alison blocked me for!--Vintagekits 18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying VK you do not know why you have been blocked? Giano 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought I did but obviously I was wrong!--Vintagekits 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then someone is lying - who? Giano 19:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get this crap all the time, VK gets blocked for a dubious threat, and I get threatened with referenced information will be deleted, and having a pop at me and gloating at VK being blocked, and no one bats an eyelid. [12]. Accusations left right and centre by W Frank about the “Team” and not a word. ArbCom is the only answer in my opinion? If VK is shown to have done this, well they will not mind me saying …. And the horse you rode in on, but all the facts should be presented. --Domer48 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Yep, if the events of the last few days have achieved anything it is that this case needs to go to arbcom, and that isnt just VK but the whole Irish/British current dispute. Perhaps VK could then be unblocked on the basis that he only edits the arbcom case pending a decision (like DPetersen), SqueakBox 19:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (copying from above)[reply]

I suggest that all of the e-mails in question (as referred to by Alison) be forwarded to one or more arbitrators. I also suggest that copies be provided to Vintagekits himself with the inquiry whether he in fact was the author of each of them, as above he appears to be possibly denying that he wrote some of them. Newyorkbrad 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This block has nothing to do with email, nothing to do with "threats of arson" or whatever. I know nothing of that. This relates to something else. And no, Giano, I won't be sharing it with the public for reasons of privacy and security. I've already made that clear. Unless the person in question wishes to reveal their home address here, which I doubt, there's not much I can do other than provide ArbCom with the evidence in confidence - Alison ☺ 19:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This block has nothing to do with email, nothing to do with "threats of arson" or whatever" You have based your whole case on this. If this is not it - I would like to know what! I have been editing here for years, anyone who has an email that can shed light on this matter can forward them to me, and I will then give a public opinion without betraying any confidences. I just want to see a level playing field. Giano 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have permission to do that, and you have no right to know. I'm sorry, but I just can't make that call - Alison ☺ 19:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pmail you something non-outy in a minute here - Alison ☺ 19:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't worry - others will. Giano 19:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on here a minute, I thought this was about W Franks post, now this has nothing to do with it. Before I tell a fellow editor (VK) to “go … themselves,” for doing something bang out of order, I want to know what for. This is starting to go a little down hill, so I will pull up short, and simply say this dose not seem altogether right. --Domer48 19:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, we are under not obligation to provide sensitive information to any editor that requests it simply so they can satisfy their own curiosity. No one is asking you to tell Vk anything, Domer, so there is no reason you have to justify that by knowing what is going on. If this was done on wiki, and the suggestion is that it was, then the information is there in the logs (unless, of course, they have already been deleted). I don't know exactly whats going on here either (though I have my suspicions about certain edits yesterday), but Alison does, and we have no reason to distrust her. She has requested oversight from an ArbCom member, so I suggest we all wait to see what he or she has to say. Rockpocket 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're not deleted, as it happens. However, the quandary is that if I reveal any more, it puts an editor at risk as I will have revealed details of their home address so I can't do that. I guess this will be my final word on the matter. I'm taking this, plus the evidence to ArbCom. I will not be unblocking VK at this time. If he needs to parttake in the arb case, he can do so via email or under something like the Miskin Arbitration case did. - Alison ☺ 20:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The impression given was that VK had threatened another editor by e-mail, we are now being told that was not the case, so how are these threats supposed to have been made, that lead to an indef block.--padraig 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Alison's justification you will note she mentions, a number of times, that the diffs of Vk's comments are/were still available. I don't know why people are thinking they were made by email (perhaps you are getting confused with Frank's comments about the emails he has received from Vk previously). Rockpocket 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is all now far too cryptic. I am beginning to smell something, something very unplesant and more than a little dead! I think we need some answers here. How about you W.Frank? Anything you would like to tell us? Giano 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the insinuation of impropriety, Giano. There is nothing unusual about an admin dealing with sensitive information in this manner. Unless you think ArbCom are in on the conspiracy, your concerns should be addressed fully. In the meantime, a little good faith wouldn't go amiss. If you are that desperate to know, you can trawl through Vk's edits over the last few days. As Alison says, the diffs are still there and, at least one stands out to me as being extremely unusual. Rockpocket 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"ArbCom are in on the conspiracy" - Oh no, they are not in on anything! I know all I need to know, and I'm begining to think it "aint" pleasant. So the Arbcom needs to know sooner rather than later. Giano 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing is turing into a farce. We were told VK was blocked for making personal threats against another editor via email, but now we're told that they were never made, so the reasons for VK's block seem to have been changed...AFTER HE WAS BLOCKED. We're also being told to look at his diffs...what exactly has he done wrong in his diffs? The goal posts have been shifted and my confidence in admins as neutral objective editors has all but disappeared. Derry Boi 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"We were told VK was blocked for making personal threats against another editor via email" - you were never told that by the blocking admin. Not once, so nothing's been changed. In fact, I've restated it a number of times now - Alison ☺ 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming more like an Agatha Christie by the moment. We have the simple Irish peasant boy (sorry VK no offense) is he the criminal? or is it the wicked baronet, or one of his aristocratic side kicks from Toad Hall? Who wrote the poson pen? and who put the body in the library, and was the body dead when it went there or did it write the poison pen. Miss Marple needs to arrive PDQ. Giano 21:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read any of the thread about Vk being blocked, Derry Boi, before wading in with your opinion? Just after issuing the block, Alison said, "I'm probably going to ask for oversight on the two diffs concerned, but I'll keep a local copy of them here. They're still up at the moment". How exactly does that equate with you being told "VK was blocked for making personal threats against another editor via email"? My confidence that certain individuals are interested in anything other than offering partisan support along ideological lines has all but disappeared. Rockpocket 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah "Rockpocket of the Yard" and where were you when the shot was fired? Giano 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was chillin' at the Texas School Book Depository, where were you? Look, there is a great deal of confusion here, as people are getting confused over why Vk was blocked this time, as opposed to why he was blocked last time, not to mention all the other abusive emails that didn't lead to blocks. Notwithstanding the fact that this should tell you something about the persuasiveness of Vk's poor behaviour, all its doing is generating accusations of conspiracies that simply don't exist. Alison has already said she is passing this all over to ArbCom, so why doesn't everyone just take a step back and wait for their response, rather than make ill-founded allegations based on misunderstandings. Rockpocket 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have no fear I'm so chilled I could be in the morgue, what though are the "ill-founded allegations" you think I am making? Giano 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about the allegation from a number of editors that "we" were originally told Vk was blocked for comments made by email. If you didn't make any such allegations, I wasn't referring to you. Rockpocket 22:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that no-one, including VK, is quite sure why he was blocked, but an awful lot are celebrating the event. So who has been manipulated to where? - and why? I shall continue to hunt for the body, because without one we have no crime. Giano 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch yourself

Vintage, irrelevent edits like one are out just to cause trouble. I genuinely don't want to see you thrown off Wiki, so for your own sake, stay clear of Irish Republican related articles completely. Try getting into something else - a recent look down your edits shows that you are still pushing this agenda. Glad to see that you're stalking me again though! Logoistic 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was VK not supposed to contribute to talk pages? As to pushing an agenda, I think one should look at their own edits, as VK suggests. --Domer48 12:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if Vintagekits had said the above, "Please watch yourself", he would have got an indefinate block! Same rules should apply to all editors, regardless. -Thepiper 14:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep fair point Thepiper. Derry Boi 19:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thepiper, in a 2-tier system like the one we have that isnt realistic. When did you ever hear of an admin being indefinitely blocked? SqueakBox 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. Me and Vintage go way back. Logoistic 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits, why are you blocked?

Why are you blocked, I can't understand the page! Can someone please point to the transgressions. Thepiper 23:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you (and others) seem to have missed it, see #Blocked, "VK I have indefinitely blocked your account for making clear threats regarding another editor's home address. It's was one of those "I know where you live" moments and you did it twice today." - Alison. VK's supporters seem to be making a concerted effort to muddy the waters but let's all sit back and relax and let ArbCom deal with it. Snappy56 12:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the discussion, and this block must be just as criptic as the last one, because I can not find the threats? Snappy56 who are VK's supporters? Hopefully ArbCom "deal with it," including comments like yours. Now Snappy56, where is the "clear threats regarding another editor's home address." W Frank, made some claims also, are they related? Talk about "muddy the waters." --Domer48 12:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, Alison wrote on 19 August, 2007: "VK I have indefinitely blocked your account for making clear threats regarding another editor's home address". She later wrote she would not divulge this evidence to anyone other than ArbCom because to do so would reveal personal information on an editor. Of W Frank, I know nought, ask him, ask Alison, except she ain't talkin', only to ArbCom, which we ain't. The debate since then has gone off on several divergent tangents. As I said before, let's wait for the judgement of our benevolent overlords, the mighty ArbCom! ;-) Snappy56 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see these "clear threats regarding another editor's home address" - nothing like innocent until proven guilty eh. Nothing to do with disagreeing with a couple of biased admins though yeah!--Vintagekits 20:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shut UP! Giano 20:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I am too stupid to shut up when I should really do so. I'm just a thick Paddy wit no schooling or edumacation. I'll be quiet until this abrcom.--Vintagekits 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm just a thick Paddy wit no schooling or edumacation" Yep, and you need to learn how to spell a certain word beginning with "C" or better still stop using it. It is not an acceptable word in print, or outside of a stag party or a rugby club changing room. VK! You do have your moments, and this is not one of them. Your boxing pages are great, that is how I first saw you. I too have written a few pages on the subject but my sort of boxing is far more rough. You are a good and valuable editor but for now just put a sock in it, we all understand that you have been tormented and pushed to a very far point but now is the time for you to realise that too.

You are in for a ban, there is no disputing or avoiding it. The only question in doubt is for how long? However, there are many mitigating factors. Others, in their way, have been as bad as you, if less openly vociferous. In my book they are worse - they have been cunning and devious - with your mouth the size of a stable door no one can accuse you of that. Just realise that at the moment every time you open your mouth and swallow your foot, they are all laughing gleefully. So for the time being shut up. Giano 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very wise words Giano lets hope your good advice is taken.BigDunc 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have given up hope of having any chance of being allowed to stay. I came back and edited fine but was hounded out. No matter whats happens I am out of here.--Vintagekits 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish articles assessments

Assuming you get back online!

It seems that the assessment of Irish articles has fallen off the radar but recently Flowerpotman, Sarah777 and I have been doing a little work on this as well as actually classifying articles (actually Sarah has done the most work). Anyway, you are listed as a member of the WikiProject hence this post.

  • The first thing that needs doing is to work on the WikiProject template. Actually there are two templates both of which get recorded by the assessment statistics bot that collects the ratings and creates the listings in the category Category:Ireland articles by quality. The two project templates are {{Irelandproj}} listed on the main project page and {{WikiProject Ireland}} listed on the assessment page—the first allows both quality and importance rating as well as nesting but no reviewer comments, while the second allows quality rating and comments but the importance does not seem to work and comments are not included. This needs to be fixed, so we use one that works fully—can you help?
  • The next thing is to decide if we just let editors assess as they wish or to create some criteria or guidelines for rating the quality and importance of the Irish articles. Personally I am in favour of some guidelines—some will be easy to decide while others are a little more complex. What do you think?
  • Some projects make lists of articles for assessment while other go after groups of articles by category. What should we do? A mixture of both by using a "To do list"?
  • As of the last assessment statistics bot run on Sunday, August 20, only 1462 articles have been tagged, of which 1156 have been assessed for quality but 660 of these have no importance value.
  • Besides these 1462 there must be hundreds more untagged articles that should be tagged when we get the template issue mentioned above fixed.

We are not bad in our assessments but some projects have all their articles assessed while others are lacking more than we are. We can really use a few active editors to bring assessments to the fore. Please reply on the assessment talk page as to what you can do. Please help out. ww2censor 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage arbcom case proposal

I am happy to bring the case to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration but I need to know who are the other involved parties and other relevant information. I started and perhaps others could help me before we take it to arbcom, I just dont have the knowledge but I do think a formal request for arbitration is appropriate at this time given VK remains blocked. As VK can only edit here this is a good place to start and he may well wish to change the ===[[User:Vintagekits]]=== to include other users, eg User:Vintagekits and User:xxxxx, thjere is plenty of precedent for the case to be about more than one editor. Hope this si helpful, if not just ignore it, SqueakBox 20:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users whom I havent added


User:Vintagekits

Comments on proposal

On a point of interst, how long do these things usually take? Derry Boi 20:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a month or so on average, though this one could be monstrous. I was planning to speak to Alison about an ArbCom proposal this afternoon, one would need to be very clear on exactly what ArbCom are being asked to rule on (and remember that, even at ArbCom, sensitive information will not be publically revealed). Rockpocket 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the arbcom case is too broad, it'll drag on for months, and that's in nobody's interest, least of all VK's. I suspect given the list above, quite a number of other editors/admins will also end up being the subject of remedies. Not entirely a bad thing, mind.
I'm fowarding on confidential info to a member of ArbCom today & should have some answers back soon - Alison ☺ 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more than that that I want in Arbcom - what about Alison for her abject failure to mentor. Also W.Frank can come along for the ride.--Vintagekits 21:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to draft whatever case you please, Vk, and I will happily post it to Arbcom for you. However, don't expect others to do your dirty work for you. Rockpocket 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peremptory tone is uncalled-for. Thepiper 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Far from being "peremptory", I'm encoraging people to contribute. Everybody wants to see their favorite "biased admin" in front of ArbCom, but no-one wants to put in the (tedious) work of drafting a case and collecting the mountains of evidence with diffs. Its much easier to snipe from the sidelines, it seems, than put your money where you mouth is. If someone - anyone - has something to say to ArbCom on this subject or any other, draft your case and put it to ArbCom, but don't just claim "I would like to see X looked at for Y" and then expect someone else to do it for you. Rockpocket 22:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VK I brought this to your user page precisely so you could comment and make your statement. Make a statement on Alsion, add John to the list of involved editors etc and when you are done I'll take it to RfA, well that is my idea, SqueakBox 22:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a separate report about BHG being created of wiki - I will leave that to the side for the moment but add the others. More to follow so dont feel left out guys!--Vintagekits 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There is more than that that I want in Arbcom - what about Alison for her abject failure to mentor" - go for it. I absolutely want that in there - Alison ☺ 22:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will be wqelcomed with open arms - you were great as a mentor and went out of your way to see me blocked - I mean avoid conflict!--Vintagekits 22:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you all stop bickering, and just go quietly off and write out your various problems with some diffs and then post them. Spatting here now is pointless. Giano 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I campaigned strongly for your last indef unblock. Had I not, you'd still be blocked. I also endorsed the unblock by BHG (it's written above). But whatever. I have work to do ... - Alison ☺ 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whist, all!!! Leave it to later. Thepiper 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I am not going to include myself as an involved party even though it is my intention to actually bring this to the arbcom within 48 hours but if anyone else wants to include my name they should do so, SqueakBox 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my statement describing my role in this sorry mess. I don't intend to comment further unless ArbCom, or another editor, requests further information from me. If, based on my response to Vk's disruptive behaviour described above, anyone believes I abused my tools in this matter, please feel free to make a statement of your own. Rockpocket 07:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the above "arbitration mumbo jumbo" is rather pointless as it is in the wrong place this is actually VK's talk page and nothing to do with the arbcom, who are probably unaware of its very existence. Is this matter being taken to the arbcom or not? If not then VK may as well be unblocked and the matter forgotten - until the next time these factions meet head on. we have admins here who have been ready to block on all sides, they have failed to solve the problem. They need to do so now. Keeping VK blocked is not a remedy it is a badly fitting and very temporary lid. Giano 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is posted here so Vk can make his statement, after which it can be proposed to ArbCom at any time. Rockpocket 18:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least four ways in which this can be handled: (1) Someone unblocks Vintagekits based on his agreement that he will edit only Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and related pages until the case is resolved or the block is otherwise released;
(2) Vintagekits copies the requests for arbitration template here, prepares the request, and then I or another WP:AC/C arbitration clerk or anyone else copies the request to the arbitration page on his behalf; or
(3) Somebody else files the request for arbitration and Vintagekits makes a statement here as a party and someone then copies it to WP:RfAr for him; or
(4) Vintagekits submits the request for a review of his block to the arbitrators via e-mail (this is the procedure usually required of banned users, but I believe Vintagekits is only blocked and not banned as of this time).

