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

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

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Motion for clarification[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Request by User:Kittybrewster.

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on Giano's statement: It is not true that my contributions are "mostly on the Arbuthnot family". I have made thousands of edits to my name, a few of which are on Arbuthnots. Furthermore "dead in the water" means motionless, stymied, stopped - not deceased. And I hav clearly explained elsewhere the natural meaning of the word suicide in the context in which it was made - namely that Vk committed Wiki-suicide. He wrote himself off. I reiterate that I have no interest in Vk being literally dead; it wasn't close to my thoughts and any idea that it might have been is bizarre. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage to be added as an involved party[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Motion to add User:Traditional unionist as a party[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Emails are publicly produced[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

The charge of threatening emails is a serious one. I would strongly urge W. Frank to either substantiate the charge or withdraw it. Paul August ☎ 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

5)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree, Endorse comment of User:Conypiece Traditional unionist 14:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarify does this mean censure? - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Motion to add User:BigDunc as a party[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Motion to add User:Giano_II as an involved party[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Gadflies are useful. Paul August ☎ 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

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

Opposed - Giano has been a pest in many regards, however, there's nothing to be gained by adding him as an involved party as he has not been involved in disputes related to this matter - Alison ^❤ 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If trying to have VK permitted to speak at his own trial, and ensuring as many facts as possible have been presented is being a pest in you view, then yes, I am a pest. Giano

I think you landed in pestville when you brought in the Nazis and a Spanish Inquisitor, somehow. That, and the patronising, sexist comments - Alison ^❤ 19:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

buzzzzzzzz buzzzzzzzzz sting! Giano 19:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without Giano we would not be having any of this, and everyone could sleep sound in their beds. VK would just be a memory, and Frank an Admin. Giano has been a breath of fresh air, and has rattled a few cages. It was only a matter of time before they were nominated. Every party needs a host, and I think Giano should remaine a guest artist. --Domer48 23:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer = King of the Metaphors! ;) Rockpocket 00:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; he has stuck his horn in to such an extent that he is obviously involved. If he feels he isn't I kindly request he stays away from this arbcom., out of courtesy. --Counter-revolutionary 21:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Domer is damn right here. When is this farce going to end? (Sarah777 21:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by others:

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

Motion to close the workshop[edit]

10) No new insights have been provided in this workshop during the past several days that are likely to assist the arbitrators in resolving the case. Instead, this workshop page has devolved into a forum for perpetuating feuds between editors, reinforcing rather than reducing the negative user conduct that the case was opened to resolve. Therefore, further editing of the workshop page is closed, or alternatively, new proposals and comments shall reflect only new and important points that have not already been made.

Comment by Arbitrators:

What seems to be holding up the case is the insistence that finding be broken down by individual editors. Details about individual editors seem to be of interest to Kirill, so their development here is appropriate. Fred Bauder 17:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree --Padraig 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I think we're about done here - Alison ^❤ 02:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - This workshop is simply the whole problem in a nutshell. A number of editors using Wikipedia to further their own personal issues and vendettas, and a number of others stuck in the middle attempting to act as buffers. What hope have we of these editors ever being able to edit the same articles in a civil and acceptable manner, they are unable to desist from incivility, finger pointing and name calling, even under the full glare of of ArbCom? Rockpocket 05:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Although I know at least one party is planning on presenting some more evidence, so the last sentence is very relevant. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree- Why should we close it just to appease those who don't like their actions being questioned. Astrotrain 08:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't. However, don't you think this thing has now run its course? Have you more evidence to add/discuss? - Alison ^❤ 08:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What questions remain unanswered??--Vintagekits 10:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I've been following arbitration cases for a year, and the user conduct on this workshop is some of the very worst I have ever seen, and needs to stop immediately. Newyorkbrad 00:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Nothing new is being added and participants are being tempted into sporadic trolling. (Sarah777 01:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Agree. Alternatively, just ban the troll from this page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only closed but courtesy blanked. --Irpen 01:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree We'd have to ban about 8 people from this page to get things under control. SirFozzie 01:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Much as watching so many normally sensible people fighting has provided entertainment value, this one's been going nowhere but downhill for the last few days. — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astro, I don't think this is any longer highlighting editors' previous bad behaviour so much as encouraging trolling and creating brand new bad behaviour from both sides. Some of the recent motions are obviously farcical and (whether designed to or not) have the effect of ridiculing the Arbcom process. No diffs presented; no evidence is being presented anymore - just insults in the guise of proposals.(Sarah777 08:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

When I suggested banning Giano from the arbcom previously, I was basically told to f*** off- with the likes of SirFozzie, ONIH and VK keen for him to continue his attacks against Kitty and David. Now that he's also turned against Alison and Brownhair- then people are begining to take notice. The whole workshop has been one sided anyway- driven by a clique of editors who stick closely together. When I try to discuss the actions of VK, Padraig or ONIH, I am attacked and then wikistalked by Sir Fozzie. I think you Sarah have been the only reasonable contributer from the "Irish" side. Astrotrain 09:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Giano has been gunning for me since before the ArbCom case opened, primarily because I was the admin that blocked VK. The evidence is there before you. I've already stated (twice now) that the man has been "a pest" and has been indulging in trolling on here. However, I have repeatedly maintained that he not be banned from this ArbCom case. Please let's stick to the evidence - Alison ^❤ 09:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I'm not sure of the procedure here, but this proposal is a motion to close (or alternatively to restrict), not a notice of closure. If this page is actually closed, could one of the arbitrators please place a prominent notice to that effect? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only arbitrators can make an actual motion (which would be on the /proposed decision page). They probably will not bother to do so if the parties can take a hint and stop calling each other various names. It does seem to have slowed down in the past two days which is very much a good thing. Newyorkbrad 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree David Lauder 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Lets get this thing moving eh!!--Vintagekits 10:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

11)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Agree W. Frank is continuing to ignore the discussion on this issue and is editing disruptively.--padraig 17:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Will not listen to reasoned discussion. --Domer48 17:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, he may be editing against consensus, however that is one of the pages in which facts are not seen to be worth putting in and a group of editors will never agree to it. Therefore he either 1. edits against consensus to improve an article or 2. leaves it incorrect. I know which one is more useful to people using wiki as a source of information. Conypiece 22:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - but he seriously needs to stop edit-warring on certain articles. I don't think his behaviour warrants an article ban - Alison ☺ 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree There are broader issues here, and banning needs to be used sparingly. There are definitely users named here who are primarily about pushing POV, I do not see that with this user.Traditional unionist 14:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree per Fred Bauder. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

User:Gold heart Banned from Wikipedia until case's end[edit]

3) User:Gold heart and all accounts they may be using are banned from Wikipedia until ArbCom's end. All contributions by any account Gold heart uses should be reverted, and the account blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

An indefinite community ban for all socks is more appropriate. Fred Bauder 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Per [14], [15], yet another sockpuppet posting On the evidence page, [16]. I have moved for a long term ban in the workshop's proposed remedies. SirFozzie 21:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the guy came clean, sort it out after this is all over imo. Vintagekits 16:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment VK, PLEASE don't tell me you support what Gold heart has done to Alison. Have you seen the evidence that I posted on the evidence page that he posted PRIVATE medical details about Alison on Wiki, never mind harassing her using anonymous remailers? I'd hope this oppose is just due to a lack of facts..... SirFozzie 17:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Could someone confirm to me that he is definitely part of the sock system that posted the deplorable comments on Alison's page. Giano 16:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Giano, I let ArbCom know about the sock system, and Fred Bauder did confirm that the accounts were similar, he did say that due to the IP constantly changing (but within the same IP block), it would be hard to block the range. SirFozzie 17:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Giano, I received an email from Gold Heart a few days back explaining to me his "issues" with Alison which, incidently, is the real reason he is involved in this case under the guise of Thepiper. Its pretty clear based on this info in that email, how he would be aware of Alison's personal life and that he felt he had cause to attack her over it. As with many things in this case, there is more to this than meets the eye of the "neutral observer". Rockpocket 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Rockpocket the "neutral observer" sees far more than you can immagine. However, I don't see the point in playing games with him. I can't immagine he has anything of value to contribute so lets loose him. Giano 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:United Kingdom[edit]

4) That the strawpoll here be suspended pending the outcome of this Arbcom case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It amounts to an attempt to restart one of the major British/Irish rows while these proceeedings are still ongoing. (Sarah777 10:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Template[edit]

5)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties[edit]

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

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

"On 17:43, 19 August 2007 UTC I made the following comment... which I still believe to be both appropriate and proportionate:

{{{1}}}

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

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

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

She continued:

{{{1}}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good precedent, eh, Tyrenius?

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

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

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

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

Proposed final decision[edit]

Agreed, a key element in this. Rockpocket 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, in response to David Lauder, I disagree that this is the most fundamental thing: it one extreme aspect of the importance of civility and assuming good faith and to work for WP:NPOV, which have a much wider bearing on the problem. Few of the editors here have been accused of harassment, but lack of the lack civility and the failure to assume good faith have been the factors which have turned the POV-pushing into sustained conflicts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Agreed goes without saying. --Domer48 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring considered harmful[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Agreed, another very relevent issue. Rockpocket 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Far too many of these disputes have originated when disagreements have been escalated into edit wars rather than been resolved by discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - its usually over the same issue - eg a flag or a word or a category etc - when need to have a place that we can have centralised discussion and have respected and neutral admins to judge on the issues.Vintagekits 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that there is a clear need for centralised discussion and for accessible forms of dispute resolution. However, I don't think that the the idea of "neutral admins" is workable here, because throughout this dispute the same pattern has been repeated: when an admin makes a decision on an issue, those who don't like the decision accuse the admin of bias. Editors have a responsibility to work reach a consensus amongst themselves (which starts with striving for a neutral POV and is almost always dependent on great civility and a determined assumption of good faith), and what I have see repeatedly in this dispute is a pattern of editors on one or both sides being breaking all those principles, then hoping that an admin will rule in their favour, and crying foul when they don't get the outcome they want. Personally, I would tend to advise any admin asked to judge on the content disputes, to do one thing: run away. The history so far is that admins who do get involved get abuse from all sides, and personally I'm rather fed up with rude, POV-pushing editors seeking the protection of admins. An arbitrator or mediator can only do that job if the parties involved are prepared to accept the outcome, and that has rarely been the acse in this dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Too much time is wasted by edit warring. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as per above. --Domer48 15:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Courtesy[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Agreed Can be tough sometimes. --Domer48 22:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and when provocation is an circumstance, it is not a valid excuse for responding in like. Rockpocket 22:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Per Domer48, it can be tough, but nonetheless it is essential. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --padraig 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

No no no! Retaliation stokes the conflicts: the aim of all editors should be resolve conflicts rather than to sustain or escalate them. Two wrongs do not make a right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy and consensus (2)[edit]

5.1) Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental mode of decision-making, and it requires calm and courteous discussion. Therefore, editors should not contribute to articles on subjects in which they are unable to remain calm and avoid hostility, even in the face of strong disagreements and perceived provocations. This also applies to discussions on those areas, whether on the article talk pages or elsewhere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as a strengthening of (5).
I have just been re-reading this workshop page, and and am increasingly inclined to the view that lack of courtesy is one of the fundamental reasons that this series of content disputes has escalated into an ongoing conflict. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF are absolutely essential in creating and maintaining a climate in which differences between editors can be resolved. "Responsive attacks" (mentioned above by Sarah777) are no better (and possibly even worse), because at a point when there is clearly a potential for escalation of the conflict, a "responsive attack" starts the process of escalation.
This subject area involves a conflict which is only now in process of being settled after hundreds of years of hostility amongst people who live amongst each other, including several recent decades where all sides experienced many killings and perceived injustices. Many editors bring to this subject very strong loyalties and deep emotions, and very different understandings of historical events and personalities which make the concept of NPOV a difficult one for them to work within. In these circumstances, just about every disagreement is a potential conflict, so editors in this area have a particular responsibility not just to avoid starting a conflict, but also to try to defuse any conflict in an area in which they remain involved.
I know that elsewhere on this page I suggested that zero tolerance of incivility was a bit of a paradox, and it is ... but I think that Fred Bauder was right at that point to say that "grasping the nettle will pay off". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (after fixing the grammar) As said repeatedly by the more calm voices present, the problem isn't British or Irish editors or any other editors in general it's "very strong loyalties and deep emotions". Far too much time is spent bickering and not enough time actually providing comprehensive coverage. For all the time that's been wasted over arguments about single words or flags, plenty more good and featured articles could have been written. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agreed, and it's nice to see certain editors here actually writing quality, well-researched articles (like Angelo Fusco yesterday). Gives me hope, somehow, that others here would follow suit instead of squandering their time over things like a single flag icon in an article or the addition of a single letter to an acronym - Alison ^❤ 07:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Consensus[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Agreed I may not like it at times, but I can change things with consensus --Domer48 22:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Consensus is fundamental to the working of wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