Of the above, (1) sounds like the easiest. If any admin would object to my unblocking Vintagekits for the purpose described, please let me know right away. Of course, any inappropriate edits would result in reinstatement of the block as well as prejudice Vintagekits before the arbitrators, so he would have every incentive to avoid them. Newyorkbrad 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nyb, my concern over this is that Vk has shown previously he is willing to engage in sockpuppetry. I do not have checkuser access, so I could not know whether he has a static IP or not. But in unblocking Vk, there is the possibility we could be enabling him to create further socks to carry on his disruptive editing, while maintaining his agreement to only edit the ArbCom with this account. Of course, with a non static IP this could already be happening (though I should make it very clear I have no evidence whatsoever that recent SPAs that have appeared here and elsewhere since his block have anything to do with Vk) and unblocking would have little effect. I defer to your judgement in this matter, but felt that should be pointed out. Rockpocket 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not unblocking wont aqvoid socks as it both assumes a static single IP address and that wont be blocked for long anyway, may be unblocked already, SqueakBox 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's going on, are administrators considering unblocking Vintagekits yet again, once more making a mockery of due process! Why bother in the first place?! It seems this user is clearly above the "law", especially when his (obviously unproven) drunkenness is an excuse for all his poor form. For once why can't wikipedia stand by a decision; either allow him to edit and never block him again (thus saving us all a lot of time and bother), or block him and let that be it! --Counter-revolutionary 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin but this should only happen if VK gives his solemn word to only edit according to your conditions untill the arbcom make a resolution. This includes no socks or anon editing. If he is found to have broken his word then ban him for good, and that is the provoso he agrees to. Giano 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counter - you are far from perfect [13], now try and find a little Christian and very British charity in yourself. Giano 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think the two are comparable. I received a block of several hours and accepted it. --Counter-revolutionary 19:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming to know the full exyent of the allegations made? Giano 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)The alternative to allowing him to edit for purposes of the arbitration (whether on this page or via a limited unblocking) is for him to e-mail his appeal to the arbitrators and for them to discuss it on their mailing list and publish a bare result. My impression was that this procedure would be less satisfactory to many wikipedians, even though it is used out of necessity when confidential information is involved that should not be published on-wiki or to avoid potential abuse by banned editors. However, I was just pointing out procedural alternatives, and do not have a view on what the best thing to do would be, other than that we ought to select one of the alternatives and move ahead rather than continue to argue what the procedure should be. Newyorkbrad 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the email approach would be unsatisfactory because this isnt just about VK, SqueakBox 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know of no "civilization" which does not allow a man to speak openly in his own defence. Giano 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the (current) blocking admin, I completely and absolutely object to his unblocking for whatever reasons, even arbitration. I know it worked for User:Miskin but it won't work in this case. Please do not do that - Alison ☺ 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the impasse here the parties will have to take procedural instructions from the arbitrators. Can I take it that they are aware of the general situation here or should someone e-mail their mailing list to advise them? Newyorkbrad 19:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already discussed the matter with Mackensen, and briefly with Cary. I'm actually in the middle of writing a detailed submission to Fred Bauder as he's the 'trusted' arbitrator on this one. Fred will have full details regarding the block, including all private comms, addresses and identities, etc - Alison ☺ 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I certainly wont do anything till tomorrow but if the arbcom would like me to not file the request they need to let me know (here, on my talk page or via email) as I am more than happy to follow any arbcom procedure request, SqueakBox 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is mind-boggling. Rockpocket's statement above outlines some of a long history of outrageous behaviour, and even Vintagekits seems to accept that he will be banned; any question of him being unblocked seems absurd, and quite unnecessary for any arbitration. However, I am astonished at the proposed widespread Arbcom case: it appears to include just about everyone who has disagreed with Vintagekits, and it's hard to view it as anything other than muckraking. There is a need to address some of the issues which have become so contentious, but it would be much more effective to try to find solutions to the differences, and look for ways forward, rather than hae a dozen or more editors tied into a backward-looking process of collcting diffs to make a long who-said-what-when case. Without Vk's threats and disruption, most of the issues should be readily soluble. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are the admin most involved with this, is it not about time you stopped this pretentious, and extremely irritating bewildered pontificating and got on and made an arbcom case? Giano 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am not banned but I fear because of the malice of some editors and admin that I will - some admins, who will go unamed, it is obvious to everyone who they are, has gone out of their way to target me and to create problems where there were none in an attempt to rise me and then to block me after I had risen to the bait - you ma'am are one of those - that is evidence in the past week. An arbcom is the only place to sort this out. I have been portrayed as the root of all evil with regards the issues raised above - I am not spotless, I admit that, however, others have acted as bad if not worse yet biased admin have protected them and hung me out ot dry. It will all come out in Arbcom.--Vintagekits 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it won't if it doesn't ever get there. Giano 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, according to your account, just about every admin who has interacted with you is part of a vendetta against you which you seem to believe is so widespread that it amounts to a ginormous conspiracy; and having abused, threatened, harassed and disrupted for months on end, you are now trying to turn the spotlight on those who found themselves in the position of trying to fend off your destructive vendetta against the work of other editors, or were called upon as admins to intervene.
I have no doubt that if a reasonable review is made of the long history I have had of dealing with Vk over the last five or six months, including repeated admin intervebtions at the request og him or of other editors, that my repeated efforts to try to stop misbehaviour on both sides will stand up to scrutiny. I just query the utility of creating a situation where an editor who has been so deeply destructive is allowed the benefit of more procedures, in order to tie up yet more more of the time of the editors and admins who he has harassed and abused for months. Somewhere, somehow, efforts end to be made to bring this battle to an end and to stop so many people being caught in the unecessary crossfire. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, are you an Irish administrator? I see you do a lot of edits on Lordships etc and the British stuff. Someone told me that you were an Irish Admin. Not sure about this, but why don't you edit Irish articles. Just curious. Thepiper 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Her user page says she is a "citizen of Ireland". Rockpocket 00:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well if she's not editing her quota of approved "Irish articles", she should be immediately disqualified from having that userbox on her page and should straight away report to the nearest Irish Consulate, renounce her citizenship and get a good, stern talking-to as Gaeilge. Shame upon her!! - Alison ☺ 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is really funny, I had veal and wine with a group of Italian industrialists, in a top hotel this evening, food was really great, and I'm certainly sure they were italian! No doubts. Thepiper 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe you. I want to see their WP accounts so's I can check their userboxes. If they don't have accounts on it.wikipedia, then all bets are off - Alison ☺ 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC) ( :-) )[reply]
Should have said the wine was really great, these youngsters are sooooooo persistant. I would have loved that I had met Vintagekits, but alas that was not the case. Away again, won't be back to-nite. Rock, if you trip here,"well, have a nice night". No hard feelings! . Thepiper 01:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, only those who seek to use their admin powers to silence those who oppose them or disagree with them.--Vintagekits 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is not involved in any way in any of this I have to say I am deeply impressed by Vintagekits breaking of every major rule on wikipedia several times over (especially the threats of violence to other users) and is still avoiding a final ban by this reference to Arbcom. I think he must be related to Houdini in some way. Galloglass 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"especially the threats of violence to other users" Where are they? Giano 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have read this page Giano? Galloglass 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I gather they occurred in private e-mails. --Counter-revolutionary 22:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the editor who said he was threatened is very quiet on this. BigDunc 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits has not denied sending the e-mails BigDunc. Galloglass 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But no one has seen them or am I wrong on that, if they contain threats VK has not said they do only an editor he has a bit of history with. BigDunc 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reproduced the text emailed to me by Vk in my statement, there is a clear threat of violence there. Rockpocket 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"if you ewver stepped foot inside a CP I'd break yer nose inta 40 places ya fuckin fanyny" - definitely no threats of violence in there. Nonono! - Alison ☺ 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, given Vk's history here, that threat is plenty to let his indefinite block stand. He knew he was on a last chance. --John 00:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncomfortable with anyone with a good track record of editing being indefinitely blocked. Which is why I think it should be taken to the arbcom. I also think we shouldnt side-step arbcom authority as it makes for a more chaotic, less structured encyclopedia. We are almost all of us here from either Great Britain or Ireland so there is also the thought that Americans might be more impartial as regards the dispute that has caused these unfortunate turn of events, SqueakBox 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you're not uncomfortable with a person who has threatened other users with violence then SqueakBox? Galloglass 02:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am uncomfortable though it is hard to see how genuinely threatening the threats were based on my current state of knowledge (the Alison comment re entering a CP isnt, IMO, a credible threat but perhaps other threats are that I have seen hinted at) and given VK's edit record this is absolutely the kind of thing that needs to go to arbcom, and possibly set wikipedia precedent about threats and responses. There have been far more inferior and more SPA editors than VK in front of the arbcom. Having been myself threatened by a number of editors including when I felt much more physically vulnerable than I do now (living somewhere else in the same city) I dont underestimate the graveness etc of threats but this is no reason to not bring the case in front of arbcom. I would finally say (as I have said elsewhere before) that wikipedia cannot be responsible for the physical security of its editors and that if a credible threat were made against me I would take whatever steps necessary off wikipedia to deal with that (for instance I told my father about one threat and who had made it as a precautionary measure). In a case involving possible criminal behaviour the foundation have a policy of full co-operation with the police (IP addresses etc) and the Chris Benoit case has shown that the police will absolutely look at wikipedia edits and editors if a serious crime occurs that may be connected to wikipedia), SqueakBox 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen these alleged threats I havent VK as far as I am aware denies making threats.BigDunc 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back! A V-2 rocket coming via broadband. Get it, this is cyberspace. Duck! LOL. Actually, not sure if broadband will take it, I guess it all depends on broadband-width. Anyone know? Sleep well, good-nite all. -Thepiper 02:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy makes some good edits, then totally flies off the handle, and afterwards (occasionally) seems genuinely remorseful aboout it. It sounds like he has classic anger management issues. It seems such a shame to lose someone with the capacity for constructive editing. His traditional Irish Republican antipathy to the British Establishment also, more than occasionally, seems to boil over into real paranoia. Is there any way we could agree with him to go away, get some counselling or something, and to come back when he is less keen to see Wikipedia as part of a continuing war against Anglocentrism. Anglocentrism is, of course, a bad thing and he is right to oppose it but the way whis chap wants to oppose POV attitudes on Wikipedia is unacceptable and that won't change until he is helped to see the world in less confrontational, and never threatening, manner. 80.169.129.163 08:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a valid point. However I am not so sure that he also suffers from paranoia. I suspect that some of the editors who have goaded him into these actions and have deliberately presented themselves as "establishment figures" are not devoid of their own POV either. We may not like the IRA, its aims and actions but Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness are welcome guests at 10 Downing Street. We must also remember that many American citizens legally and freely funded NORAID - only very late in the game, and for other political reasons, was that investigated. slowly but surely a different viewpoint of the troubles seems to be emerging and the British and the Irish are just going to have to get used to it. VK needs to stay of the bottle before and during editing, and others need to stay away from him. Preferably all of them (VK included) need to stay away from Ireland related pages until they can lose their emotional attachments to the issue. Giano 09:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano is quite right that there has been some thoroughly inappropriate POV-pushing by a few establishment-oriented British editors, who have repeatedly opposed some very basic principles in Northern-Irish-related articles, such as the use of neutral language, and also set about a targeted series of deletion attempts on articles related to Republicans. That could and should have been dealt with through the proper channels, but unfortunately Vintagekit's response was escalate and broaden the dispute. The original misconduct by the British editors could have been dealt with quite effectively if it hadn't been for Vk's highly aggressive strategy of retaliatory attacks.
Instead of seeking a resolution, he pursued a similar (but much broader, and much more aggressive) attack of disruption on some British-related articles, by selecting those apparently edited or maintained by the people who who had been POV-pushing in Northern Ireland. To complicate things further, Vk didn't content himself with revenge attacks on the editors who had offended him on Northern Irish topics, but pursued a guilt-by-association policy. So because some of the editors who had crossed him were part of the baronetcies project, he drew the spurious conclusion that the baronetcies project per see must be supporting the disruption in Northern Ireland ... which in turn led him on to believing that anyone who was involved in that project was also a party to it..
For months now, we have been in the absurd situation where Vk has regarded anyone opposing his disruption of articles on baronets as self-evidently anti-Irish, when the two issues can and should be separated. Giano is partly right to say that all of those involved should stay away from Ireland-related articles, though I think that should be much more narrowly-defined as articles related to the conflict in Northern Ireland; but also, that Vintagekits and the other Republican editors need to say away the topics relating to the British nobility.
The way to deal with the Anglocentrism which Vk sees on wikipedia (and I'm inclined to think there is quite a bit of it about) is to expand and improve the Irish articles, not to set about disrupting other areas of wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually meant to say Irish republican pages, VK can write as many pages as he likes on the architecture of Dublin or the Marine life of Sligo. I would go a step further and ban the whole lot of them from the baronet pages too, many of them have been elevated way past their real station in life in order to make them more glorious. Giano 12:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more his attacks on people like Alisonwho (a) have supported him in the past and (b) (by a simple reading of her profile page) no-one could suggest as being particularly ensconsed in an "Establishment" tradition that suggest paranoia to me. There are undoubtedly people who try and goad him but then he attacks people like ALison who try and help. That's what suggests paranoia to me. The guy has problems. 80.169.129.163 09:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This has nothing to do with anyone's personal or political opinion. It's to do with keeping to the principles of Wikipedia. Logoistic 11:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it has been left to the Irish admins to discipline him, who he clearly does not trust. BHG and Alison should have brought this matter to the attention of a higher authority before it ever reached anything approaching this state. Having put him in this state I don't think wikipedia can now say "Paranoid - get rid of him". Giano 10:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody except himself "put him in this state". - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kitty, you will have every oportunity to say your piece at the arbcom investigation into this matter. In the meantime you know very well that you just goad him. Is that your intention? - No don't answer that - just give the man some space. Giano 11:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vk is dead in the water and knows it. On the positive side, it may be possible to get him to take responsibility for his own suicide. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I think one or more people have been less than helpful along the way Kitty, you may remember this [14] I'm glad to see your typing has improved. Giano 12:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster warned

User:Kittybrewster, I'm crossposting this to your own page. Would you like to urgently explain if you're merely using the notion of "suicide" in some sort of taste-challenged metaphorical sense immediately above, and apologize for all other possible interpretations, before I block you for referring to the suicide of a user as being something "on the positive side"? Please? This page would be the right venue for an explanation and apology. Bishonen | talk 13:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

VK has said that he was provoked on numerous occasions maybe this is the attitude from editors that he was talking about an appology should be posted. BigDunc 14:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the tip of the iceberg of the gloating and goading that he has had to put up from these people. VK has his fault but God so do they. Giano 14:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per last. Good call Bishonen, was wondering if it would be spotted. Thepiper 14:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen is overreacting in this particular instance, the use of the word "suicide" was obviously meant as a metaphor (and a commonly used one at that). By the same token, the goading coming from Kittybrewster and some others is obviously not appropriate. I agree with Giano that there is inappropriate behaviour on both sides of this issue (although I disagree with some of his more specific points). Badgerpatrol 14:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with this. Kittybrewster's gloating behaviour on this page of late has been sickening. If he's not going to be constructive, he'd be much better of staying away right now - Alison ☺ 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I am not encouraging VK or anybody else to kill themselves. Such an interpretation of my words would be bizarre indeed. What I am saying (and have said before) is that it seems to me that VK’s career as a wikipedia editor is over (which he knows) – and that he has brought this entirely upon himself. I also think he has been encouraged in his behaviour by other people who have assisted him in his pre-existing disposition to blame other people for his plight. Other people, such as (but not only) Giano_II have implied that he (VK) is not the only one who is responsible for where he (VK) now finds himself. I disagree with that perspective. I think if positive things can be achieved as a result of this mess, one of them would be if VK learns something from it – particularly that he himself is responsible for his own tirades, tempers, drinking, reactions, edits, etc. The alternative is that he sees himself as some sort of unwitting, helpless puppet of other people, which is an abrogation I would wish on nobody. I think the apologists for VK have done him no favours by letting him back to edit again when the spirit in which he returned was very much “and I hope the other side pick up their socks too”. I thought he was doomed and hoped I was wrong. If he changes that approach then I think he will be happier and less angry. That would give me pleasure. I wish him nothing but well. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that is your apology.BigDunc 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an apology, nor is it a withdrawl. Thepiper 15:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so much justification! Apologists! Team! Its all there! --Domer48 15:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I see the suicide comment as meaning his Wiki suicide, in otherwords his screwing himself off wiki so to speak. And on apologies i've still never seen VintageKits apologies for the time he called the admins Scottish orange chunts amongst other things. Such language shouldn't be tolerated and should also be taken into consideration for any length of block. If he did specifically say sorry for his sectarian vulgarity please point out and i'll accept my error.

Also i think it is time more neutral Wikipedians where involved on VintageKits rather than the same ones. Near enough everyone here is already set for or against VintageKits whenever his name arises. It just seems everytime its the same Irish Republican Wikigroup members that come to defend him whilst the same allegedly anti-VK brigade come to derile him. The next problem VK causes i hope is highlighted by someone neutral, and that other neutral Wikipedians involved in that dispute can debate whether he was in the wrong or not - without the interence of the usual pro and anti lobby's.