Reply consensus can of course produce bad decisions, just as can any other form of decision-making or dispute-resolution, but it is the method used on wikipedia. If editors don't accept consensus decision-making, then wikipedia is the wrong place for their contributions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Agree but how do you define it. Would not accepting references and sources regardless how relilable, be considered disruptive? --Domer48 22:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Verifiable information from reliable sources[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Agree --Domer48 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- SirFozzie 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Vintagekits 19:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

11.1) It is necessarily and automatically WP:COI editing to create or edit an article concerning someone with the same name.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The alternative - which I think is dotty. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is the other half of a rather silly pair of straw man proposals, which appear to be evidence either of a serious misunderstanding of the problem or of an attempt to obscure the issues. The issue in dispute here is not whether it is "necessarily and automatically WP:COI", but whether it was COI to create a series of articles people who were identified by he editor concerned as members of his own family, relying primarily on a source created by a relative of his and to which owns copyright, and on one occasion even going so far as to cite a self-reference (see this AfD). I know that Kittybrewster's huge contributions to wikipedia are made despite serious difficulties caused by is health, and I admire his perseverance, but there have been real problems relating to the articles he has created in his family, and this pair of proposals unfortunately looks like an attempt to wikilawyer his way out of the situation. It's not helpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: a stupid nonsensical motion which, given some of the more common surnames, would become a farce for those with the same surname who might have something constructive to contribute. David Lauder 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may be very helpful to me in causing me to discover what the WikiRules are re COI on a person having the same name. This seems to me my first opportunity to get clarity on the issue so we are all on the same page. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification is unlikely to be achieved by posing extreme propositions which are highly unlikely to be accepted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is one of the silliest strawman proposals I've ever seen. Nobody here knows what the names of at least 90% of Wikipedia editors are, and even in the case of those who've declared a name there's no way of knowing it's their real name. Should BrownHairedGirl be banned from editing Singapore Girl as they share a last name? — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest 3[edit]

12) A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and the purposes of an individual editor. COI editing often involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Note, this isn't really related to the two proposals above, more to do with the Traditional unionist COI. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--padraig 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - editor should also disclose their interest in an article if they are going to edit if - are the a member of a certain political party/club/organisation/whatever (or opposing party/club/organisation/whatever). Vintagekits 19:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the proposal, but not with Vk's much broader suggestion. I have known several editors who have been members of political parties and who have been scrupulously neutral, and declaring their political affiliation would have been a distraction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I reject any suggestion that I have disregarded the aims of wikipedia through a conflict of interest.Traditional unionist 23:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree TU aside, this proposal affects everyone above. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --Domer48 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed: when I look at some of the other 'agrees' here the terms wood & trees/head in sand comes to mind. Can it be that some are so blind to their own promotional efforts? David Lauder 15:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of Wikipedia[edit]

13) Wikipedia as an institution does not have an opinion regarding The Troubles, nor of the notability of those who participated in it. The heroes of one side are as welcome as those of the other so far as inclusion and treatment in the encyclopedia is concerned; This sentiment is expressly rejected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree This is a major problem, where some editors seek to remove articles or information that is counter to their own POV.--padraig 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in spirit I wholeheartedly support everything up to the semi-colon, but I have a slight problem with the express rejection of David Lauder's comment that "the IRA were a proscribed and illegal organisation throughout all of Ireland. There was no "war" in Ireland, just a terrorist campaign by an illegal group of monsters responsible for the deaths of innocents. Glorification of these people in pages on Wikipedia should be discouraged entirely. That is not what encyclopaedias are for". I agree that David's comment is wholly inappropriate and betrays a serious misunderstanding of wikipedia's purpose and its commitment to WP:NPOV, but I would not want the rejection of the POV set out by David to imply any endorsement of a contrary position, such as "the British Army is a murderous occupying force in Northern Ireland".
Could this proposal of Fred's be reworded slightly to read "Wikipedia as an institution does not have an opinion regarding The Troubles, nor on whether the Troubles amounted to a war, or on the notability of those who participated in it or of those who may be regarded as victims of it. The heroes of one side are as welcome as those of the other so far as inclusion and treatment in the encyclopedia is concerned; This sentiment is expressly rejected, just as wikipedia rejects any pressure to take a stance on any political issue."
Yes, I know I am nitpicking here, but given the intensity and duration of this dispute on wikipedia, I think it would help to remove any possibility of anyone seeing any ambiguity here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the use of "heroes" is inappropriate, proposed different wording. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, wholeheartedly agree - when I came to wiki you should have read some of the articles about Irish republicans and Irish republicanism - many were a joke, completely biased and without any regard to NPOV - as I endevoured to neutralise the articles I soon found great resistance, some editors felt that it was their right to have articles written in the manner in which they believed the situation (i.e. the Troubles) was and there was a serious pro-British bias - one example was the Gerry Kelly article - it was this on the 9th of January which was basically was a copy and paste from a unverifiable loyalist website (IRA Atrocities)! Now look at the Gerry Kelly article (which was mainly expanded by myself) - I have not tried to paper over his past its a perfectly balanced article. This is one example but there are many many and there are still many out there. Some editors need to be aware that this English languages wiki not England's wiki. Vintagekits 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Since when did NPOV involve an effort to "paper over" anything? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your comment, does the missing not make it clearer?--Vintagekits 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. Now that you have add the missing "not", it makes more sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Nature of Wikipedia 2[edit]

13.1) Wikipedia as an institution does not have an opinion regarding The Troubles. Articles about notable participants on one side are as welcome as those of the other sides so far as inclusion and treatment in the encyclopedia is concerned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Changed a bit Fred Bauder 20:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final change, I think Fred Bauder 20:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Vintagekits 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--padraig 20:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --Domer48 20:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly agreed but it is relevant that individual "freedom fighters" may necessarily draw more particular news-coverage than prominent soldiers who are part of the government forces. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is the nature of knowledge. In the United States, the descendants of rebels make up patriotic societies, while only a very few British soldiers, Generals Burgoyne and Cornwallis, are remembered. Fred Bauder 21:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gates appears to have been an American. Fred Bauder 21:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point. I find relatively insignificant American Lieutenants have articles while British Generals get sent to afd and described by self-confessed nasty editors as vanity pages. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made one very slight change. Officially there were three "sides", Republican, Loyalist and British. Republicans tend to lump Loyalist and British together as being on the same side, so the previous wording implied only two sides and was therefore slightly biased. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

That is a lovely idea Fred but as a "foreigner" who has lived in England on and off for a many years, I have a feeling as long as English people are allowed to edit Wikipedia that philosophy will not work. The reason for this (I shall no doubt be shouted at for this) is that the history of disputes is generally written by the victors. Many may argue that there are no victors and vanquished in "The Troubles" but many British people share David Lauder's opinions. Though clumsily phrased they are not unique to him but shared by many millions of his compatriots of all social classes in England. They feel their government surrendered to the likes of Gerry Adams and Co. and their soldiers died in vain. One also has to remember their were many mainland bombing by the IRA which resulted in the murder (yes I will use that word) of innocent civilians including children. Thus one has a unique situation where people wrongly feel they have surrendered to the minority. Others will argue the "peace process" is ongoing but I suspect the likes of David Lauder and Counter Revolutionary etc. feel the battle is lost unless they continue it here. I make no comment at all on the rights or wrongs of the IRA's fight for freedom from Britain - but all war is bloody and the aftermath lasts a long time and this one is very very recent and many people are still personally grieving. I don't know what the solution is, anyone who feels passionately about a subject should not edit it I suppose. Perhaps that is the answer. Right off I go to start my new page Wanton 1940s bombing of Palermo's architecture by Allies. Giano 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I'm not English but I am British and I simply do not recognise the 'English people' you describe. You imply that all English editors are incapable of having a balanced view on the troubles and, if I've picked you up correctly, that English editors will re-write what has happened with a biased view - and they would get away with that on WP? I don't think so. Yes of course there are those who don't view the troubles from a republican view point just as there are those who don't have a unionist take on it. Inevitable after all of these decades of conflict. There are people in the US who view their countries actions in Iraq as correct while there are others who do not, but do you hear anyone saying that as long as there are Americans who are allowed to edit Wikipedia, articles on Iraq written by Americans won't be valid? Ludicrous isn't it! I think its time for a revisit to Britain if you think that most Brits think in terms of British surrender to Gerry Adams and Co. Nothing could be further from the truth. What most British people see is the UK and Irish governments who brokered a deal that saw the de-commisioning of IRA weapons and where NI now has a Paisley/McGuiness led administration. I think you have a rather jaundiced set of opinions here. --Bill Reid | Talk 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't pick me up correctly, and I live in London so have no need of a revisit, Please read what I wrote - I do not give a percentage or even say a majority. I merely point out that large numbers feel that way (including my own employees) and this is going to be a problem for some time to come. I'm sure many millions of Britons (there are quite a few of them) van see the problem dispassionately and rationally. I am just pointing out that if one feels very passionately about any subject, it is perhaps best not to edit it if an alternative viewpoint is unwelcome. Giano 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, if I picked you up incorrectly, you say "...as long as English people are allowed to edit Wikipedia that philosophy will not work. The reason for this (I shall no doubt be shouted at for this) is that the history of disputes is generally written by the victors." So maybe you can provide some kind of re-interpretation of your statement (in which you attribute some sort of strange notion of a British victory) so that I might better understand what you mean. It came across to me as 'because English people are allowed to edit WP, Fred Bauder's proposal isn't going to fly because they (the English editors) are going to interpret the history of the troubles their way'. I did read what you wrote; agreed you did not give a percentage or even say a majority, it was a sweeping "many millions" and passing this off as if you have some great inside knowledge of British public opinion apparently based to some extent on those of your employees. Your rather condescending statement was "...are not unique to him but shared by many millions of his compatriots of all social classes in England. They feel their government surrendered to the likes of Gerry Adams and Co. and their soldiers died in vain." Well which is it, the British feel victorious or the British have surrendered? You live in the UK, I think you should get out more and find out what the British people really think. Bill Reid | Talk 08:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of wether you like it or not the British people in a fairly short space of time gone from having the merest utterances of Gerry Adams being forbidden on their TV screens (remember his voice was banned by Margaret Thatcher) to seeing him today entertained in 10 Downing Street. Having been fed by their press for years that the IRA and all its works were revolting terrorist activities who must be despised, they now see their Prime-ministers shaking hands and smiling broadly in such company. Not surprisingly many are unhappy. Many do feel they have been sold out, they would not do business with the IRA at any price. The views of the "Tories" (mentioned here) are not unique to them. For every David Lauder and Kittybrewster who is banned from these pages another two will pop up. They do seem to feel that the history here is being written by a group who see themselves as victorious David lauder and Co are trying to redress what they see is the balance. They believe what their Government originally told them because it fitted with their personal politics and beliefs, now that the tide is turning they prefer to stick with their old views. Our job here is to report "The Troubles" as objectively as possible from a neutral standpoint, and that is not easy when those writing it strongly identify with one side or the other. There is going to be no easy solution to this. No I don't need to get out more, I am experienced in British public opinion. Giano 12:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I actually agree with you regarding Nationalism. I put down some thoughts on an essay at User:SirFozzie/Nationalism. Unfortunately, you're right. There is no easy solution. SirFozzie 13:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you meant in your edit summary above (→Nature of Wikipedia - Reply Billreid, David lauder is not alone) --Bill Reid | Talk 14:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it perfectly obvious what I meant. David Lauder in Britain is not alone in sharing views such as this [17]. Giano 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last input on this because I can see you are 'a last word' person and anyway I'm supposed to be on an extended wikibreak. I see you will not address the ridiculously POV statements which I high-lighted above, instead going off into areas where I have no wish to go, and on the way personalising your remarks against other people named in this ArbCom, even in your edit summaries, while i am trying to get you to address these specific points. Now more silly comments - ...the British people forbid the voice of Gerry Adams? It was the British government, emphatically not the British people; and what did the British media do who you also criticise? They voiced over his words by an actor so that the British people could get to the truth of the situation but i do seem to remember, though, a bomb going off in a Brighton hotel very nearly killing Margaret Thatcher and the entire British cabinet. I presume you mean that " Our job here is to report "The Troubles" as objectively as possible " is that "it's knowledgeable editors' jobs to report the Troubles"; yes then I agree, but I certainly don't hold you in that category. Aside from that, your main space work is very good, in fact excellent, but you appear to have got yourself sidetracked here for whatever reason and that's a pity. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to quote me then please do so but at the moment you seem very confused. Giano 23:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you look above you will see that I have quoted the exact remarks, but you now wish them to be quoted once again:

Statement no 1: "...as long as English people are allowed to edit Wikipedia that philosophy will not work. The reason for this (I shall no doubt be shouted at for this) is that the history of disputes is generally written by the victors" - ridiculous or not.