However having said that, some neutral's who might do so may be put off by the existing enormity of the VK thing and might not want to get involved, leaving it to the same old crowd to do so again. Mabuska 17:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in Irish of British politics but I have been trying to sort these problems out. I came across this dispute only by trying to properly reference the edits of some of his opponents editing in other fields, his name kept appearing on talk pages. Previously I had though of VK as an editor only involved in boxing. I remembered him only because his spelling was almost as bad as mine. Since trying to help sort this mess out I have been accused of being a republican and various other terms. So naive was I, at first, I thought of "republican" in the American/European sense only later did I realise this meant terrorists to these people.
What has been happening here has been going on since the time Oliver Cromwell probably before, for all I know and they all need to detach themselves, loose the emotion of give up editing these pages. It is my view a band of editors with an English POV found the weakest link and targeted him. he may well have done all of that of which he has been accused (what ever that is) . I am only trying to establish was he pushed to these actions or would he have made them anyway. Was he baited? Did he rise to the bait? of did he happily throw himself into the firing line - in which case was it fair of them to pull the trigger. His opponents want the high moral ground, is it reasonable that they should occupy it. I just want to see VK have a fair hearing - if he has a fair hearing and is banned for life, I shall be just as happy as if he is acquitted. This is all about fairness nothing else. Giano 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well from what i've read it appears to be mostly Irish and Scottish admins that VintageKits runs into bother with not English ones. Mabuska 19:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except, in believing that, you are taking Vk (and others') assumptions at face value. He is very happy to attribute characteristics to editors based on his own prejudices. Rockpocket 19:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. Those most concerned with this are not admins. Giano 19:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I have notified Rockpocket about his canvassing efforts. See here [15]. He did the same on my page, as per WP:CANVASS. ----Thepiper 17:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report him to the British authorities

While waiting for the arbcom case to start. One editor realised, after starring in a farce, that following his severe weight loss, he probably did indeed need a "naval job"

Assuming this editor is indeed located in Northern Ireland, and he has made threats of violence against other editors based in the European Union, I suggest reporting him to the British police. Such activities are clearly illegal, and threats of violence and arson should be dealt with severly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.155.106.255 (talk) 19:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

A) VK is not located in Northern Ireland (whatever made you think he was? It's said about 15 times in the course of this page alone that he's in Sligo);
B) Any alleged threats of violence (I'm not judging that one) are clearly conditional ("If you don't... then I'll...") and conditional threats are specifically not illegal in either UK or Irish law. You could try calling the police if you feel the urge, but since the conversation will be along the lines of "I want to report a crime" "What's the suspect's name?" "Vintagekits", I guarantee Metcall and/or the Garda will put the phone down on you.
C) You may want to have a quick read of WP:NLT — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say "that he's in Sligo"? Rockpocket 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad - that was on the sockpuppetry allegations last month and not on this page at all. Since (aside from the boxing and provo articles) virtually everything he's written is about places in/people from Sligo, I don't think it's unfair to assume that's where he is — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think its fair to surmise Vk is from Sligo. I think it would be a mistake to automatically assume that is where he is. Rockpocket 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Rockpocket want to know where he lives? Thepiper 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the original thrust of this thread was that "he should be reported to the police". If he's in one country and whoever he's threatening is in another, I imagine there might be a spot of bother extraditing him. (Surely WP comes under Florida law, anyway?) — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That can be done in Dublin, no need to go to Sligo. Thepiper 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we all stop speculating about VK's whereabouts, please? He has a right to privacy, just like anyone else - Alison ☺ 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My question was not to establish where Vk resides (I expect some of us may already have that information and some of us don't), but to point out that there are a lot of assumptions being made here, about people's location, their nationality, their motivations and what they are "supposed" to have done. Too many people are making throwaway comments (such as the suggestion that it has been claimed Vk made "threats of arson, murder, death"), leading to others taking them as fact. None of this is helping Vk one iota. Vk is taking time out from commenting here, presumably to consider his position, it would be in his interest if the rest of us followed suit. Rockpocket 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin you should know better than to be discussing peoples private details on Wikipedia. I found it most disturbing, and I certainly hope that you refrain in the future from discussing such in public, on internet. Thepiper 21:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original conversation was between me and an anon — no admins involved — and "possibly lives in a large town; I don't know his name, age, address or even (for certain) gender" is hopefully not specific enough for any stalker to go on — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irish police are duty-bound to investigate all serious matters. Thepiper 19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As I understand it, WP:NLT only applies to on-wiki threats of legal action. There is every possibilty that the person who's been threatened here may have already reported the incident to the police, given that their home address is involved and they may feel sufficiently concerned for their safety. However, as Wikipedians, our remit is on-wiki activities and as an admin, I need to ensure that this is a safe place for all to edit without being concerned for their safety and well-being. That's pretty fundamental, ergo, intimidation, threats of violence, etc on-wiki will generally be met with blocking the perpetrator's account. That's the extent of our obligations. This whole affair is turning into a WikiFarce of epic proportions and the sooner it's concluded, the better - for all - Alison ☺ 19:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then bring the case to the arbcom Alison. In the meantime, I would just love to see these threats (my email's plugged in). However if "anon above" wishes to report to the British authorities, the British police have occasionally been known to respond to "999" - this has not been my finding in an emergency, but I'm sure your local police station is listed in "yellow pages" (or some other similar trade directory) and they will be just thrilled to here from you. I expect though if these threats are as grave as we are told, the authorities are already informed - perhaps User:W. Frank could confirm that. Then we can all sleep easy in our beds, safe from the evil Wikipedian Vintagekits. Giano 19:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who mentioned anything about W. Frank, Giano?? BTW - all evidence is now with Fred Bauder, so on with the case, I say. I'm preparing my statment and will publish it later today - Alison ☺ 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the Irish nor British police would likely be particularly impressed by a report of this nature, and the situation certainly does not demand such an action. Plus WP:NLT does indeed come into play. Yes this is a farce. Badgerpatrol 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh surely not, we have been lead to belive we have threats of arson, murder, death, despair, and despondency here - which? Giano 20:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop stirring, Giano, it is ridiculous statements like that that are turning this into a farce. If you genuinely wish to see "justice", as you claim, then you should keep the hyperbole in check. Rockpocket 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rockpocket, did you contact the police. It is very important for the editors to know this. Thepiper 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket, I hate to disillusion you but this is a farce. All we need now is Kittybrewster stumbling across the stage in spotty boxers with his trousers around his ankles announcing "I've been shot! - who left the French windows open?" Giano 20:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then. If it is a farce, there is little to be gained by perpetuating it. I have an idea: how about everyone (who is permitted to) gets back to contributing to the encyclopaedia? I find it telling that no-one among those that are oh-so-keen to see Vk "get his day in court" have actually joined myself and Squeak in moving towards that, by making a statement for ArbCom. Is there some reason for this I am not aware of? Rockpocket 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. So the only obstacle to that is Vk's statement himself (since he can't make it at WP:RFAR). So perhaps we should all leave Vk's page along for a while. Afterall, until Vk is interested in moving this forward, why should the rest of us care? Its in his hands, not ours. Rockpocket 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming like a sketch from Monty Python BigDunc 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What was the name of that man who played the piano stark naked with a big smile on his face? Giano 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terry Jones. Bit isn't this getting off the point? Ewen 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so;) -Thepiper 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sure he had curly hair (on his head!) Giano 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This thread has a point? — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rockpocket, I asked you quite a serious question, maybe you missed it. Here it is again [16]-Thepiper 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you post a statement here I will happily repost it on the arbcom page, SqueakBox 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily Protected

Ok, now that the ArbCom has been created, I'm gonna let this insanity settle for a bit. VK can email his ArbCom statement to myself or Squeakbox in the meantime.. meanwhile, this page has been full protected for 72 hours, and hopefully once it expires, all parties will be better-behaved. Well.. at least I can hope so, can't I? SirFozzie 01:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now that its unprotected, can I ask whats next?--Vintagekits 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four members of ArbCom have indicated they are willing to hear a case relating you these issues. Its not entirely clear yet what the scope of the case will be, and whether they are willing to reconsider your block as part of it. As the primary named party (and if you wish them to reconsider your block), it is probably in your interest to make a statement to ArbCom. I would suggest that is what you do next. You can make it here and someone will transfer it across for you, or you could do it by email. If you choose not to make a statement (which is your choice), then I guess you simply wait to see how the case pans out. Rockpocket 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is now "5" so it appears that it may well be accepted. It is in your interest to write a statement explaining how you see things - it can certainly not worsen your situation. The Arbcom wil explore what has been going on throughout this whole issue and its background. So your perception and explanation is very important. Giano 18:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Template:UK subdivisions, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never Rains But It Pours

See the ArbCom, better have a look at Alison's statement. I pointed problems out to her, and she wasn't very happy with my "interest", but was only trying to help out, some thanks! There is inference of you being connected with petrol-bombing, and another "thing". I know that in civil law there would be big problems with that, especially in Ireland and the UK. Don't know what USA law is. You better check it out, for your own safety. User:Gold heart 23:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* - please read my statement carefully, as well as checking out my talk page dialogue. Gold, why are you trying to stir trouble here? VK can address all this in his ArbCom submission. Quite frankly, it sounds like you are promoting legal action here. Please tell me you're not - Alison ☺ 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, and I didn't mention this, "FUCK OFF ORANGE CHUNTS _ YA@LL GET WHAT BILLY WRONG DID!! TIOCFAIDH AR LA!!!" - remind me again what exactly it was that Billy Wrong got? - Alison ☺ 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a 2.00am and I was pissed outta my skull - I apologised the next day and Rockpocket and it was before the slate was supposedly wiped clean. Some mentor you turned out to be eh!--Vintagekits 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am only thinking of the editors safety. Vk might be known to some of the public. Have you considered that. You can do all the quoting you wish, but it doesn't change the substantive issue. User:Gold heart 00:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is? Go on - spell it out - Alison ☺ 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear, it's all there. User:Gold heart 00:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Under WP:NLT, not only is this latest IP blocked, Gold, but I'm reprotecting this page. You can take your insinuations and conspiracy theories elsewhere. SirFozzie 00:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All very interesting I am sure you will agree. I must say I am not impressed with Alisons maths - strange that she makes 2+2 = 1,345 when I make it 4 (or 5 at a push).--Vintagekits 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • VK, your email has been unblocked now, BTW, so you can email arbcom from Wikipedia now - Alison ☺ 21:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didnt realise it was blocked! WHen and why was it blocked - is that all part of your plan to paint me a some crazed IRA pscho gunman from the 70's?--Vintagekits 07:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There ya go. Yes, it's all part of the conspiracy (either that, or you started abusive mailing me again after blocking. Check the block log and you'll see for yourself) - Alison ☺ 07:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What abusive emails after I was blocked? Rockets block or your block? No need to claim a conspiracy either here is your direct quote - "It's one of those "I know where you live" moments. Given that both of these editors are on opposite poles of a long-running battle over Irish Republican and specifically the Irish paramilitary organisation, the Provisional IRA, this had to be taken seriously. Some background; I'm an Irish editor. I grew up in the Republic of Ireland at the height of the IRA terrorist campaign. Seeing a message like that horrifies me as I can immediately see it's significance in context. When someone said, "We know where you live", the followup to that message usually involved petrol bombs through your window or a shotgun blast through your front door in the early hours of the morning" - you are living on another planet if you actually believe any of that (I note Rocket and other detractors are only too happy to listen to your fantasy story. Its a complete joke - but a convienient ones for some to latch on too - how about adding some objectivity in your submission eh!??--Vintagekits 07:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh please. I've been living in California for a massive 13 months now - I doubt my brain has melted that much. And yes, I have the mails here, as do ArbCom. So we'll talk about it over there, so. Ok? - Alison ☺ 07:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again - after Rockets block, BHG's or yours? I bet you never explained why they were sent or that you were too lazy to look into BHG block that you endorsed it with even looking into it!! Bet you never said that - some fuckin mentor you turned out to be!! A chocolate fireguard would have been more use to me!--Vintagekits 07:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... some fuckin mentor you turned out to be ..." - thanks for proving my point. You should probably stop this now - Alison ☺ 07:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh - the bad man said a naughty word! Ignore that issues and focus on the naughty word! That seems to have suited your method of adminship up until now so why dont you keep that tact up eh!! There were two direct questions in the last post but you want to focus on the fact that I said "fuckin" - *groan*--Vintagekits 07:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, I was not "too lazy" to look into BHG's block. I did just that & though baronetcies are not my specialty, I read through the stuff (as well as the MOS info) and endorse BHG's block, esp. given that you had vowed to continue. The proper response from you would have been dialog and not digging your heels in, like you did. When you agreed to stop disrupting, I then strongly endorsed that unblock. Right? Being your mentor does not necessarily make me your defender under all circumstances. I'm obliged to be neutral and objective. The mails I have here were after BHG's block. - Alison ☺ 17:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This supposed threat

  • What threat did I make on the said editors address - its all in Alisons mind - 2 + 2 = 361!!!!!
  • W.Frank said I sent him emails that said I was going to burn his house down! Has Alison asked him to forward this email??
  • The was no threat, there is no threat - its just a con made up by a couple of admin to get me blocked.--Vintagekits 18:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you need to tell the arbcom on the Trobles rfa page, they wont be readint his page i would imagine and this case is now in their hands. This issue clearly needs resolving given the strong dispute about these alleged threats and the fact that most of us simply have no idea what hap[pened, SqueakBox 18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well after reading Alison bullshit I dont think there is any point - what chance have I got against a load of admin - zip, no one is going to listen to my side of the story, its just a chance to rubber stamp by indefinate block - its not about wanting to sort an issue out its about silencing opposing views.--Vintagekits 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you may be right I guess I still have enough faith in the arbcom to hoppe not (not sure why as I wasnt well treated in my case of last year), but if you dont say anything it makes it much less likely they will unblock you even if it just that you dispute that you made what are very serious threats (so whether you did or didnt make them the fact that the accusation has been made is very serious), SqueakBox 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • VK - you are wrong! It is about getting to the bottom of what has been going on. If you don't like Alison's version then you can respond to it. That is the point of the exercise. Just post your comments here and someone will carry them to the appropriate place. If it was about silencing opposing views it would not be happening at all. I understand you are angry but this is your chance to help yourself here. Regards Giano 18:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know what Alison is saying I was implying - if she wants to assume there was a threat then she can - but there wasnt a threat, but how can you say to someone that there is no threat if they already are assuming there was one, Alison is saying that by slipping the street name of an editor into a post (which I did) that that was a threat to throw a petrol bomb through there window - if thats want she wants to believe she can but thats bullshit - she has to take ten leaps of bad faith, and in a couple of assumptions and stir whilst liberally adding shots of paranoia and overactive imagination. Alison blocked me cos I said she was a shit mentor - she was, thats the truth of that but she has too many admin on her side and I am just a "wee filthbag fenian".
Also what W.Frank said about me attacking his house is bullshit - Alison is the blocking admin she should ask him to provide that email to prove his claim - if he cant (which I know he cant) then this whole "obvious threats" thing is bullshit - and action needs to be taken against W.Frank and not me.--Vintagekits 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, VK, the ArbCom won't listen to any of this ... unless you get a statement written down and sent to them. That's the next move. You can either do that here or via email, but your definitely should have your voice heard. I know there are a few people watching this page that can probably help get all your points properly tidied up and put down in writing. Seriously - I don't care what you say about me, but you do need to get a statement in to those guys - Alison ☺ 19:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Before "slipping the street name of an editor into a post" you should probably have read WP:HARASS, Vk, specifically:
Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment... This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media.
What purpose would you have us believe you had in mind, when you revealed to the individual that you were aware of his information? And while you are at it, perhaps you could eludicate on what the purpose of your reference to me "getting what Billy Wrong did"? Rockpocket 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never take you long to pipe up and twist the knife does it? I didnt publish his address in a manner that anyone except him would have recognised - know one spotted it until he raised it with Alison himself. I wasnt aware of the WP:HARASS policy - if someone (him, an admin or someonelse) have at any time pointed me in the direction of that or asked me to discreetly remove it then I would and wouldnt have done it again. I was only having the craic with him, we here having a perfectly polite discussion - why would I threaten him - there was no threat - the only threat is in Alisons head. Plain and simple, there was no threat, Alison might have taken six chess moves in one go to get to saying it was a threat but it wasnt. I was only having a bit of crack with him and was seeing if he had spotted it. He didnt, then I added it the second time - I thought he would think it was funny - obviously Alison didnt - but thats not a reason to indef block someone. I had been throughly rounded on by yourself, BHG, Alison and John in that 24 hours and I am sure you guys will get your wish and that is to see the back of me (OK I am feeling sorry for myself but you know you set me up and that is what you wanted).--Vintagekits 20:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as this is out in public now and VK has admitted he did this to W. Frank, I can comment on it. You may say that you were "only having the craic with him", but, you did it twice and in a way that W. Frank felt seriously intimidated by it to the point where he felt his safety was threatened - Alison ☺ 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained why I left it and why I did it twice - it wasnt meant to be serious and it defo wasnt meant to be a threat - you would have to be off your rocker to think it was - it doesnt say it was a threat and it wasnt meant as a threat. As for W.Frank saying he was intimidated - I am sure you would want ot believe that and are more than willing to accept that as fact rather than a figment of his imagination, however, only a couple of hours later stated that I sent him an email in which an email I sent him was "mild. My e-mails featured graphical threats of violence and arson. W. Frank talk ✉ 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)"--Vintagekits 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt think you would reply!--Vintagekits 21:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not because I can't. We have a difference of opinion on the matter. To you, it's all a bit of a laugh & I'm overreacting. To me (and apparently W. Frank), it wasn't funny at all and was a clear attempt at intimidation. It's over to the arbcom from here & they can work it out - Alison ☺ 22:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the problem when so much is held in camera - without compromise can Alison - or in fact anyone - coment on VK's remark "..what W.Frank said about me attacking his house is bullshit - Alison is the blocking admin she should ask him to provide that email to prove his claim - if he cant (which I know he cant).." Has anyone seen this email, if so who? Giano 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can state here that I've never seen an email where VK stated that he would "attack W. Frank's house". I've no opinion on whether one exists or not - Alison ☺ 20:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I have no idea whether that email exists or not. If you didn't send such an email, Vk, then you should ask ArbCom to investigate the allegation. However, I don't see the huge leap of faith Alison has supposed to have made here. Since this is now out in the open, and to summarise what we now have established as fact:
  • Vk obtained the personal details of another editor off wiki (for reasons unexplained)
  • Vk has a history of making Republican paramilitary coded threats of violence on wiki (for example, the "Billy Wrong" comment, again unexplained by Vk)
  • Paramilitary groups in Ireland have a history of notifying opponents that they "know where they live" to intimidate them (often followed by violence).
  • Vk was in dispute with the W. Frank over an editing issue related to Irish repulicanism.
  • Apropos of nothing, Vk mentioned W. Frank's address in a coded message to him.
  • Frank is alarmed at the implied threat (as he sees it) and fears for his security and requests assistance
  • Alison reviews the evidence and blocks.
  • Vk originally denies knowledge of why he was blocked, but later acknowledges he did insert "the street name of an editor into a post." His explanation is that "I thought he would think it was funny" and "I was only having the craic with him". He denies awareness of the personal information guidelines at WP:HARASS.
I propose any administrator would form the same conclusion as Alison did, and expect ArbCom will too. Finally, in regards to the allegations of a stitchup, I would note that, by my count, you have been blocked 11 times, Vk, by 9 different sysops including two of your chosen mentors. Thats a pretty broad conspiracy. Rockpocket 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I edit on articles about Irish republicanism does that equate to to me being a member of the IRA that is going to go up to Glasgow and boot someones door in because we had a disagreement on a website - get a fuckin grip of yerself the two of ye! Because you edit articles about Celtic F.C. does that mean that you line up on a Saturday at Parkhead with the number 7, I also edit article about professional boxing does that mean I am in Don King's stable??? Even if you did take it as a threat its a moronic assumption to make. There is no threat, there was no threat if you want to fuckin concoct one to get me banned then fair enough but lets see it for what it is.--Vintagekits 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting you are a member of the IRA. I have no opinion on whether you are inclined to, as you put it, "go up to Glasgow and boot someones door". However your record of using paramilitary rhetoric and invoking paramilitary killings to threaten other editors on wiki is not in question. The problem, Vk, is that you have already done this once before (something you have so far avoided addressing), so its very difficult for anyone to buy your righteous indignantion that you would never do such a thing. Rockpocket 21:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Rockpocket your comments above are better addressed to the Arbcom, than this page here. Where it is becoming very obvious that VK is getting a little "pissed off". It is not easy feeling like public enemy number 1 - so perhaps he needs a little space? Giano 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They will be. However this page is full of comments from individuals who appear to scan the allegations made by Vk and others, then repeat them as fact elsewhere. For reasons only known to himself, he is apparently disinclined to engage at ArbCom preferring instead to make his unfounded allegations against others here. If that is his strategy, he and others should expect to be notified that the facts do not support his allegations without getting "pissed off". That said, I will submit my evidence to ArbCom presently. Rockpocket 21:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • VK, you are starting to wallow in self pity here, never a pretty sight in anyone. You need to, and have as much right as anyone else to make a statement here [20]. Just tell the truth as you see it, and trust the Arbcom to see the wood for the trees. Giano 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, your right, Alison, Rock, John et al all know they have stiched me up good and proper or allowed other to do it. I'll give it a rest now.--Vintagekits 21:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VK.. think of it this way. If you submit a statement, and convince folks that the threat was overblown, you have a chance of coming back. If you don't submit a statement because everything is against you... well, sorry, man, you have no chance. At least the ArbCom isn't looking just at you, but the whole nine yards of things.. so we have a chance to fix it once and for all. SirFozzie 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Fozzie is right and especially as there doesnt look to be much of a case justifying a life-long ban from what I can see in this thread, SqueakBox 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I aint got the words in me to be able to convince them Foz.--Vintagekits 09:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VK, I think you should make a statement, as has been pointed out above there is no real evidence that would justify a indef ban on you, you may end up with being put on probation for a period or a short block, but it would help expose the behaviour of others involved in this affair.--padraig 10:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VK, Pádraig is right, your getting some sound advice, take it. In for a penny, in for a pound! --Domer48 11:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VK, just to add my €0.02 to this; as a disinterested observer, who's had one or two small contacts with you (mostly relating to Sligo among other things), I think you should make some sort of statement to the ArbCom. What's to lose? --The.Q | Talk to me 11:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • VK: If you have submissions--- e-mail to a clerk to post for you or post it here and someone will repost it for you. (And yes, I can do that for you should you wish to do so.) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vk; what's it like out there? I think I may be joining you soon. (Sarah777 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Well lets hope not, Sarah, after all you havent been blocked, SqueakBox 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I certainly hope not! But one must be realistic; a certain person who appears to have a lot of allies is very determined. I recall you and I crossed swords once or twice but we are give and take kinda folk. Ж₭₪ǃǃ (Sarah777 01:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Vk's case

I've read to try and fathom the sequence of events; so a simple question to anyone involved. This block seems to be because of an alleged threat made to another editor (which, btw, if true is something I don't think could possibly be tolerated). Vk obviously denies making any threat. So I think it is important to resolve one issue anyway:

Also what W.Frank said about me attacking his house is bullshit - Alison is the blocking admin she should ask him to provide that email to prove his claim - if he cant (which I know he cant) then this whole "obvious threats" thing is bullshit - and action needs to be taken against W.Frank and not me.--Vintagekits 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Either the email does or doesn't exist; given Vk's plight I think, surely, we must have evidence of the existence of the email? If it isn't produced, how can the "threat" charge be sustained? (Sarah777 10:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Only W Frank can provide this email. If he fails to do so on the request of ArbCom, those claims will hold little weight with anyone. Note however, there are other comments of a threatening nature that there is evidence of. This email is not essential for such as case to be made. Rockpocket 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are the "other threats" - the ones I made when I was pissed and 2am to you?? You knew they were not serious and said so at the time and I apologised for them the following day. I like the way you have asked for me to be banned (which is your right) but have not addressed any of the other issue involved or mentioned anything about any other editors. That's speaks volumes.--Vintagekits 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah - the email to W.Frank saying that I would attack his house or burn him out of it does not exist because I never sent it - note how they admin that are constantly asked for my head always avoid the issue of this supposed email because it shows that W.Frank is full it and because there is no threat.--Vintagekits 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who to beleive is always a problem. I think VK you may be interested in this thread here [21]. Giano 17:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who to believe about what?--Vintagekits 17:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • God VK you need to archive some stuff on this page it takes ages to re-find a thread. What I mean is people seem to be assuming that you did make these alleged threats - perhaps you have not denied them loudly enough - now it appears (if you follow the link) that Frank himself can at times be less than frank and candid. Giano 17:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time (today anyway) - I didnt not send W.Frank (or anyone else for that matter) a threatening email claim to burn his gaff down, boot his door in or even flick his ear - that is a lie that W.Frank has made up - Alison, Rocket or any other admin wish to pursue him about it because they know it doesn't exist and because it might harm there thesis that I made "clear threats" to W.Frank. What I did did was put his street name into reply on his talkpage. The way I phrased it no one would have known that that was his street name and it was just a bit of craic, there was also no threat in it - either implicit or explicit.--Vintagekits 18:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VK, I have already repeatedly stated quite clearly on the 20th of August - the day after your block - that I know nothing of any letters sent to W. Frank, nor that I thought it was relevant [22][23][24]. Having said that, W. Frank has claimed they exist and at this point, I'd like to see some evidence of that, or at least a comment to the effect that they were copied to ArbCom - Alison ☺ 07:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rockpocket; the reason the question of the alleged email is so central is precisely because of the "other evidence". I assume you are 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. Having said this Vk, I wish you'd ease up on Alison; she can only go on what she is told - I have found her very supportive and fair and I sense she is desperately anxious about being continuously involved in Irish/British disputes for reasons that are obvious to me, at least. You don't thump a friend who is willing to help you, just because they aren't willing to die for you! (Sarah777 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You are not wrong Sarah - I just have outlined to Alison exactly what my problem with her was and why I was aggrieved with her - here.--Vintagekits 22:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sarah, and VK - Alison ☺ 08:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (more commentary tomorrow. It's 1am here. VK, I'll answer more questions in the morning)[reply]
Sarah/Vk. The reason I have not pursued Frank for these emails is because I have no confidence they exist. Vk has no history, as far as I am aware, of denying the existance of emails that he sent. Moreover, it would be a rather stupid thing to do, would it not, to deny one sent an email when someone else had evidence of it? It isn't particularly clever to claim one received an email that didn't exist either, but its impossible for anyone to prove that, as Frank could claim he deleted it or simply decline to provide anyone a copy. For these reasons my position has always been, and continues to be, that these alleged emails are completely fictional unless some one has verified them. As I have said before, W. Frank's behaviour is suspect to say the least, though I personally have had very little interaction with him. I fully expect ArbCom to consider his position at Wikipedia. However, W. Frank's behaviour neither excuses nor justifies Vk's. The basis of my support for the block is not based on Frank's claims whatsoever, it is based on my interpretations Vk's actions alone.
The purpose of highlighting the past incident of a "different alleged threat" (which is explicit, though interesting Vk has managed to avoid comment on it) is to demonstrate a pattern of using paramilitary rhetoric in a threatening or intimidatory manner. My reasoning is that if that was done once, it is not so hard to believe it was done again, especially as it seems absolutely incomprehensible to me that there is anything "funny" about suggesting I know where you live to an editor you have a long running dispute with. IF Frank is lying about threats made by Vk, all the more reason Vk wouldn't be having " a bit of craic" with him in a manner that could obviously be interpreted as a threat. This seems completely obvious to me, and I am suprised that others don't appear to find that excuse utterly illogical.
I also find it interesting a few editors have jumped on the suggestion that W. Frank is "not just an unreliable witness, but (if this were a court of law) a perjurer" (Giano said something similar) and therefore somehow that vindicates Vk. Vk has a history of exactly the same thing. While in posession of all the evidence that proved Vk was operating sock and meat puppets to vote-rig, I offered him the opportunity to tell the truth, put it all behind him and in return I would support giving him another chance. Vk didn't know about this evidence, of course, when I made this offer. Did he own up? No. He continued to deny involvement because, I assume, he thought he could get away with it. I'm not saying this to further browbeat Vk while he is down, my point is that I'm sure there are quite a few people involved in this ArbCom that have been lying through their teeth at one time or another. Which is why we should be discussing the case on points of fact, rather than put undue weight on unfounded allegations that have little to do with why Vk's block was issued.
Finally, I should say that this is my personal take on the issue. I can't speak for Alison, but my understanding is that she is generally of the same opinion. I should also note that another independent admin, privately indicated much the same to me (that Frank is, in his opinion, extremely unreliable, but that does not excuse Vk's actions). This gives me confidence in my interpretation. Our jobs, as admins, is to use our judgement. That is what I did at the time, and continue to do in presenting the case to ArbCom. Now, the problem is that only a few people here are in full possession of all the evidence related to this case, so its perhaps not surprising that those who are not do not fully agree with this position. I don't know if they did have access to everything, they would concur with my take on the issue. I'd like to think some would, but who knows. And if you don't, that is fine, I can respect that. But I see the whole point of ArbCom is for them to be offered the evidence that I based my judgement on, and for them to then either decide that was a good decision or a bad one. This is why I have offered evidence covering a range of Vk's behaviour, beyond the current incident - because this is what I considered when I made my decisions. If ArbCom completely over-rule Vk's block and decide there is nothing wrong in those comments, then I will accept I made a bad decision, apologise to Vk and learn from it. If ArbCom consider it to be a particularly bad decision, they may decide to censure me for it also. I am explaining this fully because Its not my motive to dredge up anything I can to ensure Vk remains blocked, and I get the impression that some people feel that is my goal. Its simply that I feel it is only fair that I be permitted to explain my reasoning fairly, as only then can ArbCom decide whether that is a good decision. Rockpocket 10:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have said that I shouldnt have logged on and abused you that night - infact just yesterday I said that you were right to block me and that I shouldnt have left you those messeges - when I have done something wrong I have held my hands up - but there is no comparison to a 2am drunken messege and the messege that I left for W.Frank - I thought it would be taken in good humour - I was wrong (very wrong) and a pure judgement on my behalf, which I have learnt from but it was not until after that that W.Frank claimed to have been threatened via email - that is what made me think that it was a set up - if you look at the conversation that the messege was left in - it wasnt heated, it wasnt aggressive, it was perfectly reasonable, open and friendly - also to try and link my comment to some covert operation during the height of the troubles (when i wasnt even born!!) is highly tendencious and falacious. It is not true to say that those who are supporting my position dont know the full fact - many have been informed after they have emailed me - so they know exactly what was said - if Frank had a problem with it then he could have emailed me directly (as he had previously) and said words to the effect of "what are you playing" at or "please stop as someone else might cop on to what you are saying" or whatever. Anyway I dont except you to change your mind or to take an objective view on this subject because it seems your position is set in stone but hopefully others reading this and and my submission to come will see the truth.--Vintagekits 10:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just two points, I'm sure Frank had made claims he had received threatening emails prior to this incident. I could be wrong, but I was certainly under that impression. Secondly, please tell me you haven't been telling other's Frank's personal details by email. Isn't it clear by now that "outing" other editors is not acceptable behaviour? Rockpocket 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I havent and wont.--Vintagekits 18:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have been thinking about this a little more this afternoon, Vk. Thanks for your reply above, when you communicate minus the abuse and rhetoric, I feel as if I can begin to understand your position a little more. So I have a few questions for you, which I hope you will answer honestly and calmly, the answers to which may be able to convince me of the genuineness of your explanation.

  1. What was your motive for finding out where W. Frank lives in the first place? His street address is not that difficult to find out, admittedly, but nevertheless it does take a concerted search effort. What reason do you have for doing that?
  2. Why did you act as if you had no idea what the block was for, in response to Alison's block explanation ("A know where you live moment") when it is now clear that you were fully aware of making that comment. If I had made that in jest, my immediate response would have been to say so. But it took you many days to make that excuse, why?
  3. Can you see, in retrospect, how revealing another editor's address in code may be interpreted as thretening by others? Especially one you were in disagreement with and considering your use of threatening paramilitary rhetoric in the past (albeit made while drunk).
  4. Do you really believe that interpretation is an unreasonable position to take? Again considering you offered no immediate explanantion, instead denying any knowledge of what was going on.
  5. You are asking us to take you at your word on your motivation. Its not beyond me to WP:AGF of you here, but I would like to know if you continue to deny involvement in sock and meat-puppetry as you have continued to for the last 6 months or so?
  6. Did you send an email to another involved party this week goading him about the evidence against him at ArbCom? If so, why would you do this considering you (and others) have complained about editors goading you? Can you not see the hypocrasy is this?
  7. Finally, considering all the above, can you see why admins took the action they did at the time of Frank's initial complaint?

I thank you for your consideration of these questions. Rockpocket 00:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. His full name and address were provided to me - I didnt go looking for them or ask for it. 2. I didnt know why I was blocked - I thought it was becasue W.Frank said that I threatened him. 3. I do see now how it could be taken up wrong - I have already side that I was naive/stupid. 4. DOnt know what you mean. 5. Yes, I never told a lie regarding the sock/meatpuppet issue. 6. Yes.--Vintagekits 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to tell us who provided you with Franks details, and why they chose to do that? It seems a bit odd someone would just offer you the personal information of another editor, apropos of nothing, without explaining why. So if you haven't been "outing" other editors, then it appears someone else certainly has. Now that you are aware of WP:HARASS, I take it you will be providing that information at ArbCom to ensure our editors' security can be maintained? Rockpocket 18:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one outted anyone - no one would have decked that his street name was in the post only him so to say I revieled his address is incorrect.--Vintagekits 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question, so i'll ask it again. Care to tell us who provided you with Frank's details, and why they chose to do that? Its extremely worrying to me that some editor, presumably someone involved here, is going around investigating the home addresses of others, for motives unknown. Rockpocket 19:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rocket - like I am going to tell you! I told you things in confidence during the sock/meat puppet thing and you didnt believe me so I aint telling you anything again!--Vintagekits 19:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be pleased to hear your full explanation of this by email, and will not communicate specific details to anyone else without your permission. Alternatively, you can tell any other admin involved with this, or any member or Arbcom or Arbcom clerk. If you don't, then your explanation cannot be accepted. Tyrenius 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:An phoblact cover soliders.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:An phoblact cover soliders.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chris B • talk • contribs 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can someone please sort this. thank you.--Vintagekits 10:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can do this. Can you post the your Fair Use Rationale here & I'll evaluate it and copy it over - Alison ☺ 16:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why dont you answer the two questions I asked you today and let someone else sort this out.--Vintagekits 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because you were incivil in the extreme, and then tried to brush it off with the 'big man' comment. Ask properly and I might, otherwise you will not be taken seriously. I'm showing you a certain respect here; you should reply in kind. It's that simple - Alison ☺ 17:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right Alison, and I shouldnt have called you a chocolate fireguard. It just that its very frustrating being blocked - obviously you wouldnt know anything about that but I have some experience of it. To be honest I dont mind being blocked when its a fair cop or when I have done something to warrant it. Take the Tyrenius block of 01:14, 6 March 2007 for calling Astrotrain a POV pusher, seems tame but at the time I sholdnt have said it - I never contested that, SirFozzie's block of 22:48, 16 July 2007 for civil violations - never contested that either and even Rockpocket's indef block of 01:50, 26 July 2007 - I never even said a word about that for a week because I knew I was out of order and no amount of drink will excuse that. However, my issue with you was that since you became my mentor you not once came and gave me any advice and then the whole endorsing BHG block - well you know how I felt about that. Just as you found the swear words in my email to you unacceptable I kind of found you endorement of BHG's block on me unacceptable. BHG's block was out of order and unwarranted and I just thought "Alison actually couldnt give a toss if I am banned or not and she's supposed to be my mentor" - in my view the block was not in keeping of the actions from an admin and BHG has previous for this type of thing also. I viewed the whole situation to and degree that your endorement of BHG's block has lead to me ending up here - thats my take on it (obviously I see thing from my own point of view but at least you know what my take on it is/was). As for the threat to W.Frank - again I am going to plead innocent - it was stupid of me to post what I did but there wasnt a threat either implied or otherwise - of course looking back I realise I shouldnt have posted it but it genuinely wasnt meant as a threat - it was supposed to get a reaction alright but an amusing one - obviously it backfored, badly. ALso there was no email with a threat to W,Frank and I wish you would actually ask him to provide this supposed email. I'm glad I got that off my chest.--Vintagekits 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can understand that re. the block. Thing about the BHG block was that you had returned to a highly controversial area and started making radical pagemoves. As you know, there's little that's more disruptive than pagemoves. When BHG asked you to stop, you got even more argumentative and promised to continue. You were then blocked, as per the rules, to prevent disruption. I'm fine with that though I mentioned at the time that the (3 weeks, I think?) duration was excessive. When you agreed to stop, you were unblocked and I strongly endorsed that unblocking, too. The only reason I didn't get to intervene was largely because I was offline when the show started and because things moved rapidly until you were blocked. Re. the emails to W. Frank, I have asked him to reproduce them for all to see, provide them to ArbCom or to retract the accusation. So far, from what I can see, he has done none of these things. Bua 's beannachtaí - Alison ☺ 17:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we obviously have very different takes on that then (not for the first time I suppose) Anyway I will outline my interpretation in my submission.--Vintagekits 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