Statement no 2: "Though clumsily phrased they are not unique to him but shared by many millions of his compatriots of all social classes in England. They feel their government surrendered to the likes of Gerry Adams and Co. and their soldiers died in vain" - where (apart from your employees, that is) have you got this information that the opinions are ...shared by many millions of his compatriots of all social classes in England. If you think there are millions of people walking the streets of England festering and fuming at the disgraceful Blair government's capitulation to Sinn Féin then your delusional. --Bill Reid | Talk 09:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It it humours you to beleive so. Giano 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing like a substantive reply to end a thread, I always say.--Bill Reid | Talk 07:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regret any misinterpretations of my remarks. If I made an entirely untrue comment naturally I would withdraw it. I have no greater interest in Ulster than Yorkshire. My edits to Ulster articles this past year must be almost nil and to the best of my knowledge my comments were made on AfDs, and many months ago at that. To suggest that Kittybrewster and myself are somehow wishing to carry on some sort of anti-IRA "struggle" in Wikipedia is absolutely ludicrous and without any foundation whatsoever. David Lauder 14:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To suggest that Kittybrewster and myself are somehow wishing to carry on some sort of anti-IRA "struggle" in Wikipedia is absolutely ludicrous and without any foundation whatsoever".Your edits do not support that statement, which is one of the resons we are all here. You do not have to be pro-IRA, far rom it - just edit in a neutral tone. Giano 20:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The tell me how many edits I have made to IRA related articles this year. Moreover, as this ArbCom was originally initiated in August to consider Vintagekits 'indefinite ban', give me some pretty clear indications of how I contributed to his ban in, say, the previous three months. I am not a star player in this business, regardless of the efforts of some to make me one. It seems to me that this ArbCom has become a great big offensive against anyone one group doesn't like. David Lauder 13:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, from what I can see you do not actually edit many articles, most of your edits are confined to comment and talk pages where you make your feelings and views very clear. I am not the judge here, or your defending counsel, so you must take your protestations of wounded innocence to other more receptive ears. Some advice I will give you though for free, this is not one "group" as you put it but a collection of editors with varying interests and views, you typecast them all as anti-monarchist, anti-aristocracy, anyi-British etc. - perhaps I do hold those views but then again perhaps I don't - in short it is non of your damn business and I'm sure you know the old adage about "assuming". In future you may find you fare better if you realised the dangers of your assumptions. Then took a look at your self and your comments - a long hard look! Giano 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that very personal attack will not suffice. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of my edits over the past year have been on articles, although more recently with this wretched Arbcom I have felt obliged to defend myself to a minor extent on comments. I do think it is rich that you, who have had so much postulating input to this Arbcom, and who appear on so many Talk Pages and AfDs chasing my and others contributions to see what they've said, now accuse me of same? Pot, kettle, black, eh? Any assumptions I have made are fairly well grounded and any reasonable jurist would see that. I repeat that I have never edit-warred nor have I gone to pages which others have made major contributions to with an intention to bully or to attack them because I don't agree with that editor. That is (or should be) the issue with this ArbCom. Not whether or not you don't like me. David Lauder 17:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell it to the Arbcom - not me. Giano 18:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Giano is wrong to say to DL that "you do not actually edit many articles" David's contribs list says otherwise. Inevitably, the the proportion of his edits which are in mainspace will have shifted while this Arbcom is under way, but the long-term pattern of David's editing includes a lot of substantive and (AFAICS, usually well-researched) contributions to articles, many of which he started. I also think that David's interpretation of wikipedia's guidelines has sometimes been flawed, particularly wrt to notability and to NPOV, and that DL is far too inclined to incivility, and that these problems have become serious enough to need consideration by arbcom ... but I also think it's important to acknowledge that DL has many made many substantive contributions to wikipedia, and I have personally been involved in several cases where he has done very detailed research to try to resolve content disputes. Whatever the misconduct (which I think is a problem that needs to be addressed), DL is not simply a mischievious POV-warrior. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

14) The application of Wikipedia:Canvassing is a matter of degree. Notifying a few friends who are known to share one's sentiments is not an infraction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Partly oppose. The first part is fine, per WP:CANVASS, but I have a problem with the second part. One of the persistent problems with both sides of this dispute has been a pattern of what Vk usefully called lock-step voting. An acceptance of "notifying a few friends" has repeatedly conflicted with the guidance that "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive" and that "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is disruptive point of view editing, not working together. Fred Bauder 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If some advance the same arguments on insubstantial grounds (either way) then that will rightly be taken into account by the closing Admin. The problems arise when every !vote gets challenged by a vociferous cabal. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - that is exactly what canvas is, and should aim to stop - the canvassing on AfD's are the root of the trouble on here - I have tried to advocate for a long time that all of us should step out of the AfD's and instead of turning every one of them into a bun fight we should just let the unattached community at large decide things - canvassing encourages tribalism. Vintagekits 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose AfD debates are curious beasts, they aren't all on the scale of say Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination). Ones about fringe figures or subjects tend to attract far less people, take say Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry O'Callaghan. Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/O'Donoghue the and duck test three out of the four deletion votes were from the same person. On debates with so few participants "a few friends who are known to share one's sentiments" (surely a partisan audience, which is against WP:CANVASS?) can easily make the difference between keep, merge or delete. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment, exactly in that AfD all three delete votes were actually from socks of RMS. Vintagekits 11:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment User:Shyam isn't an RMS sock, and there were four votes. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - your right, I somehow missed his !vote. All delete votes except Shyams were from socks. Vintagekits 11:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose - as a former victim of "notifying a few friends"! (Sarah777 06:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed: Usually editors are unaware of an AfD unless someone tells them of it. There are two ways they can do this: suggest to other editors via their Talk Pages they may be interested in an AfD which has appeared. Or they can email them secretly. By the first option all is in the open. It cannot be strictly described as canvassing or vote-stacking as no-one is being asked to vote one way or the other. Editors presumably have sufficient intellect to make their own decisions as to whether they wish to vote at all and, if so, which way to vote. David Lauder 19:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view language[edit]

14) The use of point of view language by mainstream media does not excuse such use by Wikipedia. It is acceptable that main stream media take political positions; it is not acceptable that Wikipedia do so. See the debates at [18] and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#.27Killing.27_vs._murder_II.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

AgreeTotally. --Domer48 19:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree absolutely. Wikipedia articles may quote the POV language of various sources, but wikipedia itself must remain neutral, per WP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as per BHG comment.--padraig 20:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per BHG. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some thoughts on this in addition. The basic problem is that as the Provisional IRA are a proscribed organisation, any killings they carry out are by definition unlawful. In the UK to the best of my knowledge there are only two relevant types of unlawful killing - manslaughter and murder. Editors say the deaths were not manslaughter, so by a process of elimination they say "murder". However taking that to its logical conclusion the same standard must apply equally to everyone killed during the Troubles. Does it apply to IRA member Séamus McElwaine, found to be unlawfully killed at Roslea in 1986? How about the eight members of the Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade including Jim Lynagh, Patrick Joseph Kelly and Pádraig McKearney, who were found to be unlawfully killed at Loughgall in 1987? How about IRA members Mairéad Farrell, Daniel McCann and Seán Savage, who were found to be unlawfully killed in Gibraltar in 1988? If a "republican" editor tried changing any of those articles to state they were "murdered by the SAS" the complaints would come in thick and fast. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not "in the UK". They are just killings which occurred during civil unrest in the British Isles. Fred Bauder 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we are "in the UK", and it's not really relevant to the point I was making. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree - absolutely. (Sarah777 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Notability of baronets[edit]

13) Wikipedia:Notability (people) (aka WP:BIO) applies to articles on baronets just as it does to other biographical articles, and there is no automatic presumption of notability for baronets. The notability of baronets must be demonstrated in the same way as for a person who is not a baronet, such as by the existence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent secondary sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'll recuse on this one, I'm not sure under my criteria for notability, substantial accomplishment, that the Queen would be considered notable. Fred Bauder 17:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She definitely meets multiple sources, independent biography, and demonstrable wide name recognition, so she'd clearly be notable even if she was deemed not to meet the major public office test (which presumes election). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I have had an issue with this for a long time, the sources are poor to say the least and the claim to notability is to say the least weak. My other issue is that "the tories" have never accepted that one of them was "not notable" if they were prepared to come to some agreement on this issue then many many hours of editing could have been saved.--Vintagekits 07:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --padraig 14:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't think this is the place to sort this one out. However, it does need to be sorted this diff (from a current AFD - the subject will probably rightly survive but the lack of reasoned argument os appalling) is typical [19]. I'm tired of seeing such pointless banter which demeans Wikipedia. Britain is full of Baronets, the 3rd, the 7th the 19th one meets them in almost every English country pub on a Sunday lunchtime, often very nice people but for the most part nothing special or notable, and most of them would be the first to admit it. Giano 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore - the encyclopedia has to be credible, it cannot have pages on every Sir Tom, Dick and Harry. In general (even more so in the immediate past) baronets were better placed than most, through either wealth, title, connections and education (often all four) to distinguish themselves in some minor way (and it can be pretty minor to obtain a page here) so those that have not are very lack lustre indeed. By all means include them on a general baronets page with all their ancestors and descendents but they do not require an individual page to tell us they did nothing. Giano 07:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One the really silly things about the arguments of the all-baronets-are-notable pleaders is that they miss how notability works. There is no need for any prejudice either way about the merits or otherwise of baronets in general: all that WP:BIO requires is that they have caught the attention of enough writers to gain substantial coverage. If the pro-baronets lobby are right that baronets are notable in British society, then then somewhere there will be some some non-trivial writing about them. That's all that's required: no prejudice either way, just evidence that the baronet concerned caught the attention of someone other than the folks who compile all the lists of baronets.
There's no magic about this, no singling out of baronets, and above all it's not complicated, but the arguments about it go on for so long that I have to question what's happening. Do the experienced editors involved really not understand Wikipedia's straightforward and simple notability requirements? Or do they just not care? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should all be allowed one biography. Then the 2 million en-Wiki articles would mushroom to 500 million. All that categorisation work...just think of it..(Sarah777 06:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Affirm, it is a title that has lost its meaning, especially due to it being hereditary - and they're not exactly rare or all special. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia anyone can edit[edit]

14) Wikipedia welcomes responsible participation by members of all social classes, nationalities and political persuasions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Yup Me.. At this point, I would bold, italicize and underline the word responsible, but that's the burnout talking ;) SirFozzie 18:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Although it would be better if they left their social class, nationality and political persuasion at the front door. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and ONIH is right too, tho best if they could stash their religion and other baggage there too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - and agree with OneNight: the particular circumstances of the contributor are completely irrelevent. Logoistic 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed. Giano 19:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they register, IMHO. And this Arbcom has reinforced that view. (Sarah777 06:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I dunno. Most of the havoc here has been wreaked by registered editors and their registered socks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do ya solve it? Rocket is trying to pin it all on me, I will accept my portion of the blame but the thing is that no one else is prepared to stand up and say !I was wrong there, let draw a line under that" and then start again from an agreed term of reference. You yourself BHG have never admitted that you shouldnt that blocked me the other week. If admins arnt big enough to stand up and accept responsibility for their action then how can normal editors?? If everyone was threated fair from the start then we wouldnt ne in this position.--Vintagekits 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm most certainly not "trying to pin it all on" you. I have said many times that there are a number of people on both sides whose standard of behaviour needs to be dealt with. It looks like that is happening here, which is a good thing. However the poor behaviour of others is no excuse whatsoever for the poor behaviour of oneself, and that appears to be your perennial justification. If you took full and unmitigated responsibility for your actions (and that includes explaining your involvement in votestacking with sock and meat puppets, as well as the whole story about the street-address incident, because your current position is implausibly incomplete), then I (and I'm sure the other admins, also) would have more sympathy for you. I entirely accept that you have been provoked and I accept that in the absense of that you would probably not be here, but the sooner you accept that your actions are entirely unacceptable - irrespective of what anyone else has done - the sooner we can all get on and sanction the others doing the provoking. Rockpocket 02:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vk, the block to which you are referring was upheld at the time by a succession of other admins, and promptly lifted when you withdrew the threat of disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion[edit]

15) Participants in articles for deletion debates are expected to base their decision on whether the subject of an article is notable enough for inclusion using notability guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piers Lauder and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir George Dick-Lauder, 12th Baronet, amongst others. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amongst other things, but yes, if it fails the notability guideline, it shouldn't be here. SirFozzie 06:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slight reword to try and keep the focus just on notability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and also support Sir Fozzie's point that the notability guidelines are a necessary but not sufficient test. There may be articles which pass WP:BIO but still don't make grade, such as some of the one-minute wonders who become famous for five seconds in the tabloids. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Affirm, yes indeed, this has been lost sight of in some Baronetcy AfDs. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

13) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

13) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

13) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

User:Astrotrain has edit-warred[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed per the evidence supplied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Northern Ireland rather than the Troubles, proposed new version.