User:Vintagekits on the Irish Language wiktionary

Hi VK. An editor claiming to be you has recently registered on ga.wiktionary [25]. As sysop over there, I'm just asking you to verify that that is indeed you and not some impostor looking to make trouble for you. Thanks - Alison ☺ 17:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tis I indeed! Is there a problem with that?--Vintagekits 18:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no problem at all! It's good to have you there and, to be honest, I'm not a believer in interwiki blocking. My only concern was that someone might be making trouble for you, is all. Ar aon nós, tá an-fáilte romhat chuig an Vicí sin agus beidh me ag iarracht a lán dréachtaí maithe asat :) - Alison ☺ 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this made me laugh out loud when I found it. "Buachaill dána" indeed :) And thanks for fixing up Séamus Ennis, too. I noticed - Alison ☺ 05:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I thought it might get a chuckle - if I am the "buachaill dána" wait until ou just how "dána" my spelling and grammar is as Gaeilge! Unfortunately I am too young to have see him, Clancy or Rowsome play live but have heard them on old "pirate" tapings on session and I did see Cillian Vallely play in a session a few years ago.--Vintagekits 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the Master himself when I was a babby, out in The Naul on a Sunday afternoon in a smoky pub. I can still recall it like it was yesterday, and I still love the music - Alison ☺ 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Do you mind if I archive anything pre-indef/ArbCom? The page length is annoying me and takes longer to load than I'd like. One Night In Hackney303 10:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crack on.--Vintagekits 10:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anywhere in particular you want me to stop? It'd be easier if you say where you want up to archiving really I reckon? One Night In Hackney303 10:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as number 47 I supposed would be logical.--Vintagekits 10:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. One Night In Hackney303 10:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ta.--Vintagekits 10:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Fozzie

Can you propose an affected article ban for whatever length of time because if I am banned from articles relating to Northern Ireland/Irish republicanism/British politics/Peerage and nobility I would still like to like to be able to edit articles relating to music, local place, boxing etc - some of my boxing articles are already out of date and I was hoping I could get Michael Gomez to FA level.--Vintagekits 10:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed. SirFozzie 16:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fozzie - if you are getting sick of getting hit from both sides take a break mate - your health is too important. A similar thing happened with Tyrenius - he was a good admin and was fair and was respected but he got sick of taking flack from all sides aswell. its a shame.--Vintagekits 18:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I feel like I gotta see this thing through. Then maybe I can "softly and silently vanish away...." SirFozzie 18:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It really can't be easy being an admin. I used to be Logica (not an admin, though), but then got really sick of all this, and deliberately changed my password to something I knew I wouldn't be able to remember, and that was just as a normal user. But then I came back (obviously not as Logica). I didn't know Tyrenius' health was affected by Wiki, though, - that it is a shame. I think we all forget that admins are human beings too - thanks for the help, SirFozzie. Logoistic 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the community waste any more time with Vintagekits? (2)

[Comments by W. Frank redacted]

Frank. None of this belongs on Vintagekits' talk page. He has been indefinitely blocked, as well you know. Please take this evidence to the current Arbitration Committee case, in which you are named as a party - Alison ☺ 16:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note to Frank (or whatever your name actually is) also - I dont want a reply. I never said that I never sent you "any e-mails whatsoever" - I said I never sent you sent any emails threatening you - which I havent. Also I didnt reviele information about you into the public domain - no one knew whaty it was until you told Alison and finally as you say that I made a clear threat please outline and the Arbcom (not here) what EXACTLY that threat was.--Vintagekits 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re. this comment by W. Frank,[26] do you give permission for him to reproduce on wiki any emails that you did send him? Furthermore, has he sent you any? Tyrenius 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have forwarded Alison the only email exhange that myself and Frank had with each other back in April/May. If there are any other emails Frank can forward them for me to have a look at if he wants - he has my email address.--Vintagekits 18:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are witholding permission for them to be reproduced on wiki? That obviously leads to the suspicion that W. Frank's claims are correct. Tyrenius 19:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Frank also seems to be hiding something...all very strange. See it turns out that ThePiper is GoldHeart. (Sarah777 19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Ty, I know what I sent Frank I am just hoping I didnt send him anything that night I was drunk and abused Rocket. I have checked and cant see anything - get him to send Alison what he wants to reveal cos I have sent her all the emails between me and Frank back in April/May. If its the same then I am happy to have them reproduced - plenty of industrial language but nothing even remotely like a threat.--Vintagekits 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I just got what VK sent to me. Lots of "c*nts", "orange bastard", etc, etc. Usual VK rhetoric. No threats of violence whatsoever, at least not in the messages I saw. Per VK's request, I'm forwarding this evidence on to ArbCom for review and will note this in the Arb case that this has been done. I'll also forward them on to anyone else, on VK's request - Alison ☺ 19:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whack one over to Ty if you want.--Vintagekits 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I've also forwarded them on to Mackensen for the ArbCom, per your email request. Thus, I note that you have submitted them to ArbCom - Alison ☺ 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "c*nts"? Surely the daft bastard has not finally learnt to spell the word? VK if you survive this, and I sincerely hope you do, I will do everything I can to help you get Michael Gomez on the front page ASAP. With my spelling and yours it should be the greatest FA ever! Giano 19:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol! I only add the "h" to accentuate the Irish accent. Like the nickname of Celtic FC - The Bhoys! Yeah the Gomez artcile has so much to be added to it - especially as I am only up to January 2006. Personally I cant stand the man but its someone viva loca dont you think.--Vintagekits 20:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • and to think you are now contributing to a dictionary.....words fail me. Giano 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one question Vintagekits, are you a "Fenian Schwine", or an undercover OB (sorry, not allowed to type!). LOL!! Thepiper 21:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, you can take the fifth.. Funny I'd think you'd DRINK the fifth ;) (Grins, teasing ya man) SirFozzie 22:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Piper, are YOU really GoldHeart? (Sarah777 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
No, but I came across you before, will tell you some other time, will pmail. It's my only account here. Where are all the watching-admins with the FS remark? Just testing Vk, hope it's ok. Method in my method! Thepiper 21:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. I an rather confused at this stage. (Sarah777 21:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You're not the only one. Giano 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'll pmail you too, since you asked, and Vk, but no-one else! Thepiper 22:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cant wait!--Vintagekits 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't got my pmail set up yet, have to create a new email address, should take about 3 days. See here[27], more of this hush, hush secret stuff, behind closed stuff. SirFozzie refused to make me a party to his discourse. Deja Vu. Just looking at the Gold Heart page, another Dub I see! Thepiper 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jackeens eh! Who'd av em!--Vintagekits 22:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No say in the matter, promise, half-runner really! Thepiper 22:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Fenian Swine; I nearly clocked my first ban defending his asinine name. Are one of you drones him?? I ask because he came from Stillorgan and his local was the Punch Bowel. (I guess I'd travel if I was from Stillorgan). Get the picture? Easy on the Jacks Vk, some of my nearest and dearest....(Sarah777 22:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Actually Vintagekits, worse than a Jackeen, you won't like me at all, my family traces back to a certain lord. I never tell my friends, I really do want to keep them! Thepiper 01:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Piper - I dont do Barnstars - thanks for the thought--Vintagekits 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've received from Alison copies of emails sent by Vk to W. Frank , and they contain some choice language but no threats of violence or arson. I've left a note for W. Frank.[28] Tyrenius 00:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to unblock VK

VK has now been blocked for three weeks, in that time he has edited his page responsibly. I think it would be fair if he was temporarily unblocked pending the decision by the Arbcom so long as he only edits non contentious pages (ie nothing to do with Irish politics) and the pages connected to the Arbcom case to defend himself. He should be given the opportunity to show he can edit responsibly and in a way valuable to the project. He can easily be re-blocked if he breaks these conditions. Giano 06:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no good reason to pre-empt ArbCom on this matter. I'm also interested to know whether Vk has been goading other editors by email since his block. This is something that you were very critical of in others, Giano, suggesting it was partly responsible for Vk's actions and demanding it be fully investigated. Rockpocket 07:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no knowledge of VK's private life or whom he emails, none of my business. No one is suggesting VK is entirely responsible for the present situation therefore it is blatantly unfair that he is confined to barracks here while others equally at fault can say what they like about him around the site. He has his basic human rights here on Wikipedia as he does elsewhere in real life. He has behaved himself on this page since he was blocked on the 19th August almost a month ago and shown he can behave responsibly - he has even ignored blatant trollong. There is no good reason for him to remain blocked. Giano 07:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason he remains blocked is stated by the blocking admin at the time. That has not changed as far as I am concerned. You were among those calling for this to go to ArbCom. That is now ongoing, so I see no reason why we pre-empt its decisions. However, I defer to the blocking admin on this. If Alison wishes to unblock, I will not protest. I would also be interested in the policy that states all editors have "basic human rights here" and an explanation of what those basic rights are. Rockpocket 07:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rocketpock; I must gently disagree with you on this. It seems that you sometimes allow your legalism trump common sense; I cannot see that preventing Vk editing boxing articles in a closely watched manner should be a problem. Certainly, if I was in Vk's position (without any comment of the new email business) I'd feel there was a punitive element to keeping me blocked. (Sarah777 09:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Well, actually, I'd be a seething ball of molten rage on the verge of an eruption - but that's just me!(Sarah777 09:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I wouldn't object strongly to Vk being unblocked solely to allow participation in the arbcom case, but for nothing else. The issues which led to his block were serious, and arbcom is now reviewing them, but restoring wider editing priveliges before arbcom concludes its proceedings would be pre-empting that decision. The option that Vk be restricted to boxing articles is a possible outcome of arbcom's deliberations, and if anyone wants to suggest it they should do so at the arbcom case. As to the trolls, deal with them in whatever way is appropriate, whether by warnings or blocks or adding more evidence to the arbcom case.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with what BHG says, but only to edit ArbCom and this talk page. Anything else and we revert to the indef block. Tyrenius 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he were allowed to participate in the case, which let's face it is his own trial, that can only be just and common sense. Surely editing his boxing pages can do no harm to anyone - if he were to edit anything other than those pages then ban him for ever and throw away the key, he would be building his own cage. I really cannot see any point, beyond punitive humiliation, to restricting him to a few comments here when he could be doing constructive and interesting work on his pages. When I see emails threatening violence then I will think again, at the moment all I have seen is bad language and some "craic" which could translate as naive stupidity. After this, I don't think we will be seeing any examples of his craic for some time. I truly think it is time to be fair and perhaps just a little bit kind. Giano 14:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with everything you say 100% Giano (Sarah777 14:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
My issue about this was that is essentially the principal on which Vk was unblocked last time (it was an indef block then, also, because he was already on his very last chance then because of sockpuppetry) and he was back editing controversial issues within a day. That he appears to be engaging in typically incivil behaviour, even now while he is currently blocked, gives me absoutely zero confidence that his continued presence here would be productive. I genuinely respect the effort Sarah and Giano (particularly) are putting into supporting Vk, for very noble reasons. But, if I can be frank, I think he is playing you all for fools. While you are are defending him in front of class, he is tossing spitballs at people behind your backs. I find that incredibly disrespectful.
I have three questions, absolutely non rhetorical, for those that are suggesting Vk be permitted to edit the project again.
  1. How many last chances should we offer editors that abuse our policies?
  2. Why do you believe, when Vk didn't take two previous last chances with any seriousness, he would he do so this time?
  3. Do you think an editor, who continues to agitate and provoke other editors off-wiki during his block all the time you are defending him on wiki, deserves your support.
If someone can offer me a justified answer to these, and Vk can answer the questions I put to him a few sections above, then I may reconsider my position. Rockpocket 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if anyone wants to take that suggestion forward, the place to do so would be at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Workshop#Proposed_temporary_injunctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, VK may have sent an email to Kittybrewster earlier in the week which may be significant. I'd like a little clarification on that message before I comment further here - Alison ☺ 17:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in it of note (not even a swear word!!). I will forward it to you now.--Vintagekits 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. And no swear words. So, let me get this straight; you were emailing Kittybrewster during the week, referring to him by name (not that it's a secret or anything), and making goading, smartass comments, yes? Isn't this the kind of thing that got you into so much hot water already?? Have you not learnt anything so far here?? And if you're unblocked for arbcom, as Giano suggests, I'm supposed to believe you're not going to start hounding KB or anyone else again?? - Alison ☺ 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats about right. I couldnt really care less about KB let alone have the time or energy to hound him. Talking of goading if you check the dates the email was a reply to an email from him goading me when I got indef blocked. Your right two wrongs dont make a right.--Vintagekits 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, Fred Bauder from the Arbitration Committee has already stated this week that; "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" - Alison ☺ 17:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I havent even made a submission yet. Nice to know he's made his mind up already!--Vintagekits 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think Fred knows what's going on, did you hear him today? Thepiper 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I didnt - but acan I ask you to do me a big favour??--Vintagekits 18:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to evidence or explanation. However, the thrust of the arbitration case is going to be disruptive editing of articles which relate to The Troubles, not your block, which seems to me to have been justified. Fred Bauder 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a bit unfair that you have alre4ady made up your mind before I have even put my side of the story forward. If you read some of the threads on this page you will see that it is not as straight forward as you think. Is there any point now - am I even going to get a fair hearing now as you seem to have made your mind up.--Vintagekits 19:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he should be unblocked to allow Arbcom participation. We need to hear his side of the story. Astrotrain 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fred, you are supposed to be a adjudicator in this case, are you even aware of trolling such as this [29] . Were you ever really a member of a legal profession anywhere in the world? Even the Spanish Inquisition maintained a semblance of impartiality, what on earth are you doing even commenting? I know you are of the nation that gave us Guantanamo Bay but this is ridiculous! I am totally disgusted, if this is Wikipedian justice God save us from it; and God help Alison I had credited her with some intelligence. It looks like the right wing clique have won before the trial, before the judges have even consulted each other. Very very disappointing - shame on Wikipedia. Giano 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Giano, what on earth is all this about?? "right wing clique"?? Gitmo?? I'm sorry, but I'm not following here, other than seeing you take a sideswipe at Fred's profession. - Alison ☺ 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As VK did mention that he wishes to present evidence once a particular editor is listed as involved (and said editor is now), I would like VK to inform me either here or via e-mail to me his preference of presenting his evidence. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why bother VK? The judge has decided! Giano 20:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually its a committee and they havent decided anything. I would say do submit something, VK, SqueakBox 20:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think Fred has told us where the writing is, and it is firmly on the wall. Best thing VK can do is pack his bags and join Wahib in citizendum. Giano 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that comment intentionally uncivil, Giano II. Unless you claim imbecility, you are very much aware of what has been featured on my CZ discussion page for many months:
"Because my native language wasn't English and it's often easy to misunderstand the tone of brief comments made under time pressure by a slow typist, I apologise in advance if I sometimes appear brusque or unhelpful or less than conciliatory. (People who meet me in the flesh usually find me a friendly old codger).
Please just address me as Frank and NOT Wahib (- everybody does in real life since some of the more unusual [for English speakers] names on my passport are invariably mangled by English speakers).
These references may assist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_name#Name_order and [30] and [31]"
For the avoidance of doubt, the Constables at CZ are aware of both my real passport and real life names and the ongoing trouble and bad feeling that you are trying to stir up, Giano II. There is an e-mail address for the Constables at CZ that you may use to alert them of any legitimate concerns.
I also consider your comment about Fred Bauder to be intentionally uncivil and I am somewhat surprised that you have not been blocked for continual incivility and "stirring".
In case I am wrong I would point out that Vintagekits might find things run a bit differently at the Citizendium. Here is a link that may be helpful: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Introduction_to_CZ_for_Wikipedians
Please don't continue to behave badly, Giano II. Use your undoubted talents for something more productive. W. Frank talk ✉  21:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha Frank! You are quite right my comments are intentionally incivil (uncivil is very bad grammar - please don't talk to me about native speakers, I'm not one either) Regarding "stirring" that is a very interesting subject Frank, one on which I think you are an expert. If I'm banned, well I'm banned. That is the nice thing about the truth, one can take it or leave it, don't you find? I have no need to manufacture a version - I think we understand each other - don't we? Giano 22:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frank, you say "I also consider your comment about Fred Bauder to be intentionally uncivil and I am somewhat surprised that you have not been blocked for continual incivility and "stirring"." That is exactly the sort of threatened censorship (or wished for censorship, as you aren't an Admin) that is driving folk mad here. I actually totally agree with Gino's comments on Fred, whose intervention was somewhat shocking (why are we all here if the decision is made?). The idea that even expressing such views as Gino might lead to censorship is intimidating. Maybe that is the purpose? You made some remarks about "the troubles" which I couldn't even reply to because of a totally politically uneducated decision by Arbcom. I have to abide by it. Do I think it is just? No. Fair? No. Reasonable? No. So what do I think it is? You know Frank, in your world, I can't tell you - on threat of banning. (Sarah777 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You could always send me your first e-mail if you feel gagged. You know I don't blab.
And let me clarify that my comment about Giano II's un (or in) civility with regard to Fred Bauder was directed towards the gratuitous dig Giano II made before he had a pop at me: "Were you ever really a member of a legal profession anywhere in the world?" in the context that Fred Bauder's user page has clearly stated for many months that he is "a retired lawyer living in Crestone, Colorado". Effectively calling someone a liar without very hard and convincing evidence is very serious in my view and calls for an instant apology and retraction or hard evidence as to the truth of that defamatory statement.
It's particularly egregious because Fred Bauder is a very well known, liked and respected figure in his local (and very small) rural community. I know because I checked out Fred Bauder's bona fides before I offered to send him notary certified copies of my German passport, British Driving Licence, Original (complete with chiseled out ex-Nazi Stempel) 61 year old German birth certificate, electoral roll details, utility bills, and original letters from my MP, MSP's and MEP's.
If he had any decency, Giano II would issue a simple, quick and genuine apology and retraction.
Why do you think Wikipedia is plagued with pseudonymous and anonymous socks, vandals and trolls when good editors get slagged off in this gratuitous and anonymous manner. I'm sure that Giano II would not be so quick to impute impure motives if he was not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. W. Frank talk ✉  23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that Giano has been very uncivil in general. Something needs to be done - I have already asked for this to be done already here. Logoistic 23:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder has given an opinion on the situation he has seen to date. Obviously he will consider any evidence presented at ArbCom, if this brings something different into the frame. I suggest editors pay serious attention to presenting a case there, instead of here. Tyrenius 00:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...

Ok.. let's let things cool down, all sides. Please? We have the big raging bonfire at ArbCom.. there's no need to have little fires burning everywhere else, right? Too much fire=All sides burned. Look, I know this conflict has gone on forever. And I know how short everyone's temper is. I've been involved in this much later then most of the main folks in this... and it's not ingrained in me like the way most everyone grew up with it.. but it's too the point where I told Alison that if I was recalled, as I invited Astrotrain to do on the ArbCom page, not only would I have voluntarily relinquished my adminship, I'd retire from Wikipedia altogether, because while we have a worthwhile goal in mind, building an encyclopedia.. it's not worth the constant aggravation, is it?

I know I'm pretty much asking for the impossible at this point.. but do you know what you're doing right now with these harsh words, edit wars and constant battling? Right now, the Arbitration Committee is looking at all of us. ALL OF US. We've supplied what, a thousand diffs on the workshop page? So much so that probably it's hard for them to dig through the who said what, and what caused whom to flip out. So maybe, they're not just looking at the evidence. They're looking at all of us and seeing how we react. If we can't keep our tempers, if we can't keep from edit warring, if we let our emotions get the better of us. If we can't do any of that, even with ArbCom watching us like hawks surveying a field of mice... how the heck are we going to EVER be productive, contributing editors to this place? I wish I had the diff at hand, but Fred pretty much said as much on the ArbCom page.. that he wanted to see how folks performed!

We are giving them the reasons to be harsh. To root out EVERY last one of us. To try to burn things out so thoroughly that the next generation of edit warriors will have a reason to behave.

Let's quit the bickering, the backbiting and the warring. As the saying goes.. "if you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing at all." Let's not go to each other's talk pages and try to argue with them. if you have evidence, say it on the ArbCom page. If you have to work with each other (and I mean work), work towards compromise. None of this "my way or the highway crap". I've had to protect three pages so far because neither side will give in, and both sides won't compromise. I've seen people spend DAYS. Literally DAYS.. arguing over two words. TWO WORDS!

As I said, if folks think I'm biased, or incompetent as an admin, let me know. Five people on my talk page asking me to turn in my mop.. and you got it. But I'd rather turn in my mop and retire then see 20 odd editors who are probably otherwise rather decent folks get long-term (I'm talking about a YEAR here folks) blocks. Don't say it won't happen. It can, and if this behaviour continues.. will. SirFozzie 00:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a timeous warning SirFozzie.
But aren't you one of the people that is on record as supporting (at ArbCom) these lengthy blocks rather than proposing mechanisms to retain good conscientious editors?
Why did you give up on the multilateral mediation whatsit that so many agreed to and just let it fizzle out? Was it just bone weary sickness and tiredness or do you really think we can not hone a few of our rules?
I'd welcome your input here W. Frank talk ✉  00:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frank, you do know that SirFozzie has health issues and is actually ill right now, yes? - Alison ☺ 00:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't aware. Please redact/delete any inappropriate comments I made (from a position of ignorance) as you or he feel appropriate. W. Frank talk ✉  00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said SirFozzie, its time this stupid bickering stopped. Arguing here is pointless, the arbcom is where all editors can put across what is relevent to the issues involved, then its up to the arbitration committee to decide the best way forward.--padraig 00:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some rambling thoughts

Frank, I am with Rocketpock on this; I've never checked and have little interest in peoples personal details; though with every day that passes here, I feel registration of editors and less oppressive sanctions would work much better than the current system. Re emailing - I don't seek to convince you of things you are (from your edits) very opposed to. When I came back from holidays a month ago to find I was facing a "proposed remedy" of a one year ban (in an Arbcom regarding a dispute I wasn't party to!), well, that seemed beyond belief. But I'd no previous expierence of Arbcom. Now in this case I see all and sundry are being threatened with year-long blocks (including your good self) for alledged crimes ranging from the serious to the trivial. What a silly system. And that "expressing anti-British views" or incivility (alleged) seems as dangerous (or worse because it's up front) for an editor to engage in as sock-puppetry, threats, multi-handling and vandalism is leading to so much underhand stuff, IMO. I am thinking of creating a sock myself with a subtle name like Jihadonline to get around these restrictions! Maybe the truth requires constant struggle; maybe there is no truth as Jimbo Wales says, just verifiable lies mostly by "the establishment", maybe there is no truth at all and all so-called verifiable "facts" are like those yokes in physics that are changed in something else by the very fact of being observed. Maybe it's time to go to bed! (Sarah777 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, there has to be a better way.
Would it be helpful to avoid commenting on individual editors (or their edits) and concentrate on tinkering with mechanisms?
I'd welcome your input here
You have to also bear in mind that ArbCom was originally designed to be a last resort after all else had failed. My understanding is that both in your case and the proximate ArbCom case, other forms of dispute resolution were never tried and instead sidetracked by the noise of the mob baying to "take it to ArbCom".
They're not miracle workers and they rely on good faith and good will to a large extent. When folks start lying to them and misleading them with highly selective and unrepresentative diffs it's hardly surprising that they teeter on some inappropriate decisions. No tribunal ever gets it right 100% of the time - why should WP be any different?
God bless! W. Frank talk ✉  00:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.

Just for the record, your request that User:Traditional unionist be listed as a party has been approved by Fred Bauder. You did mention that you were presenting evidence regarding that issue... Didn't you? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A glimmer

This edit [32] to me reads like a small piece of hope for you - I suggest you do your best to explain to him why your retention here is a good idea. Regarding his second comment [33] can you offer any explanation - think hard and long is there anything more than is already now widely known. I know you have said there is nothing more but if there is something more this could be the last chance to come clean and retain some support. If you say there is nothing more I will believe you. If you had forgotten something I will still do my best to get you out of this whole, especially as Fred thinks there is a remote chance for you even knowing whatever it is he has been furnished with. Personally, I think he should put everything in the public forum as you are being judged in that forum but W Frank has obviously convinced him otherwise Giano 18:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that isnt known already.--Vintagekits 19:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to defend myself at arbcom whilst blocked

I cant reply to comments - copy stuff properly because you need to click edit to copy it etc. Alison please unblock me until Arbcom make their decision. regards--Vintagekits 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just posted your request here [34] in this context:

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)[reply]

To be honest, unless you know what you are accused of and see the evidence I don't know what more can be done to help you. This inquiry is playing by rules it appears to invent as it goes along, there is no attempt at even playing by the rules of any just system I have ever come across. I think you have to demand that the emails are returned to you, if you sent them, then that should not be a problem, they can hardly be a secret to you, then they say with some certainty to us all that you know what you sent. Incidentally you will own the copyright of any correspondence you have mailed to anyone from Britain - if they refuse to send them to you - then people must draw their own conclusions. I will certainly draw mine. Good luck! Giano 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to post to Alison's talk page regarding this issue. However, if your response is like Evidence and what not, I'd be more than glad to post that on your behalf (or you can e-mail me should you wish to do so.) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To VK: Why should you be unblocked? I've already received emails from both Tyrenius and Giano suggesting this (although Giano kinda blew it when he made the Nazi analogy. Not good.). Only days ago, while blocked, you made snide, goading comments to Kittybrewster in email, so nothing's changed here; you're still at it. The precedent for unblocking for ArbCom was made during the Miskin arbitration case, in which I also played a part, and Miskin honoured that arrangement. However, this is a completely different scenario. How do I know you're not going to come in some night, roaring drunk (as before) and post who-knows-what[36] to some non-arb-related page & cause mayhem all over again? Furthermore, it lends to the view (as Giano already pointed out) that your block is somehow trivial and that you somehow didn't threaten someone else as you did, and that it can be lifted at whim; "Look - Alison unblocked me, so it must be all about nothing", etc, etc. This is so not the case here. Contrary to what Giano states above, you do know the content of the evidence that Fred Bauder currently has and you've acknowledged that that had happened[37], the excuse being that "I was only having the craic with him". I don't buy that. Furthermore, you already have a number of means to access and update the arbcom evidence without being blocked. You can "click and edit" just fine from where you are, and there should be no later recourse to saying that you were somehow denied a "fair trial", if you like, especially given that you haven't particularly even tried yet. - Alison ☺ 23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you had better repeat the Nazi analogy here Alison, I never invoke Godwin's law. Ponting out to you that the Nazis sometimes made those being tried in their courts look bad by wearing prison uniform, or not permitting Jewish men to shave before a trial is not invoking Godwin's law, it it pointing out that all men should should stand and appear equal in a court untill found guilty by their judges - do you have a problem with that view? Giano 06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty soon, Giano, when someone runs out of logical arguments, the jack-booted Nazis end up getting trotted out in one form or another. To compare what the Jews went through at the hands of those monsters and suggest that this is similar is disingenuous in the extreme and is trivialising what those people endured. That's pretty offensive and our conversation dried up somewhere about there. Go figure. We all want fairness and justice for all but please, put away the Nazis - Alison ☺ 06:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I must say, all, the intensity of email-based lobbying from two or three editors has now reached a crescendo. I mean, really! - Alison ☺ 23:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding logical arguement if the only way you can justify you actions is by quoting comments (out of context) made to you long after those actions then so be it. You will note I refer to court room styles the suffering of the Jews is not mentioned. I am happy from you to quote from any replies I made to your emails but only if you place here the entire email including yours preceding it, in fact I think you should produce the whole sequence on a User page for all to see, I have no problem with that but I shall not be replying to anymore of your emails. Problems I have are when emails are forwarded to Fred Bauder to become "damning but secret", so here's another analogy for you, that is not Goodwin's law but Torquemada's. Giano 07:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, Giano! That's just so melodramatic and overblown. And yet again, you just don't seem to want to actually address anything I've been saying here, other than take the chance to get in another inappropriate analogy. This has now reduced to a farce. Now that Tomás de Torquemada has made an appearance, I think we can truly say now that nobody expected that one! - Alison ☺ 07:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you do noyt like historical analogies, I find them very helpful and evaluating modern events, one of the reasons that history is still taught in schools. Well what is there to address apart from the known evidence we gave all seen on Wiki? Even if (the now departed and again) W Frank were to produce some damning emails, the Arbcom would not be allowed to consider them as they are off wiki, were they to do so many Arbcom cases would have to be re-opened, including the infamous "Giano case" where many wikipedians were saved from sanction by that ruling. So we all now know what VK said the question is what is craic, naivity, stupidity or a deliberate threat, as I'm not able to read VK's mind I shall give him the benefeit of the doubt, my personal opinion is that it was a combination of the first three. There are 17 emails which passed between us which run like "chat" some of them very brief and in that form, if you wish to publish them that is fine by me, so long as you take responsibility for any offence to anyone which is caused, but pplease do not quote out of context - simple really. Giano 09:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't know anything; there have been precedents of indef blocked editors being unblocked for the sole purpose of editing case-related pages. As others have mentioned before, block can be restored if the condition is breached. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Justice must be "seen to be done". I still can't fathom how unblocking and waiting for the apparently inevitable self-destruct can't be accommodated. Seems odd, frankly. (No, I'm not emailing anyone, btw) (Sarah777 07:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think VK should be unblocked, even if its only to fully take part in the arbcom, he should be allowed the right to defend himself against some of the claims made against him, I don't believe that W. Frank has these alleged threatening e-mails, his failure to produce them speaks volumes to me and convinces me they don't exist.--padraig 11:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VK cant even provide evidence, he must be unblocked so that he can prepare a defence for himself. BigDunc 14:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but sadly no one else seems to. Arguements to the contrary are now being dismissed by all the usual Wikipedia terms used when logic cannot be explained "trolling", "attack" and the final cliche the "this cannot be explained to the simple people, because I am a more important wiki-person than you". Are any of you religious I wonder - because I'm running out of further ideas. Giano 19:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see; 1) Nazi inferences - check!, 2) references to the Spanish Inquisition - check!, 3) Big Meanie Bully Admin - check!. Did I miss anything here? Templars, maybe? Honestly, Giano, what exactly are you trying to achieve with all this here? - Alison ☺ 20:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • thats hardly fair Alison. 1. I edited once while I was pissed - dont make out that it was a regular thing - as for the goading, it was hardly stiff goading all I did was finish an email saying "got that sinking feeling" - I think you are making too much of it - but then again I think you make a mountain out of a mole hill about quite a bit that I do - its possibly you just dont get me (plenty of others do!) but the issue here is me getting unblocked until the arbcom is over. I dont see any reason why not - how long have I been blocked now? and if I had wanted to create havoc within that time then I could have but I didnt. It is impaired my abi9lity to put a decent defense across.--Vintagekits 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to your reasoning here, VK, but I'd like more detail. How exactly would you like to see the terms of your unblocking, were it to happen? What would you suggest happen if/when you go over the top again? How are you impaired from giving evidence? I'm listening - honestly I am, but I want to hear what you have to say and not Giano by proxy - Alison ☺ 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its becoming very tedious and frustrating being confined to this page and like I said it is impairing me putting evidence together - especially when I need to copy stuff on a page but cant because I would have to click on the edit button of that page - which I cant do - dont you think you have beaten me enough without tieing my hands behind my back also. If I fuck up just ban me because at this stage you and Ricket have worn me down so much that I dont really give that much of a toss anymore.--Vintagekits 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ec) I can understand that - we're all burnt out on this whole thing to be honest, esp. Fozzie. And yeah, copy/paste. I'm not in the mode of 'beating you' here, that's not what I'm like. Trust me on that one. So ... state the terms of your unblocking here. ArbCom pages only? Instant and infinite (not indefinite), irrevocable block if you stray off the Arb pages or your user/talk pages? What about email? Indef block if you are verified as having sent goading, abusive or initimidating emails to anyone involved here? And yes, the KB one from the other day was exactly the kind. Note that if ArbCom does not rule on your blocking or rules to endorse, you will also be indefinitely blocked when the case ends. How does all that sound? - Alison ☺ 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sound agreed. Also arnt you going to bring up that Kittybrewter initated the goading emails and that mine was a reply to his - Rocket and you have conveniantly ignored that (no shock there!)--Vintagekits 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "convenient", and I've seen no evidence to show that Kitty "started it". Not like that gives you justification for needling him like you did. Just ignore the guy or forward it on to me or someone else and I'll deal with him. - Alison ☺ 20:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - doesnt that just show that you always look at anything involving me with a putting me in a poor light. Check the dates of the emails - then check the date that Kitty et al block open the champagne when I got my indef block.--Vintagekits 21:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now; you are now unblocked per the above agreement solely to participate in the ArbCom case. You will not edit any other pages outside those, other than your user and talk pages. If you send abusive emails to anyone, regardless of who 'started it', you will be indefinitely blocked again. If the ArbCom do not rule on your blocking, you will be reblocked when the case concludes. I am putting 100% of my trust and my reputation into unblocking you here and this comes solely as a result of your agreement here. This will be an unpopular decision to many, but so be it. - Alison ☺ 20:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I edit the Michael Gomez article.--Vintagekits 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing you can edit other then your user and talk page is the ArbCom pages. Anything else means that the indefblock is immediately restored. Making sure its quite clear, cuz there is no wiggle room, and I want to make sure you understand that. Now I'm gonna sign off before Alison chases me off with a broom, I'm supposed to be resting not editing, she's already shooed me off yesterday. Take care man, my email is always open (just give it time for me to respond, this last attack was really bad so I spend most of my time not at work resting) SirFozzie 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wont be contacting you Fozz - I would rather be banned then have this affect yer health - you go way and watch some muck sport like baseball or cricket or something equally boring!--Vintagekits 22:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not THAT bad, just that I should be AVOIDING stress, not exacerbating it, I just did a horrible job of it for a bit, brought it on myself and hey, I'll have you know I have a couple Hurling matches and the Rugby World Cup recorded on my Tivo to watch :) SirFozzie 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The All Ireland final shouldnt cheer you up unless you have Killkenny connections.--Vintagekits 23:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, have no fan interest in any particular side (remember, no links over there) so all I want is a fun match. The matches air on Setanta Sports's North American side. They also have English and Scottish footy, and Aussie Rules (I once asked an Aussie friend of mine online who he rooted for, and he told me that if I had said that in person he woulda punched me clean in the nose.. apparently rooting is a vulgar colloquialism for sexual activity. They don't root, they barrack ;) SirFozzie 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support - dont ye Yanks "boost"? As in "I'm boosting for the the Patriots"--Vintagekits 23:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, we're support a team, or we root for a team. (There's an old joke in my college days.. "If you can't be athletic, at least be an athletic supporter. Fan Clubs of college groups are called booster clubs though. SirFozzie 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

per strict agreement with the rules laid out above

Request handled by: Alison ☺ 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed and also the exact terms laid out: your own user pages and ArbCom and nothing else. Tyrenius 00:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the blocking admin's decision. Rockpocket 00:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

Best edit I have seem all day [38] Giano 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it shows the Arbcom who the ones that are actually contributing to wiki are (and who arnt!)--Vintagekits 21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good decision Alison; now Vk; IF YOU SCREW UP THIS TIME YOU WON'T SEE ME WITHIN A 100 MILES OF YOUR DEFENCE AGAIN! Stick to the rule as outlined by Alison and I'll give it all I got! Break a leg! (Sarah777 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'll be a good little bhoy!!--Vintagekits 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least we now have a chance of a fair arbcom case and so lets see what happens. My mission, anyway, is accomplished, SqueakBox 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all yer help guys! Wiki isnt a bunch of Mugabe's after all eh!--Vintagekits 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Vintagekits (DRAFT ONLY)

Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit warring, NPA, Civil.