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

Agree Supported by the evidence --Domer48 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

User:Padraig has participated in numerous edit wars[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

User:Padraig has participated in numerous edit wars[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed, per evidence supplied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage has Edited Disruptively[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

comment Checkuser has been performed against me at SirFozzie's request and the result was negative. I am not ~~the father.~~ a sockpuppeteer. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I can hardly vote on how I have behaved myself. I have edited in a less than perfect way. But then I'm not perfect, there's only ever been one man in this world who's ever been totally perfect and they even crucified him. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:W. Frank has edited disruptively[edit]

5) User:W. Frank has edited disruptively

Comment by Arbitrators:

Support Fred Bauder 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

I wonder how truthful "our W Frank" actually is and how much store we should set by what he says - this diff here [20] once contained a post by him giving what he claimed to be his real name - (I'm sure some clever admin can check that) which is not what is not the name claimed here [21] note that W Frank leads to that new name. Even there it seems he is not happy with one identity. (he wrote Amber House for both projects). Not a brilliant start for Citizendum which demands complete honesty and lack of anonymity from its editors. User: Alison can confirm to the Arbcom the name he claimed to be his own. Giano 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

He also claims the citizendum name is that on his passport [22] Alison claims another name has been proved to her as his legal name, it is begining to look like the whole Vintagekits's cas is based on some very dubious foundations indeed. Giano 17:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Vintagekits has persistently made personal attacks[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Agreed. Plenty of evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Vintagekits has used sockpuppet and meatpuppet accounts[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

The meatpuppets were recruited for that purpose, as indicated by the assertion that "huns" were behind the AfD [23] Rockpocket 00:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

In a thread on Celticminded entitled Any wikipedia users on?, Sligobhoy67/Vk notes, If you have used wiki then let my [sic] know or just reply here and I will contact you. I need help with a bit of voterigging! [24] A member of Celticminded responds to Sb67/Vk's request for meatpuppets. This member is called Coeur-sang. [25]. This request was posted on Celticminded on 26-04-07. Coeur-sang's first contribution to Wikipedia was a delete vote on that day, in an AfD proposed by Vintagekits. [26] The date of another of SB67's requests on that forum: 12-06-7 [27], this date is co-incident with Coeur-sang's fifth [28] and sixth [29] edits, again to an AfD of Vintagekits' supporting his position. Maplecelt's recruitment is more circumstantial, but still convincing considering the supporting evdience. This, and much more, is detailed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits. If you are concerned at the synthesis of the purpose of different recruitments, I am happy to change the proposal to "Vintagekits recruited at least two meatpuppets to help with a bit of voterigging and attempted to recruit others for partisan voting purposes". Is that more to your linking? Rockpocket 01:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. The evidence is pretty claer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Vintagekits has made threats of violence against other editors[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

WHo did I threaten?--Vintagekits 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I second Rockpocket here. If an editor gets abusive when drunk, then it is up to them to either not drink or to stay away from wikipedia when drunk ... so the drunkneness is irrelevant. (In real life, it would of course be a further item to add to the charge sheet). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who did I threaten?--Vintagekits 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the editors whose messages you deleted from your talk page in the edit cited above, including RockPocket, to whom you had just replied "Ya'll indef block me before I apologies to a self hating dob loving chunt like you - yer a wank and a traitor bassa - period - fuck you!!! yer a scumbag - I've a 1.000 to fill my place - a stick pn the huddleboard and celticminded will be place you you'll be hoiunded - yyou've suported those orange chujntd for long enogh and its about time you persoonally have had a backlash ya chunt". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Joycean threat that! (Sarah777 12:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(remove indent) so if I threatened Rocket how does that prove a pattern of behaviour. In my evidence I have shown editors behavioural pattern over months - a one hour period when I came in drunk at 2am does not prove a pattern of behaviour. I got blocked for that and I apologiesed and stepped up and took responsibility for my actions and my words on that night - I have never seen any of the other editors involved here ever apogolies openly for their actions and accept that they have done wrong! One swallow does not make a summer! 11:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment - but like I said WHO did I reveal the information to??--Vintagekits 10:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

What you are doing and it hasnt gone unoticed in your every post - is showing one piece of evidence and trying to make out that that proves something else. Who did I "reveal personal information" to? And what motive did I have? Did those four wikipedians notice it BEFORE or AFTER Frank highlighted the situation?--Vintagekits 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After. My interpretation, based on your record, is that you did it to intimidate Frank, therefore it doesn't matter who else saw it. All that mattered is that Frank got the message. So you write to twice to make sure. This is my understanding of what happened. If you disagree feel free to make an alternative proposed finding of fact Rockpocket 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Very weak comeback - you havent got an answer so you have to use the time when I came in pissed as the evidence against me - your whole case case is based on those couple of hours when YOU blocked me. There is no substance to your allegations here and its boarderline pathetic.--Vintagekits 10:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its amazing that you only ever have an opinion on things when it suits you - another example of your outragous and blatant bias shining through!! What motive would i have for "intimidated" Frank? What exact was the threat - dont make up some bs that you heard in a a fairy story - what EXACTLY was the threat? Why dont you reproduce the post/thread here (with the street name xxxx'ed out) so everyone can see the molehill with which you are attempting to build a mountain!!--Vintagekits 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do that? I have provided the evidence that I think shows your intent. If you disagree and have evidence that demonstrates your intention was benign, then produce, propose and we can discuss. Rockpocket 17:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Can anything be done about it?

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

Best wishes!

Frank."

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

Frank."

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

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

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

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

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

You are living in a fantasy world - you initiated the emails - the last email I sent you was months ago - there was never any threats in the email - I forwarded Alison the emails - she confirmed that there was no threats in them - you said that I threatened you house with arson and other attacks - that bullshit - I and other have challenged you to produce these emails - thus far you havent - that shows that you are a liar - and not only a liar but a malicious liar that would tell lies not only to get yourself out of trouble but to get others into trouble. You have been totally discredited!--Vintagekits 17:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can state that, of the emails provided to me by VK, I saw no threats within. I have yet to see emails from Frank, indicating threats from VK - Alison ^❤ 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

They've been oversighted for reasons of privacy. Both of them contained clear references to where W. Frank lives, and were decidedly unsubtle. VK has already admitted to this[30][31] - Alison ❤ 07:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were very subtle, so subtle that I did it the second time because I thought even he missed the first one - no one would ever have noticed them (and no one did notice them) until Frank himself contacted you and pointed them out. It is easy to say that you saw them once you know what you are looking for once you have been told - I did not state what his name was, his street number, area, city, country or anything else - I also didnt write it as it is was his address and put in into a sentance that no one noticed. Why dont you produce the posts here!--Vintagekits 17:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they were that subtle, and only meant in humour, then why did you post them more than once to ensure (as you say) that Frank would notice them? It matter not that I or anyone else could see that it was his home you were referring to, it only matter that Frank knew you did this. This was to make sure he got the message, and got it clearly. And no, they've been oversighted now, though three (maybe four) others also confirmed they saw them and it would be a violation of Frank's right to privacy, so I will not post them here. I say you did it, you agree and ArbCom have the evidence. 'nuff said - Alison ^❤ 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did it twice (within thew same hour I think) because even I thought that he missed the first one. Why dont you reproduce the "threat" here and blank out the name of the street and let others decide. Vintagekits 15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Agreed, intelligent, but no clever!! Gold Heart (Temp) 01:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment, At least I was man enough to come clean on it, I had been under a lot of stress for some months and made honest mistakes, see explanation here[33]. Hope you can appreciate that. What's with the Craic page, or are you just having some crack (as in craic, of course);)), a couple of edits, oh what a big deal! Also everyone who disagrees is a troller, well you tend to type a lot yourself, kettle calling the pot black, maybe. I see Vk is finally being allowed to defend himself on the ArbCom, what a major concession. How nice!! How justful!! Also, it's nice to see the editors have a say in all of this, what a change! Otherwise my holiday here is going very nicely. -Gold Heart (Temp) 14:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

(Sarah777 17:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thepiper 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It might also be worth noting, considering Thepiper's unusual and apparently spontaneous interest, in my actions in this case, that Gold heart (talk · contribs) mounted a not dissimilar campaign against my involvement [34], that was pretty much dismissed by parties from all "sides". Soon after Gold Heart departed and Thepiper's campaign began. Since Thepiper is clearly not a new editor, and one with an obvious interest in this case, I would urge ArbCom to determine whether this account is being user appropriately or not. Rockpocket 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regret, I do admit that Gold_heart and Thepiper are the one same editor. Some months ago, I did try to close down the Gold_heart account and leave Wikipedia[35]. Then the ArbCom/Troubles case was instituted, which I wanted to be a part of, and I dug up an old account, Thepiper, which I had abandoned because I hadn't so much liked the name, and I proceeded to use it for editing purposes. I was not properly able to use the Gold_heart account, as I had it closed, and had my password was scrambled. This was to be my last foray into Wikipedia. So I found myself in a somewhat limbo-like state, and I made big-time mistakes. It was never my intention to manipulate the page by using the two accounts, but I know what I did was very wrong, I should have planted a notice somewhere about my new found status. Everything is closing in now, and at least two editors here are aware of my position, and it's imperative at this stage that I come clean on this, and not cause any discomfort to anyone else here, and especially to those who trusted me. I have Wikipedia at heart, it's really brilliant, and some lovely people here too. You can see here from a recent edit here [36], my stark beliefs about Wikipedia, and what the problems are. Gold Heart (Temp) 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rockpocket is an unhelpful presence on Irish related articles[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong oppose Rockpocket has taken a lot of abuse from various quarters for his hard work, but has put in a lot of time and energy both to try restore order and to give an extra chnage to Vintagekits at a time when an indef block seemed inevitable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

Comment I have not really considered Rockpocket' s behaviour in all of this but someone unconnected with this case posted somewhere the other day an interesting comment that made me think. The editor said that Rockpocket "sounded like Inspector Javert, with VK being some kind of Jean Valjean... relentlessly pursuing your quarry until its end is nigh." I wonder if there is any truth in that statement. Giano 19:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are the backbones of Wikipedia[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:W. Frank has persistently made personal attacks[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Agreed - per evidence - Alison ^❤ 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The Troubles[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

User: Kittybrewster has goaded Vintagekits[edit]

13) User:Kittybrewster has deliberately inflamed the problems by goading Vintagekits in the form of making many edits designed to upset and enrage him. Examples of these jibes include being blocked for insulting Vintagekits [37]; making a template which he intended to place by the edits of those he considered Republicans [38]; gloating on VKs page when there is no reason for him to be there [39]; a comment for which he received a warning [40]; this particular thread was particularly unnecessary gloating intended to further enrage VK [41]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Agree The celebration of administrative action against others is needlessly inflammatory. Rockpocket 16:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Such celebration is inflammatory and unhelpful to all involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - per evidence. I came late into this who VK/KB mess but by now, I have already seen enough evidence. The whole 'champagne' gloat-fest[42] on Kitty's talk page on VK blocking was particularly vulgar and offensive. There was also this piece of vandalism to VK's userpage, by persons unknown, around the same time. This shows the vein in which VK was goaded and harassed. Not saying KB was involved (it was some anonymous coward) but you get an idea as to the extent - Alison ^❤ 18:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see I also received a message from the anon, 3 minutes after Vk did.[43] My relations with KB have been cordial, and I certainly don't suspect him of it. Tyrenius 04:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't me. Not my style and I don't endorse it either. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per evidence provided. --Domer48 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree; this seems beyond doubt. (I like your new handle Ali!)(Sarah777 19:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User: Kittybrewster has goaded Vintagekits by email[edit]