Astrotrain appears to be a Scottish Unionist and monarchist and has a long history of editing on wikipedia and has made 10,000 edits to wikipedia since 2003 and has created many excellent article especially in the aeronautics and banking - however, it seems that since March 2007 he has given up on making contructive contributions to Wikipedia and his accound since then has been primarily used to cause and inflame conflicts, mostly through POV editing and edit warring.

In the FOUR years Astrotrain (As) has been editing wiki he was only block three times up until this year - each time was for breaches of 3RR/edit warring. However it was in January of this year that he found a subject matter in which he could not control his POV editing and this lead him into a downward spiral of editing and from April of this year he has primarily used his account as a revert tool.

For some background information this should be read (for some reason it was not followed through without).


Start of his downward spiral

First revert war over the Ulster Banner

His initial entrance into the dispute as far as I remember was on the 5th of January when he re added the Ulster Banner to the Template:Precedence article. This was his first time to readd that flag to an article and it would become almost his sole reason for editing wiki. He made the same revert of the 7th [39]twice on the 8th [40][41] twice on the 10th it was four time [42][43][44][45] another two on the 11th [46][47] - that goes on for months but then he began to follow my edits on wiki and followed me to a conversation at Talk:Attacks on the London Underground.

Redirecting without discussion or concensus

At the article about Attacks on the London Underground the use of the term "terrorist" was used widely and inaccurately. I raised this on the talkpage here - Astrotrain followed me over there and his first edits where to add the term terrorist, which as per Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter should not be used and then his next move was to move the name of the article to included the term terrorism. Now this might seem a small thing but it shows his basic POV and the foundation of the dispute that he largely singlehandedly spread across wiki. [48][49]. On the 14th of January he went back to redirecting without discussion or concensus [50][51].

  • On 25th of February he moved "James Stronge (Unionist)" to "Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet" without foundation, discussion or concensus - he reasoning was "title like his father" - also this person who was killed by the IRA was never actually a Baronet - obviously this was a controvertial move without discussion.
  • On 1st of March he moved "Sean 'Spike' Murray" to "Sean Murray (Northern Irish republican)" and again without discussion or concensus - his reasoning was "proper title" - again this was a convortial move because Irish republicans would find it offensive to be deems are "Northern Irish" as they do not recognise the country and also legal there is no nationality as Northern Irish.
  • On 7th of May he moved "Norman Stronge" to "Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet" this time it was not just without foundation but it there was discussion and he was clearly editing against concensus and against wiki guidance.
POV and disruptive editing

This type of editing continued throughout January - for example on the 13th of Jan at the Sean Dillon (Jack Higgins character)‎ article Astrotrain removes a fact tag that I placed - but did not add a citation he added "a successful Irish terrorist" and a similar edit on the Urban Guerrilla page and added terrorist to the Le Mo bombing pageand againand againand again.

  • On the 28th of January on the Harrods bombing article Astrotrain reverted my edit with the edit summary "rv- POV vandalism" to try and state that the IRA bomb on that day was to target "christmas shoppers" rather than the store itself despite there being no sources to ever claim that the target was civilians. I then tried to engage in a discussion with Astrotrain and clearly outlined my concerns in a point by point fashion so that there could be no confusion and so the matter could be cleared up - I made my concerns known here and Astrotrains only reply was to say " restored the article to the version by User:El chulito, which was the previous best version- obviously the items above would have been changes at this point" - and number of replies were made but Astrotrain just avoided the issue.
  • On the 19th of March on the Thomas Begley article (an article which is has already tried to redirect without discussion) Astrotrain reverted my edit with the edit summary "restore Weggie version- these quotes are suspect and out of place" which removed referenced material.
I then again tried to engage in a discussion with Astrotrain here to see why he made the revert and what could be sorted out about it and Astrotrains reply was that I should read his edit summary which was " rv to last version by Weggie- correct to name this section that- given it is sourced from the IRA" - I asked him if he serious thought that the IRA wrote the book - he never replied but did continue to revert.
then he was blocked two days for " incivility and edit warring"
  • He dissapeared not for 2 days but for two weeks and his first edits when he returned was to start blanking comments on his page [52] and then made this made this personal attack against a number of editors labeling their comments as harrassment from terrorist supporters and his next was to state that "Next time I will stick to making racist remarks, or perhaps adding the name of a terrorist organisation to my signature, or maybe I should stick to deleting referenced material to suit a POV republican viewpoint, or glorifying murder" here
within hours he was given an article ban to try and stop him.
Bad faith nominations of articles about Irish republicans, vote stacking and canvassing

On the same day the he redirect the Begley article he began to try and speedy delete numberous articles about Irish republicans such as James McDade, Martin Lynch - reasoning being "speedy delete- nn IRA terrorist- article is mainly about a bugging incident on Gerry Adams and very little info on him provided", Bernadette Sands McKevitt "speedy delete- nn sister of an IRA terrorist" Eddie Copeland "speedy delete- nn IRA terrorist" - all of the articles are still surving to this day.

This did not thwart Astrotrain and on the same day he nominated [McDade for deletion] - reasoning "Non-notable IRA terrorist, no verifable information can be obtained about him, and he has done nothing of note other than killing himself" - result 13 keep bote and zero deletes.

A number of messeges were left for him to stop his disruptive editing here and the other posts below it but that did not stop him. he next came [[61]] which Tyrenius speedily deleted because he didnt trust the sources.

Then on the 25th he nominated Charles Breslin for speedy deletion and Antoine Mac Giolla Bhrighde‎ for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde‎ this was a run of the mill AfD until he then joined forces with Kittybrewster, David Lauder, Major Bonkers, Couter-revolutionary and a serial sockpuppeter who was then named "El chulito" after he canvassed them.

The same day he nominated - Martin McGartland‎ here - now this is a guy who has a book written about him and a film made about him, you can all see the clear result of that too!

He a number of editors were involved in vote canvassing and what another administrator called “lock step” voting. In the next few months they vote in a number of AfD's on the basis of what “they like” rather than using the rationale of wiki policies. A number of central users with Astrotrain such as Kittybrewster, Counter-revolutionary, David Lauder, Major Bonkers but also included Fraslet and to a lesser extent Weggie and Gibnews and El chulito and Inthegloaming who I strongly suspected were socks - and these and others turned out to be confirmed socks.

All of the above can by generally stated as voting within the anti Irish republican and pro British unionist/ monarchist.

Astrotrain also canvassed !votes on these AfD's on a number of occasions [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] Canvassing for AfD !votes for Raymond Gilmour [69]

Once he had assembled his group through canvassing there was systematic abuse of the AfD system with a number of a same editors arriving at an AfD on a subject which they either liked or disliked and voted to delete or keep on POV rather then wiki policy. The exact details are as follows –

James McDade AfD Nominated by Astrotrain. Result – ‘’’Keep’’’ 13 votes to Keep and 1 to Delete – that vote by as Astrotrain – therefore 100% of the delete !votes from “the group”.

Then [Montgomery] – this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. However Tyrenius ended the AfD because of a source that stated that Montgomery was involved in a murder.

Then Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 7 votes and Delete 7 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 71% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then Charles Breslin AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then Martin McGartland AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – Keep, Keep 10 votes and Delete 1 votes – that of Astrotrains

Then Diarmuid O’Neill AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – No consensus, This is where the real vote staking operation started and canvassing came into effect. Keep 20 votes and Delete 10 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept. Note the first eight !votes were to Keep and that is when the canvassing started and since then there has been almost total lock step.

Then Charles Breslin AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then we had a AfD of a biography relating to a member of the “British nobility”. This was the Robert_Murray_Arbuthnot AfD, this AfD was nominated by Argyriou on the basis of non notability. Result – Delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 9 votes – 3 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 75% of the votes to keep from “the group” in an article that was deleted

Again back to an Irish republican and the Martin_McCaughey AfD, this AfD was nominated by Tyrenius on the basis of non notability. Result – Keep, Keep 16 votes and Delete 12 votes – 7 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 58% of the votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Similar behaviour and calls for deletion in an number of AfD’s of members of the Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade such as the Tony Gormley AfD – bios of each of those that were merged not deleted can be seen on the of the bottom of the page that they were merged to.

The Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain received no delete votes and result was speedy keep'.

The Republic UK AfD, an anti monarchy organisation where they all !voted delete for an article that was kept.

There were more with the same pattern at the Federal_Commonwealth_Society| (here is where admin MrDarcy highlights this potential stalk voting).

  • On the 10th of February Astrotrain was admonished by an admin for canvassing and another admin User:Jersey Devil confirms this. And there is an extended discussion about this on ANI.

Astrotrain was further admonished for the AfD campaign here by two admins.--Vintagekits 15:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Start of his campaign to promote the Ulster Banner as the Flag of Northern Ireland

See history at List of British flags, List of flags of the Republic of Ireland‎, [[

It began around the same time as the AfD disputes that he started finished - I again tried to discuss the issue rationally - here on his tale page but was told to "Stick to terrorist articles". I again civilly tried to discuss the issue with him but he then immediately archieved the discussion without answering the queries I had on the issue - and he also changed the font colour of his to Orange.

He was warned for this by an admin here for his actions with regard this and then blocked by another.

Using account primarily as a tool to revert and vote stack

Since 2005 Astrotrain used to make about 350 edits per month to wiki but since April his primary reason to edit on wiki changed from what it was historically. He didnt really bother too much with wiki and would just log on for a few minutes/hours every other day make make his limited of reverts up to 3RR levels - then log off and come back a few days later and do the same. In effect he was not using his account to build any articles but escalate and enflame edit wars and to vote stack.

  • Summary

* bad faith AfDs

  • point violations
  • POV editing
  • Civility and NPA breaches
  • Controvertial redirecting of articles without concensus or discussion
  • refering to editors as terrorists or terrorist supporters
  • Canvassing
  • Edit warring and breaches of 3RR

Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit warring, POV pushing, edit against or without concensus

CR is a British monarchist who is a High Tory who has a more limited amount of edits on wiki (some 3,500). A High Tory is someone who is a fervent monarchist. likely a High Anglican in religion, a classically-educated believer in high culture with a suspicion and dislike of contemporary popular culture, cool towards the idea of democracy.

He is a member of Team Baronetcies and British royalty project, he is a close ally of Kittybrewster and most of his edits are to articles about eastern European monarchy and minor Northern Irish nobility especially focusing on the Stronge Baronets. It is through his editing of the series of Stronge baronets that I initially came into contact with him and this is the source from which came his disruptive editing on wikipedia.

Anglocentric and POV background

All of CR's first edits were to articles relating to European monarchy his first foray into articles pertaining to "the Troubles" was a week into his wiki career and it was on Tynan Abbey which is the seat on the Stronge Baronets - as you can see from his creation if not really about the Abbey itself but about the the killing of James Stronge (Unionist) and Norman Stronge - articles about whom he created on the same day as well as the Stronge Baronets.

Although the articles show POV and a slanted outlook on these articles it was nothing that couldnt sorted out easily once an editor came along that did have such a degree of awe for these individuals came along. That editor came along on the 9th November in the shape of a retired English editor called SandyDancer. He stripped out much of the POV terms and added an unreferenced tag and did more again the following day.

This is when the ownership and {{WP:NPOV|POV]] issues of both Kitty and CR came to the fore and showed themselves, up to this point they were the only editors who had really added anything to the articles. A discussion (the first of many began the following day here.

Anglocentric and POV editing

As well as editing article on eastern european monarchy he increasing began to make minor edits to Northern Irish articles such as John Alexander Sinton, David Trimble, John Hermon, Edward Macnaghten, Baron Macnaghten, List of castles in Northern Ireland.

  • CR's POV editing began in earnest on 3rd October 2006 when he added a number of weasal words to the James Stronge article such as calling the Stronges "an illustrious aristocratic family" and Stronge himself a "a decorated officer" whilst the ASU that killed the Stronges were an "IRA terror gang" who "stormed his anscestral home" and " murdered at point-blank range, while the terrorists set alight the historic castle as a final insult to the bereaved family" and then "Having been to witness to the murder of his elderley father, Capt. James Stronge was he, himself, gunned down" - not just is that POV it is also OR as was "It is this presumed he briefly succeeded Sir Norman as 9th baronet for only a few moments after witnessing his father's fate."
  • On 7th of October 2006 he again added emotive, POV or OR material to the James Stronge article so that a paragraph read so unbalanced that it could be a tabloid newspaper - " It is thus presumed he briefly succeeded Sir Norman as 9th baronet for only a few moments, before he too was murdered by his father's killers. The bodies of the two baronets, father and son, now disfigured beyond recognition, were later recovered from the conflagaration at Tynan Abbey."
  • On 9th of November again at the Norman Stronge article he added more OR and POV with "His murder caused such outrage on both sides of the community to the extent that" - on the same day at the James Stronge there was more sentionalist POV and OR with "His father managed to set off a flare (in a succesful atempt to alert the Royal Ulster Constabulary)" and also with "The authorities arrived shortly after and entered into a gun battle with the fleeing terrorists." All of this was removed later that day by Sandy Dancer which CR then reverted. He then created Sir James Stronge, 10th Baronet which turned out to be largely OR and nn - as well as a number of other articles which are now mostly merged.[71][72][73][74]
  • On 12th of November Sandy added a NPOV tag to the Tynan Abbey article becuase the only source was a homemade website called IRA Atrocities which proclaim that "sinn fein/IRA are the devil's children" - this is the type of source that was being used in these articles. CR removed that tag without addressing the issue at hand - saying "i think the source may be bias, the article, however, is not. I shall add another source tomorrow. the article itself is neutral, really" - if the source is biased who can the article not be unless he is using OR!! We should only be representing verifiable information from sources. The following day CR readded the term "terrorist" to the stating with the edit summary "nothing POV about calling the IRA terrorists, esp. when they gun down an 86 year old civilian...Also, how does the term "ancestral home" suggest POV??)" and again - it was not until the 19th of January that a proper source was added to the article incidently it was me that did it
  • It was in mid January that I found these the "Stronge articles" and like SandyDancer (the only other "outsider" to edit the articles) I immediately say that they were full of POV.
My first edit to James Stronge was 15th of January[75] and I made what I thought here minor neutralisations and dePOVing. CR immediately reinsterted the POV term - again on 20th January removes the neutral term of targetted and replaces with murdered.
My first edit to Norman Stronge was 18th of January again some minor dePOVing (or so I thought). immediately removed by CR with edit summary "Please do let me know why this word is PoV? He did not die, Sir Norman was murdered. I think this is a compromise as it is" wit hedit summary of ""targeted" is a meaningless word. He was murdered. This is historic and legal fact" - which was incorrect and OR - and again.


  • On 24 Feb 2007 more POV and OR and on the 27 Feb he removes a fact tag demands that his POV as OR is accepted as I should "USE COMMON SENSE" and that he "shall cont. to remove it!" - it being the fact tag - therefore he is saying that he is refusing to abide by WP:V and his OR overrides that!
  • On 17th of March 2007 he hads a number of fact tags to an atrticle that he has been "attacking" - Republic (United Kingdom) - I have no problem with this but this is a tactic that he has on a number of occasion called wikistalking and harrassment. This edit appears to be another instance of him undertaking the same actions which he calls harrassment! example 2example 3
  • On 23 April 2007 he made a very interesting and POV edit to the Pat Finucane (solicitor), Finucane was a solicitor for a number of Irish republicans and Irish members and was shot dead by "Loyalist" - CR removed the term "murdered" and replaced it with "killed" - exactly the opposite that he had been doing on the Norman Stronge and James Stronge articles as outlined above and which he did THAT VERY DAY!!here and [76] and [77].
  • On 24 April 2007 he removes the term "Derry" from the Derry article against WP:IMOS - a hugely controvertial edits and one very rarely made be an experienced editor- and also removed the term County Derry from the County Londonderry article - equally bizarre and provokative especially from a editor that is established.
Breaches of WP:OWN
  • On 19th of January CR removes referenced material (the first WP:V reference the article ever had) because it gave a source outlining the reason the Stronges were killed.
POV voting at AfD's

CR has !voted on AfD on the basis of whether or not he supported the article ideologically rather than if the article merited being its status pre wiki policy and guidelines.

  • On 29 January] he voted to delete at the Diarmuid O'Neill AfD giving the reason " If we allow all terrorists killed to have Wiki. articles why don't we give the an article to all the victims of terrorism?" and again the following day "If we allow this article then it is against PoV not to have one for every innocent victim of the troubles in Northern Ireland. I don't think there is any need for it but if we allow this for a terrorist who did nothing of note, at all, in his lifetime then why not for terrorist victims?"
  • The following day he voted to delete Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde at his AfD - simply claiming "per nom" - the nom stating "non notable IRA terrorist- no references and no evidence of having done anything". I would urge you to look at the article and consider if this was based on POV or not.
  • On 8 February 2006 he voted to delete at the Martin McCaughey AfD giving the reason " This IRA member is even less notable than some of the others which should have been deleted. What did he do, except join the IRA to make him notable. I shall echo what's been said many times before, wikipedia is not a memorial to the IRA" - this person was the youngest elected representative in Ireland and at the same time as sitting on a council was also a member of the IRa and on the list of the UK most wanted men.
  • On 21 February 2006 he voted to Keep at the Federal Commonwealth Society AfD giving the reason "It has been nominated for deletion by User:RepublicUK. Why? you might ask, because they disagree with this organisation! A clear breach of Point of View. Notable organisation, nominated out of spite" - so he based his keep vote solely on his assumed bad faith nomination and nothing whatsoever about the article- there was a reason for that because this article had no references outside of blogs and its own website and no claims to notability - other keep votes included - Major Bonkers, Astrotrain, David Lauder, Chelsea Tory and Kittybrewster - baring in mind this article had NO verifiable sources, its office was some guys front room in Canada and did claim to ever actually do anything all these guys still voted together to keep it. The article was delete despite all those "keep" votes from the "lock step" team and they were admonished here by admin Mr. Darcy who also warned them about block voting on this and Irish republican AfD's.
  • Less than a week after voting to keep the "Federal Commonwealth Society" he then raised the issue of notability of Republic (political organisation) as "similar up opposite" organisation but one that CR is idealogically opposed - and the article was nominated for deletion on 28 February. Again this organisation had a higher profile and better references than the "Federal Commonwealth Society" which he had just voted to keep less than a week before this. On the day the AfD started he voted to delete the article and cited " non-notable, may have some cursory supporters, but none take an active interest, apparently. It doesn't seem to contribute anything society other than having a website, which any organisation can have. It doesn't hold events &c" - stark contrast to the AfD a mere few day earlier. When it was pointed out that the references appeared to show notability CR replied "references do not equate with notability" - really!! and ", I am and have seen many referenced organisations deleted. I could easily public lots of websites referencing a fictional society, would that make it notable? So far as I can tell this does not exist outside the internet." and finally and most notably he stated "Wkipedia's job is not to give forum to a voice for different/extremist views. If it's not notable it's not notable!" - what happened to WP:NOT
  • On 6th of April CR place a notability tag on the Movement Against the Monarchy - and the following day sent it to AfD - and stated "seems un-notable, although it maintains a website this is NO evidence of notability in itself. Anyone can establish a "movement" and start a website. Non notable and with no need to be here" - there were no other delete votes and the article was kept.
  • On 10 May 2007 on the Emma Groves afd (Emma Groves was shot in the face by a Britsh solider and blinded with a plastic bullet and was then a life long campaigner against pastic bullets and a co-founder of United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets - loads of references etc and CR voted delete stating "not even about her death. Just about her being hit with a plastic bullet. I was injured in a rugby match at school, do I deserve a WP article? nonsense." - obviously the article was kept but there was one other delete vote and that was from an obvious sock of someones called Sergeant Trotter that make three with the same name and agenda - Sergeant Trotter, Major Bonkers and General Peabody - fishy.
Canvassing for support in revert wars
  • On 19th of January CR requested that "Chelsea Tory" protect him during a revert war. Later that day Chelsea Tory entered the revert war and would later also be canvassed for AfD's.
  • Months later on 13 March 2007 CR still has the same casual attitude to canvassing within "his team" - saying "This is not canvassing, he has not told anyone which way to vote. He has merely done wikipedia a service by bringing this issue to the attention of interested parties."
Creating disruption and personal attacks
  • On 8th February 2006 admin Tyrenius removes personal attacks from CR and BLP from anon sock. Warning given for endorsing attacks. CR then accuses me or stalking him and is warned for this also.
  • Less than a few hours after CR accuses me of wikistalking him he appears on a boxing page that he has never edited before and makes an extremely controvertial edit to the John Duddy article. When he changes the details of the nationality section of the infobox from Irish to Northern Irish and the flagicon for the Irish tricolour to the Union Jack. Blatantly a provokitive and conrovertial edit especially when you consider that Duddy is a catholic from a nationalist area of Derry, who uncle was killed by the British Army during Bloody Sunday, who fought for Ireland as an amatuer, who self identifies as Irish, who's nickname is "Ireland's John Duddy - not to mention the terms of the Good Friday Agreement which allows those from the 6 counties to legally indentify as Irish, British or both.
  • On 10 May 2007 he made one of his most disgusting edits to Caitríona Ruane when he referred to her as "snide, hypoctricial cow" - he was warned about it here he claimed it was a mistake when it went to ANI but had twice brushed that comment off before that [78][79] - amazing the guy still never had a block at this stage!

Grandstanding and attepmting to create and enflame a dispute, ganging up and provoking

Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Conflicts of interest, sockpuppets, POINT, edit warring, POV pushing, canvassing.

KB appears to be a Scottish Unionist and monarchist and also has a long history of editing on wikipedia and has made over 18,000 edits to wikipedia since 2005 and has created or substantially contriuted to many fine articles such as Henry Raeburn and Francis Mackenzie, 1st Baron Seaforth.

He has significant WP:COI issues - KB self identifies as a Baronet and of his 15 most contributed articles 10 are to articles about Baronets and 4 to articles carrying his surname. He is a member of Team Baronetcies and he is a close ally of Counter Revolution, David Lauder and Major Bonkers and most of his edits are to articles about the peerage, monarchy and minor nobility especially focusing on those who share the same second name as himself. (evidence of their relationship is in part evidenced here)

Like CR it is through his editing of the series of Stronge Baronets articles that I initially came into contact with him and this is the source from which came his disruptive editing on wikipedia but that has spread across a widespread of articles especially in relation to his mass creation of stub articles about Baronets and his defense of articles about members of his family or those baring the same surname as himself.


Editing history and background

The vast majority of Kb's initial edits are to articles relating to Baronets and there does not seem to have had any major issues in this area for the first six months of editing. As far as I can see his first editing on articles relating to "the Troubles" was on 16 June 2006 after can was canvassed by Major Bonkers to ssist him at the Bobby Sands article. on that day Kitty made four edits to that Bobby Sands page. In November 2006 he being to write a number of articles about individuals who share his second name and also made a number of formatting edits to the Stronge Baronets, Norman Stronge‎ and James Stronge (Unionist)‎ articles which is when he came int ocontact with CR.

Anglocentric and POV editing

As well as editing articles on minor nobility he increasing became involved in the Stronge Baronet articles.

  • His defense of POV in "the Troubles" articles began in earnest on 13th January 2007 when he stated that the use of the term "assissination" was purely factual and again on the 19 January 2007 when he removed neutral terms Death -> Assassination and killed -> assassinated - the following day this lead to his first breach of NPA on myself (outlined in section below).
  • On 31st January 2007 leave a long politically motivated, what can only be decribed as a rant on the D'ON AfD.

Uninvloved editor highlights that over dimb should not be used here

Editing areas with which he has a conflict of interest
  • On 26th of January 2007 Kb, after the notability of individuals who's only claim to notability is being a Baronet, is taken to task Kb then tries to change the policy on WP:N is an attempt to circumvent this. An admin (Seraphimblade) then warns him about doing this without concensus.


POV move of article name
  • 7th of January 2007 move Norman Stronge to Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet without dicussion, need or basis
POV voting at AfD's

Like many of the "tory set" involved in this Arbcom Kittybrewster has used AfD's as a tool to push a POV and has !voted on AfD on the basis of whether or not he supported the article ideologically rather than if the article merited being its status pre wiki policy and guidelines. (admin confirms they are a set)

  • On 30th of January he votes to keep an article about a lawyer - with no asertion as to his own notability - the article was deleted but other keep voters were - David Lauder, Astrotrain and Laura1822 - none of which give an actually reason for his notability.
  • On 24 February 2007 he votes to keep an article about a monarchist society with no reference without putting forward a reason for notability just "Keep and expand".



Kittybrewster tagging editors on AfD

Canvassing for support in revert wars
  • On 29th of October 2006 Kr placed an advert on his talk page so that those who have his talkpage on his watchlist about go here
  • On 29th of January he again uses the tactic of advertising an AfD on his talk page in an attempt to canvass - but this time adds the note - "You may be interested in this AFD- yet another non notable IRA member" - clear breach of WP:CANVAS


Continual Kittybrewster canvassing



Creating disruption and personal attacks
  • On [20th January 2007 in a conversation with CR about that Stronge Baronet he refers to their encounter with me saying "Never argue with st*p*d people; there is no point" - and so sets the tone for his relationship going forward.



Grandstanding and attepmting to create and enflame a dispute, ganging up and provoking

Re create deleted article

David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppets, NPA, Civil, vote stacking, POV.

DL's disruptive nature is similar to that or CR and KB and he also appears to be a Scottish Unionist and monarchist and he has a shorter history on wikipedia but has amassed an edit count of over 6,000. Again he edits mainly in the sphere of the British perrage/baronetage and monarchy created or substantially contriuted to many fine articles Francis Stewart, 1st Earl of Bothwell and Lord Hume of Berwick however like KB much of his editing in confined to those baring his second name of Lauder and infact 6 of his most contributed to are articles are those in relation those carrying his second name.

Instances of Lauders POV - "It is sad, is it not, that Wikipedia has this apparent clique of IRA supporters, intent on glorifying them, using whatever Wikipedia rules and regulations they can to run up bio articles on them. It is deplorable"


  • Here DL states that stopping canvassing is

" just another ruse to silence opposition"

W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit against and without concensus, POV and OR.

W.Frank is a Scottish based editor with limited editing on wikipedia with just over 1,000 edits on wikipedia and has only made siginificant number of edit in three months. He hasnt made and significant contributions to Irish or British articles and his most activity in terms of constructive editing appears to be on New Zealand articles such as Cabragh House, Nelson, New Zealand, Amber House, Nelson Central School and Saint Arnaud, New Zealand

Gaimhreadhan incident and controlling his account. Adding PIRA against concensus. Making false allegations on threats of violence.



Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit warring, NPA, Civil, SPA.

Conypiece is a new editor with less than 500 edits - and until last month he had less than 100. Since his arrival nearly all his edits have been to the Gerry Adams, Harry West, Ulster Defence Regiment, Séamus McElwaine and Orange Order articles.


Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppets, POV, edit warring, SPA.

Traditional unionist appears to be a Northern Irish unionist and has been editing on wiki since 2006 but the majority of his 900 edits have come in the past four months with the majority of those being to Ulster Unionist articles such as Orange Institution, Ulster Unionist Party, Young Unionists, Jack Andrews, Jim Allister, David Campbell (UUP) but has also been invloved in the disruption over the use of the Ulster banner to represent Northern Ireland.

Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit warring, NPA, Civil.

750 edits since November 2006 - majority (90% since July 2007). Constant edit warring re. UB.

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) abuses her admin powers.

Blocking of me in March to support a fellow member of the Baronet project

Unjustly blocking editors when she is in a dispute with them. The first time I came into contact with BHG was back in March after I had put a number of "non notable" tags on the articles of Baronets or Scottish Barons - the issue is discussed here and the block is outlined here. I had placed a nn tag on the page of Sir Henry Chamberlain, 2nd Baronet - here you can see what the article was like that day. The day leading up to it was much like many - ganging up and goading by a minority of editors who refuse to discuss the notability of Baronets.

  1. 14:31, 9 March 2007 - Couter rev (who is a friend and close counterpart of Kitty breachs no personal attack on me here
  2. 11:57, 10 March 2007 - Although Kitty and I have been told to stay off each others talk page unless totally needed Kitty leaves this comment reading Couters comment - which was totally uncalled for and had nothing to do with Kitty and he had no business butting in. See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=114047280&oldid=114046765 here]
  3. 12:03, 10 March 2007 - I informed Kitty here that I considered that a breach of policy and that he shouldnt page on my talk page without good reason.
  4. 18:25, 10 March 2007 - I was then drawn to the actions of User:O'Donoghue (who I had a massive suspicion was a sockpuppet of New Identity (and it was) by this edit here. I then went through his edits as history edit pattern and history bearing a strong corallation to that of User:New identity and User:Inthegloaming.
  5. 18:26, 10 March 2007 - I found a number of articles that Kitty had created that should no proof of notability, see here, here, here, here all with highly dubious claims to notability.
  6. 18:54, 10 March 2007 to 19:24, 10 March 2007 and 20:23, 10 March 2007 to 21:29, 10 March 2007 - I then here went through a category with a load of people with no obvious claims to notability.
  7. 23:50, 10 March 2007 - Kitty systematically remove ALL of the tags without improving or adding to any of the articles.
  8. 00:17, 11 March 2007 - I began re adding the tag, as I have been asked to stay off his talk page I initially tried to get my messege through in the talk summary as can be seen here
  9. 00:32, 11 March 2007 - My first attempt to discuss the issue with Kitty was here
  10. 00:35, 11 March 2007 - I got no reply from Kitty and he continued to revert or change to expand but I tried to discuss again here
  11. 00:42, 11 March 2007 - I got no reply from Kitty and Kitty kept on reverting the tags so I stopped reverting as it was turning into an edit war and becoming childish.
  12. 00:44, 11 March 2007 - This is where I gave up on the revertions as there was no communication coming back.
  13. 00:45, 11 March 2007 - you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kittybrewster see from Kittys edit history that from here on in he kept reverting and has the "top" edit on the articles.
  14. 01:18, 11 March 2007 - BHG blocked my despite the fact I had stopped editing.
  15. 01:21, 11 March 2007 - Kitty has his job done, stops editing and goes to bed.

Instead of addressing the issues of notability Kitty simply removed (a sign of WP:OWN imo) the tag and a revert war ensued - I made 1 edit and 3 reverts - Kitty made 4 reverts - I got blocked but BHG just gave Kitty a warning. I found that strange so I did a bit of digging - and found out that BHG was a member of the Baronet Project and guess what so was BHG. Surely that is the actions of a biased admin.

here in May BHG using the same rationale as I did to move an article - so she was aware of the guide and used it but admonished and warned me for doing the same

Blocking of User:Mais oui when she was in dispute with him

Blocking of Vintagekits when she was in dispute with me

Editors that should be added include - Jonto[86], Jackyd101, Bastun

Use of General Peabody

Hello

I consider your above comments regarding my contributions, particularly the speculation to my nationality (or, more specifically, my geographical location), which I have never disclosed, to be in violation of [[87]]. I'm sure you'll disagree. --Counter-revolutionary 17:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry my fine feathered friend, this is my draft for my evidence for the Arbcom - once I have finished with Astrotrain you will be next - more than enough evidence will be produced.Vintagekits 17:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was led to believe I was not one of the main parties to the arbcom. If you persist in making personal attacks with regards to my location, which I have no wish to disclose, I shall be forced to take further action. Also, perhaps you could tone down the fascist "you will be next" approach. --Counter-revolutionary 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh but you are one of the parties in the Arbcom! What personal attack am I making? I suggest you go away, stop creating problems here and write your own submission.Vintagekits 17:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall being informed in any specific way. I have no wish to submit a submission. I consider it a personal attack for you to refer to me as "Northern Irish". --Counter-revolutionary 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well now you know that you are. If you dont make a submission that is your own choice. I said you appear to be from Northern Ireland. Are you denyiny that you are from Northern Ireland?Vintagekits 17:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vk; deal with this chap at Arbcom, not here. Add the blatantly false and provocative charge of intimidation to his citation - don't be provoked into mudslinging. (Sarah777 17:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Cool! cheers.Vintagekits 17:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your alterations. I really don't intend to get drawn into this arbcom., &c., however. --Counter-revolutionary 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category

I don't think you really wanted to appear in Category:Criminals who committed suicide, so I fixed it for you.... One Night In Hackney303 00:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good girl - I was hoping to stay out of that cat alright! Vintagekits 00:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to fix this - 18:26, 10 March 2007 - I found a number of articles that Kitty had created that should no proof of notability, see here, here, here, here all with highly dubious claims to notability. - Kitty didn't create those. In fact he never edited any of them until you tagged them. Who is stalking who exactly? One Night In Hackney303 01:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All created by a banned editor also (who he worked along side in his farcical attempt at a RfC) Vintagekits 01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If you're including General Peabody in your evidence ask the ArbCom to look at the deleted history of User:One Night In Hackney/terrorist as well, he created that page to disparage me. One Night In Hackney303 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also in case you haven't been paying attention I had FCS restored to User:One Night In Hackney/Federal Commonwealth Society so you can use that in your above stuff, as I was planning to use it too. One Night In Hackney303 03:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please copyedit my submission to the evidence page. Vintagekits 04:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're having a laugh right? It's the size of War and Peace!!! One Night In Hackney303 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check your emails by the way. One Night In Hackney303 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. this diff. [88], that was not my comment. I reinstated it not noticing the last line. I believed I was only reinstating the grammar school comment. Perhaps, in the interests of fairness, you could clarify this? --Counter-revolutionary 11:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified that in my evidence. One Night In Hackney303 11:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&oldid=158359274"