13.1) User: Kittybrewster has goaded Vintagekits by email.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd like to see some evidence for this one. The emails I received from VK didn't indicate any goading from KB. Suggest both KB and/or VK send emails to ArbCom for them to judge, or assent to have them published in evidence here or sent to a neutral reviewer - Alison ^❤ 21:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the dates like I told you to!--Vintagekits 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent Kitty an email on the 27th of May - saying "Well, hows things with you?" - Kitty never replied to that email - until the 3rd of September after I had been indefinately blocked and then said "Really good, thank you." - just around the same time they were cracking open the chamagne on his page. To which I replied to him "You seem worried!!! Got that sinking feeling? Sweet dreams".--Vintagekits 21:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen all that, yes. So, to clarify, the KB goading was the "Really good" part, given the date and that you'd recently been indef blocked again, yes? I'm not really sure here ... - Alison ^❤ 21:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you dont?? No reply until FOUR MONTHS later saying ONLY that he was "really good" - after I got indefinately blocked. Is you consider that my reply was goading then so was his email.--Vintagekits 10:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Alison. It would be helpful if individuals provided evidence on the evidence page first, then made proposals based on that. Rockpocket 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Evidence so far does not show goading by email, though KB has clearly goaded Vk on wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User: Vintagekits has goaded User: Kittybrewster[edit]

14) User:Vintagekits has deliberately inflamed the problems by goading Kittybrewster in the form of making many edits designed to upset and enrage him. Examples of these include inserting numerous fact[44][45][46][47][48],nn[49][50][51][52][53][54][55] [56] [57] [58][59] [60] and afd tags on articles concerning people with the same surname as Kittybrewster’s, articles concerning Baronets and peers, etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Vintagekits has attempted to stir and agitate this pot for some considerable time Kittybrewster (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The celebration of administrative action against others is needlessly inflammatory. (Vk admits sending Kb an email this week that can best be decribed as needlessly goading. With Vk and Kb's agreement I will reproduce the offending comments.) Rockpocket 17:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not, in that I think resurrecting issues is unhelpful. For the same reason I am not going back through vk's contribs to justify and exemplify all the nn fact and afd tags (and article renaming) which he attached to articles in which he is not naturally interested (unlike boxers where he may be an expert). - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to refusal to provide evidence, in that case. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goading would be a stretch! No mention that is was a reply to Kitty's goading email when I got indef blocked - there is a shock! You are completely biased - any chance you could EVER try and put toward a balanced argument???--Vintagekits 17:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vk, I am aware Kb has goaded you also, which is way I agreed with the proposal above. However, I have not seen this alleged goading email that yours was in reply to. If you would like to forward it to me I will comment on it. Until then, I can't do much about that. You seem to misunderstand how this process works. Evidence is provided, and based on that, proposals of fact are made. These, by nature, tend to be quite focused and regard a single individual. This is what one agrees or disagrees with. Replying to every response I make to a proposal about you with "no mention of X by user Y. You are biased" is completely unhelpful and a straw man, since this is not the place to discuss user Y, lack of discussion about it is not evidence of bias. User Y gets discussed under a proposal about user Y. So, if you have evidence that I am biased, please provide it then make a proposal based on that and we can discuss it there. Otherwise keep your discussion to the point, because I'm getting tired with every reponse being about my agenda and bias, when all i'm trying to do is stick to process. Rockpocket 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are tired "with every reponse being about my agenda and bias" - guess how I feel when I read your comments on here - you are supposed to be admin but your comments are so predictably biased that I could guess what you are going to say before you write it. I dont need to provide evidence of your bias - its therer for everyone to read - there there is your every comment - selective memory and even more selective opinions and assumptions. --Vintagekits 18:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so if its so obvious and persuasive that it doesn't need evidence, you will not need to continue to bring it up then. Glad we have that sorted. Rockpocket 19:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've proven it in every slanted, one eyes, polar post that you have made - you have gone out of your way to assume the best in in number of selected editors but have made wild - a pathetic - assumptions about my motives and actions. Dont worry your actions here wont be forgotten.--Vintagekits 10:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sighs and shakes his head* SirFozzie 10:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that another veiled threat, Vk? What exactly do you mean? Rockpocket 17:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - VK was still at it through email last week, even though he'd been blocked. Evidence forwarded to ArbCom - Alison ^❤ 17:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the email which isn't even mentioned in this finding. I'm talking about the rest of it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The four diffs provided above have nothing to do with Kittybrewster, as the article history of each shows ([61] [62] [63] [64]). What they actually show is Kittybrewster removing "nn" tags placed by Vintagekits on articles created by sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/O'Donoghue) of the now community banned [email protected]. Kittybrewster had not edited any of the articles prior to Vintagekits, so how were those edits goading Kittybrewster? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that both editors have been goading each other. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, all editors are advised not to respond in kind to perceived attacks, and it seems that both these editors have initiated attacks, and both have respond to them when they should have walked away or sought mediation. Whatever action is taken in either case, I sincerely hope that arbcom will not allow perceived provocation as an excuse; it would set a very bad prededent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, BHG; both of them have been at it, and have been for some time now - Alison ^❤ 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on the lack of evidence, this section is not about emails. the comments by One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ as usual are insightful. --Domer48 14:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User: Vintagekits has goaded User: Kittybrewster[edit]

14.1) User:Vintagekits goaded User: Kittybrewster by email.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, due to lack of evidence provided for the above finding of fact. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though it doesn't stop there - Alison ^❤ 18:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it does. However people seem to be agreeing that VK goaded KB by email and were then agreeing to the above proposal, when that isn't mentioned as part of the finding so I'm trying to separate the two issues. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Though as Alison says, this is just the most recent example of comments between and about these editors that inflame this situation. Rockpocket 19:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose; this charge is flawed and confused. (Sarah777 20:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose; until we have evidence of this. When/If evidence if revealed, I might reconsider. Davnel03 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The email in question has been forwarded to ArbCom, since the individuals involved declined to have it reproduced in full on wiki. However Vk admits sending the email and admits that it contained, among others, the line "got that sinking feeling?" Rockpocket 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the significance of "got that sinking feeling?" (Sarah777 06:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You should ask Vk, he is the one that wrote it. My interpretation, considering the rest of the email, was that it was in reference to the evidence provided about Kittybrewster here. Rockpocket 02:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to lack of evidence provided for the above finding. --Domer48 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per Alison Conypiece 19:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: David Lauder has seriously fostered the controversy[edit]

15.1) User: David Lauder has made repeated and numerous snide remarks concerning "Irish editors" (many of them are not Irish) and their posts. He describes his views on the Irish problem here [65]; he instigated a thread insulting Vintagekits here [66]

When blocked for a personal attack against Vintagekits he made further accusations against the blocking admin [67] Advice from admins is deleted from his page. A former friend, an admin, is here accused of supporting Vintagekits [68] He also uses sockpuppets and has been found guilty by check user of vote-stacking on a page vaguely connected with his case. These are just a few of links demonstrating an atmosphere of hate and distrust which David Lauder has fostered

Comment by Arbitrators:

I will edit this but will use it [69] [70] Fred Bauder 18:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed per evidence and per his behaviour on various talk pages - Alison ^❤ 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree- No evidence of using sockpuppets and he is never offensive Astrotrain 19:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry confirmed. Agreed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --padraig 06:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per evidence.--Domer48 11:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I feel David Lauder is a more serious threat to the project, as not only is he nasty when thwarted he is not above claiming false qualifications to win an argument [71] [72]. Giano 18:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest that I have "fostered an atmosphere of hate and distrust" on Wikipedia really is quite outrageous. I have not told any lies, as suggested by Giano, and not flagged anyone elses contributions up for deletions based upon my personal opinions or for bullying purposes, nor have I significantly edited articles regarding 'The Troubles'. I have not edit warred with the parties involved in this ArbCom. So how have I become a star in all this? If I have addressed others in a far too direct manner it is because I felt their behaviour towards me was beligerent or unjust. When people have acted in an apparent cartel I have invariably looked at their user pages/contributions to see what they were about and invariably it appeared they had some Irish Republican background and I assumed they were acting together. It may be wrong but that is how it appears. I refute Giano's statement absolutely - I feel I have made many good contributions across a wide range of subjects - and especially his remarks about one of my educational qualifications. I fail to see what this sort of deliberate personal attack upon me has to do with this crazy business and it typifies the sort of behaviour that one naturally feels provoked by. I wish I had never strayed into this Northern Irish arena which is clearly a no go part of Wikipedia. David Lauder 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree- any articles related to Northern Ireland are now a no go area- patrolled by a block of determined editors with Irish Republican backgrounds, assisted by biased admins. Astrotrain 16:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very telling that anyone from admins down to me who dares to have a different point of view or see things from a different perspective than David Lauder is the subject of his vitriol. Here is one of his most recent edits [73] note the edit summary - he does not like the evidence and indisputable diffs posted there. So it has to be an "an attack". Editors who refuse to see any other point if view than their own, especiall those editing in contraversial fields, are quite frankly of little use to the project. Giano 12:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the full facts of who you address before you question their academic qualifications. --Counter-revolutionary 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly aware who I am addressing! Giano 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It doesn't seems so. --Counter-revolutionary 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning? Giano 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning, you clearly don't know Mr. Lauder or his educational background, so it's really not productive to question it. --Counter-revolutionary 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know I don't now Mr Lauder? Giano 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has told me so. --Counter-revolutionary 19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating - told you what exactly? Giano 19:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRA or PIRA[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Even Domer nods (Sarah777 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by parties:

W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an admitted meatpuppet of Gaimhreadhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it's to be expected that they supported each other's position. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of meatpuppetry [74] [75]. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fred Bauder SirFozzie 16:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question whether clarity is achieved by using PIRA rather than IRA and if so, when. Regardless of the answer it is wrong to splash the debate over numerous pages. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Clarity is acheived by using "Provisional" to distinguish that IRA from the ""Official" IRA in the period 1970-1972 only. After that period it was the only organisation involved in the conflct calling itself IRA and so was known as the IRA. The acronym PIRA (more often used to distinguish it from CIRA and RIRA) does not ever produce clarity IMO. Scolaire 08:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Fred. It's been a perennial issue and stems largely from certain people wishing to indicate a continuous link between the Provisional IRA and various historical IRAs, primarily the old IRA, probably to lend a sense of historical legitimacy or popular mandate to the Provos. See List of IRAs for details. Just to show the extent of this off-wiki, see also the other modern claimants; the Continuity IRA and the so-called Real IRA - Alison ^❤ 18:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't really understand why it is an issue, but it certainly seem to be among certain editors. Rockpocket 21:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand what the issue is, because [76], that is what the sources say. The problem is that some editors think it dose "probably..lend a sense of historical legitimacy or popular mandate to the Provos." And we should not let the facts/sources [77], get in the way of our opinions.--Domer48 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it has been an issue and that it has been the subject of edit-warring. I think that some sort of ruling is needed to settle this issue. ----BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have an opinion, there will be no ruling, however edit warring over this will earn a significant ban. Fred Bauder 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed' with Fred Bauder. Davnel03 20:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the "motion" is here! But the IRA v PIRA is certainly an issue. The Provos always referred to themselves as the IRA, their enemies referred to them as PIRA. (Sarah777 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The Ulster Banner[edit]

16) Another bone of contention is the Ulster Banner, an unofficial flag of Northern Ireland favored by unionists. Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been especially active in edit warring over this: (against User:Astrotrain: List of British Flags [78] [79] [80] [81]

(against User:Astrotrain and User:Biofoundationsoflanguage (amongst others on both sides), Template:UKFlags [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]. Astrotrain has edit warred with Vintagekits and Padraig over Template:Precedence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted Fred Bauder 15:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Totally agreed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again it shouldnt be splashed over numerous pages. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion or the flag? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - another contentious flag which is often considered offensive to member of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland - Alison ^❤ 18:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things in Wikipedia are offensive. We have the Muhammad cartoons, a crucifix in piss, as well as a whole variety of sexual pictures. Yet a flag is considered so offensive it cannot be used. Astrotrain 19:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody is objecting to the Ulster Banner being used in sport or in it proper historical context, the problem arises when you and other editors try to push the banner as the flag of Northern Ireland today which it isn't, nor was it ever, not even during the period 1953-1972 when it was used as the banner representing the Government of Northern Ireland.--padraig 22:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - we have been through it a 100 time - the Ulster Banner has its place - but its place is not to represent Northern Ireland of today!--Vintagekits 22:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree SirFozzie 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree And that is why I have a problem agreeing to put Agreed beside Pádraig Re Editwarring. But as Fred says, even if your right, your wrong. I coming around to SirFozzie, view, you don't have to be Right, right now. --Domer48 08:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not only is it considered a sectarian symbol but it cannot be used for the same reason the tricolour can't be used - it is not the flag of NI! (Sarah777 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Kittybrewster's use of sockpuppets was abusive[edit]

17) Kittybrewster's use of sockpuppets was abusive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Checkuser shows no abusive use of alternate accounts. Fred Bauder 22:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Regardless of the alleged intent, the use of sockpuppets prevented any editors tracking his contributions, including administrators who have previously dealt with his conflict of interest editing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I don't think this can be a finding of fact when Kb has stated, numnerous times, that his edits using sockpuppets have not been to contentious issues. I feel we get onto very dangerous grounds by estbalishing a precendent where sockpuppet accounts can be considered abusive by interpretation (and possibly misinterpretation) of an editors intent. By all means propose a motion whereby ArbCom can determine whether abuse has taken place based upon these suspicions, but this cannot be a finding of fact, in my opinion, within the scope of WP:SOCK. Rockpocket 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stated numerous times, but also failed to provide a list of sockpuppets to prove it despite requests. Failing to provide that list has prevented editors from tracking his contributions hasn't it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direct from WP:SOCK: "it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts, or to edit as IP, rather than logging in to your account, in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest (a legitimate interest excludes wikistalking) in reviewing your contributions". Given Kittybrewster's documented history of COI editing, editors have a legitimate interest in tracking his contributions. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have had this discussion before, but for the sake of others who may be following this, WP:SOCK also says "Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts ... based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia." My understanding of Kb's stated intent was for this purpose. That is not to say there was not abuse - that I do not know - but without evidence to the contrary I feel unable to support this finding of fact. Rockpocket 17:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the bottom part of that very section states 'Ensure that by doing so it is not for "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors"'. So due to Kittybrewster's history of COI editing, are there editors who have a legitimate interest in tracking his contributions? Absolutely yes. Were those editors prevented from tracking his contributions? Absolutely yes. We are still being prevented from doing so now, due to the failure to produce the list of sockpuppets. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the section you quote notes that applies to editors with a "a legitimate interest (a legitimate interest excludes wikistalking)". Kb made it clear he used 'puppets because he considered that certain editors were stalking his edits (the fact that this dispute has spilled into baronetcies tends to support that, to a limited extent). Hence according to Kb, his reasons for using 'puppets was not for "avoiding scrutiny from other editors" with a legitimate interest. It was for avoiding other editors with an illegitimate interest (those that were stalking his edits). However, I'll grant you that there is good reason to believe the socks might have been used for abusive purposes, since Kb has since declined to reveal them to me in confidence. But since I didn't ask until after they had been used, it would be wrong to say that we had any evidence that he used them to avoid my, or any other admins, scrutiny. Finally, if these were used in an abusive manner then it should not be too difficult to find candidate sockpuppet accounts that edited in his favour. Why don't you request a checkuser for those, or move that ArbCom do so? Rockpocket 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do BrownHairedGirl and Will Beback (and other editors) have a legitimate interest in tracking the contributions of Kittybrewster? Yes. So by creating sockpuppets without informing those editors it is by definition abusive sockpuppetry. Why couldn't Kittybrewster have created the accounts and informed those two administrators? That's my whole point. Kittybrewster did not just avoid the scrutiny of Vintagekits, he avoided scrutiny from other editors. Given checkusers time limitations and Kitty ceasing to use the sockpuppets when Vintagekits was indefinitely blocked, a checkuser would be pointless to the best of my knowledge. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way. There is an article in which I have a perceived COI. I add to it “He is wise, courteous, humble, charming and intelligent”. Obvious POV. If inserted by user:alternate_account it will surely be queried by someone. Fact. Alternatively I change “Shadow Shadow secretary of state for trade & industry” to “Shadow secretary of state for Trade”. That is a NPOV uncontroversial double edit. No abuse of privilege. The difference is blindingly obvious to anyone. Or should I leave it just plain wrong? - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree in that apart from editing in a NPOV manner articles concerning myself, my father and my brother, there has been no WP:COI editing. Despite what BHG may have thought. In the same way, the fact that User:David Lauder has edited articles about Lauders, it does not follow that there is a COI. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As shown by your block log, the definition of COI editing used by Wikipedia administrators differs to your definition. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree- no evidence that Kitty has been abusive (I can't see how even if there was a COI how that would be abusive). Astrotrain 19:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fred can you confirm that that was a recent checkuser. Isn't the data only reliable for up to two months, thus showing that KB has not been socking in recent times only? - Alison ^❤ 22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Neutral. Without some evidence of what the sockpuppets actually did, I think it's impossible to decide whether or not they were actually abused, so we have to accept Fred Bauder's note above that the socks were not used abusively. However, the reason I am remaining neutral rather than registering disagreement is the act of mentioning their existence as a device to avoid scrutiny, because as ONIH points out there was a legitimate reason for other editors to monitor those edits. I think that this is the only point in this RFA where an editor has claimed to have done something disruptive when they didn't, which was unhelpful in a tense situation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disagree - unless evidence is provided, then I totally disagree. Davnel03 20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree You have to, without knowing what socks they have, and the nature of this case. Why not list them, after this ArbCom there will be no need for them. They have said they only need them to prevent stalking? --Domer48 08:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conypiece[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. This needs to be integrated with those above into one finding regarding Conypiece. Fred Bauder 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Take this edit on this very page for example. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. SirFozzie 21:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --padraig 00:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per evidence, yes - Alison ^❤ 00:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per evidence and experiance. --Domer48 08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Would be interested to hear from sirfrozzie as to what was so inflammatory about that post considering this circumstances it was posted in? Conypiece 19:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotrain[edit]

19) Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly been blocked for edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed, I would note that most of his edit warring blocks are recent (6 over 5 months) SirFozzie 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per evidence from his block log. I also had to block him for edit-warring - Alison ^❤ 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that I have been blocked so many times is that users such as Padraig or VK gaud me into edit wars then ask their admin friends to block me. In all of the cases in recent times, I have not broken 3RR. Alison's block stated "Three-revert rule violation" which was false- and she notably did not block her friend Padraig at the time. It takes more than one person to edit war but this is never acknowledged. Astrotrain 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page states clearly what happened and why I blocked you. Anyone who wants to can check out your contrib log for that time. Padraig stopped short and was not warring across articles (with no edit summaries) as you were. Note that a week later, I would block[103] my "friend" Padraig for exactly the same behaviour. I'm an equal opportunities blocking admin, trust me on that - Alison ^❤ 23:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, here is me repeatedly refusing to get involved in mediating an edit-war when Padraig requested I do so. Here is me refusing to overturn another admin's prot action on a template when Padraig requested I do so. Here is Padraig reporting an edit-war with User:Conypiece; I blocked both of them! Here is me recusing myself from filing a checkuser request on his behalf. Etc, etc ... and all in the past few weeks - Alison ^❤ 00:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, given your bias towards the flag issue, you shouldn't be using admin tools against other editors in that dispute. You have never blocked Padraif for edit warring on flag articles, and have actively assisted him by protecting pages in his preferred version and blocking me and Biof. Astrotrain 16:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Persistent edit warrior, blocks seem to have no effect. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as per evidence. --Domer48 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It's all too simple to lable people as edit warriors, however one has to look into the background to these 'disputes' to see what the real issue is, ie. certain editors and I don't hesitate in naming Padraig Domer etc, as being unwilling to come to any compromise. Is it worse for Astrotrain to edit 4 times or Padraig and Domer forming a tag team and editing 8 times? Conypiece 19:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of Kittybrewser[edit]

20) Checkuser shows that Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did create at least one alternate account, but did not use it extensively. Accusations of extensive sockpuppeting are apparently unfounded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

agreed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear - Sets my mind at ease with regards to KB, who I hope will accept my apology now that this allegation is behind him. SirFozzie 22:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "unfounded accusation" is only fair comment based on what Kittybrewster said here - "I am editing occasionally under several different names". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The statement is accurate as far as it goes, but tensions were unhelpfully raised at a difficult time by KB's announcement quoted above. I would be happy to support this statement if the last sentence was replace by something like "Kittybrewster did use sockpuppets inappropriately, but not extensively. Accusations of extensive sockpuppeting are apparently inaccurate, but arose in good faith from Kittybewster's announcement of his intention to edit under other undisclosed accounts". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Statement says "did create at least one" KB said "under several different names." --Domer48 14:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what exactly are you opposing? The proposed finding is that checkuser shows he created "at least one." Do you have reason to believe the checkuser didn't show that? Rockpocket 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

SirFozzie[edit]

21) SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has not used his admin powers inappropriately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties.

Proposed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse, of course. I think I've not done anything wrong, but, that's for others to decide, not me. SirFozzie 22:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Foz has bent over backwards to be neutral here and has been instrumental in mediating between parties here - Alison ^❤ 22:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - one of the admin on here that I would respect and listen to due to his balanced and unbiased nature.--Vintagekits 22:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed SirFozzie like the other admins have done their best to try and solve the problems on these issues.--padraig 22:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Like Ty, dead genuine. Would respect their advice, even when I disagree with them. --Domer48 22:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. and all the other admins. They should get a medal or be even made a Knight. _ Kittybrewster (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have my concerns about a fair number of individuals who serve as admins on this project, but I am very confident the other admins named here have done an honest job under extremely challanging circumstances. I don't always agree with them, and I think we have all made mistakes, but I do not doubt that their intentions have been good, fair and for the benefit of the encyclopaedia. That is all that can be asked of admins and those individuals that are using them as scapegoats for their own poor behaviour should have a long hard look at themselves. Rockpocket 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Rockpocket puts his finger on it. Sir Fozzie has been a fine admin, and so have others involved in this situation. Tyrenius 03:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed - SirFozzie is 100% a gentleman. (Sarah777 05:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

But one has to question his ability understanding Northern Irish issues? Ie, not being persuaded by the online majority and forgetting the real facts. Conypiece 19:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius[edit]

22) Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has not used his admin powers inappropriately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree no evidence has been produced to show to.--padraig 22:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tyrenius was involved in this conflict well before I was, and even when I was burned out trying to deal with folks, tried to get folks to work together, and was fair-handed with sanctions when needed. No evidence has been shown that he acted improperly. SirFozzie 22:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Never seem to get the advice I want, but respect what I do get. --Domer48 22:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. and all the other admins. They should get a medal or be even made a Knight. _ Kittybrewster (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

".. or be even made a Knight" - think we may already have one of those :) - Alison ^❤ 23:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, yes. Tyrenius has shown incredible restraint, in fact! - Alison ^❤ 23:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, admins should not be called biased because they respond to requests on their talkpage. Rockpocket 23:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse. My intention was to be impartial. I appreciate ONIH putting forward the proposal. Tyrenius 03:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Tyrenius has remained impartial and even-tempered despite the pressures of being involved in this dispute for a long time, and I have seen no evidence that he has used his admin powers inappropriately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed(Sarah777 05:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Alison[edit]

22) Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has not used her admin powers inappropriately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I have learned a few things about Alison in the last few days that appear to demonstrate her remarkable restraint and fairness. Her actions here have been exemplary, in the face of quite intense and agressive campaigning against her to boot. Rockpocket 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely She never wanted to get involved with these edit wars because she knew she would be accused of being biased due to her heritage (and because they were guaranteed to infuriate her), but did a great job in being fair handed. SirFozzie 23:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Alison has shown no bias in her dealings with these issues, and has helped to try and calm things down.--padraig 23:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed She has acted properly and with the best interests of wikipedia as her standard. Tyrenius 04:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. and all the other admins. They should get a medal or be even made a Dame. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Alison has put in a lot of effort to try to resolve a situation where pretty much the only guaranteed outcome was that she would receive a lot of abuse for her efforts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Conypiece 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed This girl is a gem! (Sarah777 05:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Vintagekits[edit]

23) Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made inflammatory postings including personal threats [104] and intimidation, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Evidence#Vintagekits_recently_and_knowingly_used_paramilitary_rhetoric_to_the_effect_of_intimidating_other_editors. As a result he was blocked indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strong Agree - on the second diff and per Rockpocket's evidence. ~~The first one is VK trying to be funny, as he does. Given that editor's name, I don't think VK was trying to be truly inflammatory here.~~ (link now removed) But yes, Rockpocket's evidence is pretty damning and was the primary reason why he was blocked indefinitely - Alison ^❤ 00:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Agreement, though I probably wouldn't have indef blocked if not for the fact that he was on a parole of sorts already, after the sock and meat-puppetry incident. Rockpocket 02:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Agreement per evidence. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Just a possible explanation: Horrible and disgusting language - he needs to control it ! Obviously in in the middle of a loss of temper because 4 minutes later [105] he tones it down "slightly" and announces his departure from Wikipedia. I'm sure we have all at one time or another fantasised about a final edit and what we would love to say in it. Still in his temper he makes within minutes a few more choice edits against those he feels have provoked him. Note also in the summary of that edit the names he mentions as having driven him to these sentiments - we seem to be coming full circle once again. I'm afraid this is what happens when a editor is deliberately targeted because his weaknesses have been spotted. Do we ban him for ever, or make him aware such behaviour us unacceptable but also admonish those who target him - does one shoot a dog who has growled at the crowd of kids throwing stones at him? Giano 17:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like what you're saying here is that VK cannot be relied upon to control himself and his temper, yes? - Alison ^❤ 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! You failed to read what I wrote I said "groweled" not bite; besides which I doubt the goading will be able to reach such an unacceptable pitch after this enquiry. Giano 18:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did shoot one of my dogs the other day. He was teased, I'll give him that, but killing a little dog when he got out of the fence was found unacceptable. It's a matter of degree. I think Vintagekits crossed the line and cannot be be depended on not to cross it again. Fred Bauder 17:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is difficult to know with 100% certainty, I admit. Everyone loses their temper at some time, I used to loose mine on Wikipedia too at one time, now I just switch the computer off and think evil thoughts, we all mature and get wise, perhaps VK may too - who knows. If every bad tempered editor was banned it would be a shame as they are often the most interesting. Giano 18:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! "i retire from this wankhole - i've had enogh of scottish pricks like john, rocket, kitty etc - you bigots are too much to take - slan - TAL!!!" is toning it down "slightly"?? If you actually followed the record of what happened it was this. Vk logged on early GMT, and started a spree of edits, some citing paramilitary rhetoric. I was minding my own business late afternoon Pacific time and noticed this edit summary on my watchlist, which led me to this. He was already on a final warning, as a day or so earlier he had slipped back into incivil mode, and had abused another editor, which was a serious violation of the civility parole he was on. So I issued a block (31 hours, I believe) according to the increasing scale of blocks that was explained to him as a condition of his parole. This led to the abuse and threats above, and more by email, so I indef blocked and immediately asked a review by independent admins. Every single one that replied endorsed the block (including SirFozzie, who was overseeing the civility parole). So, what exactly should I have done in that situation, Giano, seeing as everyone else seemed to accept that was the proper course of action? Should I just ignore an editor's referring to others as "murderous bassas", "pricks" and "bigots", because he is "interesting"? Its very easy to throw around allegations of bias, but it would be helpful if you could provide evidence that myself and John have "deliberately targeted" Vk, as per your suggestion. One would think that the unfounded allegations made against you here would make you think twice about doing the same to others. Rockpocket 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there allegations against me? I hadn't spotted them, Gosh see wizz. - It must be very difficult for you living in such an anti-social time zone but I don't think you can really hold it against VK that he rises ealier that the US of A. I make no allegations at all, I merely point out that VK seems to feel persecuted, you were obviously unaware of this or doubtless, being an experienced admin, you would have used a different approach. Giano 18:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that European admins, who may be more likely to follow articles about Irish Republicans, would likely be asleep at that time of the morning GMT, which is why I intervened. Your statement, "I'm afraid this is what happens when a editor is deliberately targeted because his weaknesses have been spotted", is explicitly phrased in the context of your opinion, not Vk's, therefore you are the one suggesting he was "deliberately targeted". Perhaps you might like to rephrase that if your only suggestion is that Vk himself feels that way. Finally, I am well aware of Vk's opinion. But he is hardly the most independent observer, as you claim to be. So which is it? Are you suggesting he was deliberately targeted, without providing evidence in support, or not? Rockpocket 19:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that, having drawn attention to himself in a regrettable way, he has subsequently been deliberately targeted. By whom is a matter for the Arbcom to decided - I think there are separate agendas being fought on the Irish pages. That is my view from reading the evidence. However, at the end of the day, my view is of no consequence. I may have my suspicions but the findings will come later so you will just have to read the growing mountain of evidence put it together and draw a conclusion just as the members of the Arbcom will ultimately have to do. I have a pretty shrewd idea what has gone on here but like everyone else I shall have to wait and see. Giano 19:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am of a similar opinion because I have seen evidence presented that Vk has been goaded by certain named individuals. However you chose to explicitly link the named individuals in Vk's attacks to the suggestion he was being "deliberately targeted". Those names included both John (talk · contribs) and myself. I see no evidence presented that either of us has goaded Vk. As you say, on this page individual views are of little consequence, though the provision of facts that can help ArbCom from a view is. I suggest your contributions to this case would be much more constructive is you based them on evidence, rather than the factually incorrect and unfounded allegations of a drunken man. Rockpocket 20:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only terminate this thread by referring you to my post here [106]. Giano 20:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Hiding behind selective quotes from another editor? I can do that too. ONiH, sarcastically I might add, wondered aloud how one should contribute after reading this page: "I thought it was just par for the course to turn up and point fingers these days....." [107] I will respond to any specific evidence you have, but I will no longer respond to your innuendo, Giano. Rockpocket 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have I asked you to? Giano 21:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment by Padraig and One Night In Hackney[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably tit for tat. I just haven't found the tat yet. Fred Bauder 16:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

What harassment ?. on the Andrew Lauder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I moved it along with a number of other articles, and put a reason for the move on the talkpages, I fact User:David Lauder tried to harassed me a few days later and accused me of vandalism see Tyrenius were he reported me, for complying to WP policy on these. As for the second article I have never edited that.--padraig 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just what interest do you have in baronetcies? Fred Bauder 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not the first time I have moved Baronetcies articles that are wrongly named you can check my edit hiistory to see that, my interests are mainly in history mostly Irish political history especially of Northern Ireland and the history of Scotland plays a major part in that, are many of the these Baronetcies are closely linked between the two countries. As for the Andrew Lauder article if you check the Talk:Andrew_Lauder and on User:BrownHairedGirl talkpage herehas since questioned the notability of the article subject, and has proposed merging it to Lauder Baronets, which David Lauder is not to pleased about.--padraig 18:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments ONiH's total edits on Robert Gordon of Straloch look perfectly legitimate and constructive. Padraig's edits on Andrew Lauder look like a mini move-war with Astrotrain, though Padraig has clearly cited WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names in his two page moves edit summaries and the page remains today where he moved it. Doesn't look like much, though I might be missing something> Having said that, Padraig's edits, while legit, could be viewed as a dig at the Lauders by effectively 'stripping' this one of their title. - Alison ^❤ 17:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison I moved the page after leaving the message on the talk page, Astrotrain then did a blind revert of my edits on that and other edits I had made that day, and on the talkpage you can see where Tyrenius warned them that any further revertions of my moving of the page, would result in a block for disruptive editing, it was only after that I moved it back to the correct title, so I wasn't involved in a edit war on the issue.--padraig 18:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Thanks Alison. My attention was drawn to that article by this edit by David Lauder. Last time I checked adding "renowned" was not really the same as an edit summary of "Tidy". As my edits showed, I did some routine copyediting and removed what I considered to be some POV yet some still remains such as "To this work Gordon zealously devoted himself, and in such high estimation were his labours held" and "This atlas was said to be the first delineation of Scotland made from actual survey and measurement, and even today its accuracy is considered remarkable". The latter is particularly suspect, see the discussion on Talk:Robert Gordon of Straloch. The source already in the article is dated 1838, while David Lauder claims he used a different source, The Scottish Nation, of which there are various different editions but based on a previous interaction he has an edition from around 1870. The text in question was added by David Lauder, and I would certainly like to know how sources written in 1838 and 1870 are capable of saying that the accuracy of a map is still considered remarkable today. I have also discovered the original article (pre-David Lauder expansion) was plagarised from here, note the almost indentical sentence to "Although best known for his contribution to Blaeu's great atlas of Scotland, this probably represents only a small part of the scholastic pursuits which his position permitted him to indulge in". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, my comment above said that the plagarism was "pre-David Lauder expansion". Am I to assume given your mention that your original reference is "out of copyright" that you added the information verbatim? My edits were over 24 hours afer your edit to the article, not "just after". Making constructive edits to one article you have edited is hardly wikistalking or harassment. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I did not "plagarise" anything. I gave my original reference, from an out of copyright publication, and I have since added another reference, which also has similar wording, again from an out of copyright publication. It is probable that the person who constructed the website you refer to did as I did. You failed to explain why you went to this article, out of the millions of other articles on Wikipedia, just after I had edited it. Pure coincidence, no doubt. David Lauder 14:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl[edit]

25) BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has conducted herself in a thoughtful and responsible way with respect to questions regarding articles about Baronets, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Notability_revisited and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Time_for_a_systematic_cleanup.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree BHG has been very civil, patient, impartial and helpful with detailed rationales. Tyrenius 19:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree BHG has always been willing to discuss notability and other related issues with regards to articles about Baronets in an objective manner taking into account guidelines and policies, while many others have not conducted themselves in the same way. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree although she might have been more diligent and/or self-questionning before blocking me twice for perceived COI. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: A far as I can see from watching this business progressing over the past months she has been as evenly handed as possible. I could not disagree more with Kittybrewster's commmnet above, BHG warned him repeatedly over his conflict of interest and behaviour. She also behaved with patience and dignity when David Lauder nastily turned on her accusing her of taking Vinbtagekits side - again an unfair charge against her. Giano 09:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However having now fully studied hundreds of diffs and having attempted to have a few days break from these pages, I returned yesterday in response to a fresh pst concerning me [108], to find BHG immediately accuses me of trolling, thus demonstrating her inability of reluctance to fully evaluate a situation. BHG has patrolled these "Troubles" pages like a headmistress but it now seems she rarely listens or weighs and balances facts correctly - or it seems reads posts correctly - flashing to action before fully comprehending what she has read. This has certainly led to problems. One of the most simple and obvious truths of the whole problem is that if BHG and Alyson had realised sooner the limitations of their peace-keeping abilities and asked for more experienced assistance some, not all, of the troubles of The Troubles may well have been avoided. Giano 07:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why single out both of us, Giano? I only got involved in this since early July, preferring to keep away from Irish political matters. I stated both of these in the initial ArbCom statement some weeks back - Alison ^❤ 07:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (with an "i")[reply]

For goodness sake, Giano. A series of editors, including two admins and one uninvolved party asked you to stop generating more antagonism ([109]), [110], [111], [112]). All of those posts were phrased politely (and mine specifically praised some of Giano's contributions), but your response was to make an accusation that those who asked you to stop were throwing "hissy fits". It was several hours later, when you continued to make yourself the centre of antagonism, that I asked you to stop trolling, an accusation which I stand by.
It's interesting, but sad, that your response to all that is to turn around and try to blame me for the conflict. This, of course, is precisely what the warring parties in the dispute have been doing all along: stirring trouble, and then blaming the admins for not succeeding in bringing it all to an end. You have above made a series of seeping and generalised accusations against me: let's see the evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: unlike Giano, who states on one of his webspace pages that he is "nasty and bad-tempered" I do not believe that there is substantive evidence of my nastiness. I reproached BHG as an administrator because I understood her to be an adult administrator to whom I felt I should be able to state my case. One cannot agree with all the people all the time. David Lauder 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, one can disagree, but I think that people who want to be treated as adults should avoid this sort of accusation that someone who doesn't support their position "should instead approach Jimmy Wales and say that you feel the Wikipedia Opening Page should categorically state that by and large Wikipedia is anti-British, anti-aristocracy, anti-nobility". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt those remarks justified in the overall circumstances. The 'cleansing' of baronets continues. What about an assault under WP guidelines on footballers, their wives, pop stars, or, indeed, bios on world-wide terrorists? I alone am accused on these ArbCom pages of pushing a personal opinion, whereas I am merely repeating the time-honoured positions held in Great Britain. I cannot understand how that is regarded as a personal opinion, whereas the views of others, and thas all they appear to be, are entirely personal. David Lauder 11:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, it would help a lot if you could distinguish between the notion of a project being "anti-British, anti-aristocracy, anti-nobility" and the fact of wikipedia having general criteria for notability which do not always coincide precisely with those any particular sector of a particular society, and if you could also assume enough good faith in those with whom you disagree not to launch into accusations of prejudice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read numerous comments on British aristocracy/nobility on Talk Pages and AfDs I have drawn a very natural conclusion. Those pages are littered with personal opinions, not facts. It seems accusations of POV are selective in the extreme on Wikipedia. David Lauder 09:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, take as one example the current AfD for Piers Lauder. There are countless requests from several editors (including me) for evidence of notability per WP:BIO, and a huge number of replies from the keep !voters which amount to "personal opinions", including several from editors who "feel" that the article is notable. Other gems include your assertion that Piers Lauder "held the equivalent of a professorship in computing scientce at a major and established university", for which you have offered no evidence when challenged; that a paper of which Piers Lauder was listed as the third author was "published by a university", when it is actually hosted on a microsite hosted by the university as a resource and run by the IT consultant and formera academic Roger Clarke who (according to the footnote at the bottom of the page) "provides the content". Given this sort of "evidence", I find it rather perverse of you to accuse others of peddling "personal opinions, not facts". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't come to Wikipedia to do battle or to waste hours of my time responding to these requests only to see things deleted anyway. You clearly didn't want this fellow up, so now his page is deleted. I hope everyone's happy. Good-day. David Lauder 15:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree that she has acted well but she has also on a couple of occasions has abused her admin powers by blocking people when she was in dispute with them - Mais Oui and myself in particular.--Vintagekits 09:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Rockpocket 18:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - she's done her utmost to be fair in all this - Alison ^❤ 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree- there are unanswered questions regarding blocks on users she was in dispute with (Vk and Mais oui!) Astrotrain 12:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Traditional unionist[edit]

26) Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a conflict of interest with the Ulster Unionist Party.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Our policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject. That includes the views of the Ulster Unionist Party. If Traditional unionist is advancing those ideas that is useful and good, the question is how to fairly represent them in appropriate contexts. Fred Bauder 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per BigDunc's evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that this may be true, it is equally or even more the case regarding COI between people on the other side of the Irish republican divide (eg Volunteer/volunteer). - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence to support that charge. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too would love to see some evidence of that!--Vintagekits 14:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you claimed to be a volunteer once. Astrotrain 17:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The evidence is there. --Domer48 11:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fred This isn't leading up to a "Traditional unionist is banned from editing x articles" remedy, I just think it would be useful for this to be a finding of fact. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree as the conflict of interest in this case seems to simply be editing articles relating to an organisation with which one has affiliation. ie, editing based on interest and knowledge. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're disagreeing that he even has a conflict of interest? And you do realise editing articles based on "knowledge" causes problems for rather important things like [[WP:|verifiability]]? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply How else would I disagree if it wasn't against the motion? And you've put words in my mouth. I did not say, nor imply, that contributions should not be verifiable. But it is in people's nature to edit based on their interests and knowledge. If I didn't know where Saint Helena was, I probably wouldn't have created an article about the Saint Helena National Trust. I'm a member of a political party? Should I be barred from editing articles related to that? I'd be only too happy for this arbcom to decide on whether I should or not. I'm not frightened of declaring my interests! Biofoundationsoflanguage 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a finding of fact, which as I've stated above is not leading up to a proposal that "Traditional unionist is banned from editing x articles". So it's a simple enough finding of fact that someone who is a member of the UUP has a conflict of interest, especially looking at the evidence provided. I do not see how any non-partisan editor can possibly not agree that there is a conflict of interest. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. I know several editors of British political articles who are active members of political parties, and their edits are scrupulously neutral. Being a member of any group is not a problem; the problem arises when and if an editor abandons NPOV, and that can be done someone who is a supporter of a party as well by a member. Traditional unionist may have been engaged in POV editing, but that's a separate issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have, but I haven't.Traditional unionist 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my comment would have been better phrased as something along the lines of "If Traditional unionist is accused of having been engaged in POV editing, that's a separate issue". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a ridiculous proposal and I hope One Night in Hackney has realised it. Conypiece 19:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have added material, and from memory in 2 instances created the articles on Jack Andrews, James Chichester-Clark, Richard Dawson Bates and others. Am I to be prohibited from doing so on the grounds that these men were all members of the same party I am? What is to be achieved here?Traditional unionist 21:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am the only user to declare my interests! For all the rest of us know ONiH could be a paid up and active member of Friends of Sinn Fein! He has no user page, so we wouldn't know. Am I to be singled out for being honest?Traditional unionist 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone for McCarthyism? Let's have a nationalist witchhunt and burn them, just like in 1969..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general you're an offensive little waste of time, but you surpassed yourself there.Traditional unionist 20:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Night in Hackney[edit]

21) ONIH made at least one serious and helpful attempt to calm troubled water between Kittybrewster and Vintagekits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes [113] User:One_Night_In_Hackney/Temp Fred Bauder 15:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Evidence being sought. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence. The wording needs to be slightly different as my proposal attempted to include multiple editors, I think it's better if someone else does it rather than me. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's notable that although ONIH made some (sadly limited) progress in the discussion with Kittybrewster, the peace process was derailed by the combative interventions from Vintagekits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

One Night In Hackney[edit]

21.1) One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has attempted to discuss issues and mediate disputes between multiple editors in this conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reworded to see if this fits better. SirFozzie 10:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - My experience of ONiH has always been as a reasonable editor who strives to provide neutral and comprehensive coverage to articles relating to the Troubles. Its a sad reflection on this situation that one of the editors who has edited Troubles articles so diligently is promising to leave when this case is over, while those that have caused the problems are fighting to stay. Rockpocket 21:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. One of the few editors in this field to have writen a Featured Article (1981 Irish hunger strike other than minor copyedits all his own work and research) on a page concerned with the Troubles. He has made good efforts at resolution but received more than a few insults for his troubles (eg: see below). Giano 21:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not quite Giano. It looked like this before I started working on it, but I'd say I did over 95% of the work on it after that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I haven't always concurred with ONIH's judgment, but he has repeatedly shown a willingness to discuss the issues and to try to reach a solution per the guidelines. ONIH has frequently managed to remain civil and open to counter-arguments when other editors have entrenched their positions and started trading insults. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed ONIH has been one of the most informative editors I have come across. --Domer48 14:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Vintagekits 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose:ONIH has colluded constantly with Vintagekits and others of their Ilk in provoking other editors and making sneering remarks on AfDs, so provocative that he elicits a frank response. This is then attacked as uncivil etc. All carefully done. He demonstrates his determined belligerence by pages in his webspace on WP where he carefully puts together other editor's remarks taken entirely out of context. I would say he is as much a troublemaker as Vintagekits. David Lauder 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think comments on AfDs do not come more sneering than this one by you, David Lauder [114]. Giano 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevent, Giano - we are discussing OneNight. Logoistic 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with David. He left the project in a huff only a few months ago, with a series of derogatory insults against editors only to return to cause trouble in this arbcom. Has claimed to have left the project again but still appears to be editing. "Friendships" with admins Alison and Sir Fozzie allows him to attack other editors with impunity. He pursues a distinct anti British tone in talk page conversations, attacking established British figureheads and conventions. Astrotrain 12:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Friendships" with admins Alison and Sir Fozzie allows him to attack other editors with impunity - I'd like to see some evidence for this statement, please - Alison ^❤ 14:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a change of pace, you know, actually supporting one of their charges with valid evidence? I might even faint from shock if they follow through, for once. SirFozzie 14:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although I think OneNight is one of the most rational editors in this cable and I hold him in very high regard, he clearly does not have the confidence of many of the 'Tories' or 'Unionists'. And can we ask why? The evidence page shows OneNight has made unecessary comments, such as linking DFTT to TU during a discussion and not assuming good faith (see TU's evidence), and making crude comments about the British monarchy (I'm not so keen on them myself, but I certainly wouldn't start bashing on about "the ginger lover"). Of course, they're not as severe as some, but enough to garner mistrust, and enough to mean he isn't a suitable mediator. The claim that Alison and Sir Fozzie are 'friends' of his (in that they give him undue favours) is harder to proove - there is little evidence on the evidence page. But for an admin to start saying "I might even faint from shock" when the evidence page clearly does show evidence for at least part of the assertion, using the generalising 'they' so broadly (give people an abject and you usually find they climb in), and putting forward such a proposal (what exactly is the purpose again?) in light of the above and the clear divisiveness is also not helpful in garnering trust. Logoistic 23:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on previous experience, you're more likely to see the Pope at Ibrox. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a helpful comment, OneNight. Logoistic 00:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Disagree, one only has to look at his attitude towards my proposal to finding a solution on this talkpage. He has a set POV and I have yet to see him edit in a way that does not push it. Conypiece 19:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree ONIH is one of the most productive editors on these articles and has always discussed changes on talk pages and tried to reach agreement in disputes.--Padraig 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability hurdle[edit]

22) There is a far higher (and deeply regrettable) notability hurdle for deceased British soldiers than for (particularly American) living sports people.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, many trivial matters are "notable", many significant matters are not. We are a mirror of society's knowledge, such as it is. Fred Bauder 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand that the byways and alleyways that make up Notability can seem byzantine at time. I do not think that the proposal really would apply in this case. I do think that if User:Kittybrewster has issues with Notability, there is always discussion on that page's talk page to clarify and try to simplify. SirFozzie 11:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem relevant. Given my county's long and bloody history the number of dead soldiers is bound to be substantially higher than the number of living American sports people, so the bar will obviously be higher. The proposal only seems to say "Notability criteria vary for different groups of people", and that's to be expected due to their differing accomplishments. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

For the benefit of anyone totally confused as to why Kittybrewster has made this proposal it is because he has written a long series of short stubs on non-notable members of his family, many of these were officers in various branches of the British armed forces. The pages of those who had distinguished themselves were retained but the many who had not were deleted. Numerous editors commented on the deletion pages a small minority of those editors included some of the names involved in this case. I'm unsure of the point Kittybrewster is trying to make here but whatever it is this page is clearly the wrong place for it. We are not here to debate what makes a subject noteworthy enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Giano 13:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "tories"[edit]

23) David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Major Bonkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and a few others take a "tory" viewpoint with respect to nominations for deletion, see User:One Night In Hackney/Temp.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support as the evidence shows. I would also suggest that while User:David Lauder accuses others of personal attacks, that he does not drift in to the realm of personal attacks himself. SirFozzie 20:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this group seem reluctant to follow wikipedia guidelines, repeatedly making assertions not supported by guidelines, such as that all baronets are automatically notable by virtue of their title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ample evidence to show this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm not sure that "Tory" is the correct word for them but their mass voting pattern has been proven countless times over the last few months. Giano 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two current examples of what some would call a mass voting pattern, to support this.. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piers Lauder‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir George Dick-Lauder, 12th Baronet‎. SirFozzie 00:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Mass voting pattern" that ignores notability guidelines in addition. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Supported by evidence.--Domer48 14:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what does tory mean in this context? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In this context it is an easy tag used decribe a group of editor - predominantly Scottish, predominantly monarchists, predominantly unionist, predominantly with traditional British view points - possibly High Tories would have been a better description but it is purely a convieniant tag so I wouldnt get hung up on it so much.--Vintagekits 11:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then - Oppose. False assumptions made. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit of it is false with respect to yourself?--Vintagekits 15:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment: "Mass voting pattern"? Is that a joke? Do you mean like the list of "supports" and the two comments, above? I thought so. Just wanted to be clear. David Lauder 15:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Apart from the line-up of the usual suspects supporting each other here, I wish to say that I have never edited on Wikipedia in a political manner. I don't recall ever flagging any article for deletion. As for ONIH's little smear sheet, such totally out of all context comments are, when displayed in this manner, beneath contempt. David Lauder 20:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, it is not about nominating aricles for deletion, most editors here write for years and never have an article nominated for deletion. Why do you think so many of yours and Kittybrewster's are nominated in the first place? Secondly, please stop insulting ONIH "smear sheet" and such comments are only confirming the charges made against you, as are your comments and those of your friends on the current AFD pages. Giano 06:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read the proposal as relating to participation in XfDs, not just to nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support There is plenty of evidence to support this.--Padraig 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "republicans"[edit]

24) Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a few others take a "republican" viewpoint with respect to nominations for deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Substituted republican for socialist

Comment by parties:

Proposed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object due to lack of evidence, and object to my inclusion per this and this which prove I have nominated IRA (and Continuity IRA) members for deletion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This proposal appears to assume that Irish Republicanism is a socialist movement. There are socialist strands within Irish Republicanism, but it's misleading to equate the two concepts in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree- Astrotrain 22:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:37, 17 September

Oppose - I am a republican as I believe in democracy and the right of the people to rule equally, however I am not a socialist so that is a flawed argument.--Vintagekits 07:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think I have ever nominated any articles for Afd, and of those that I have voted on my vote was based purely on the notability of the person.--Padraig 12:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also another obvious member of that group. Conypiece 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I may be abstaining from voting yet i would just like to state that a republican doesn't equate to being a socialist. A republican minded person can be the exact opposite to a socialist and vis versa. A unionist party can also be a socialist party, for example the Progressive Unionist Party i've seen a couple of websites claim to be a socialist party as it caters towards the unionist working-class population.

Mabuska 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "unionists"[edit]

25) Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 23:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Counter-revolutionary[edit]

26) Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) takes a partisan position with respect to The Troubles [115] and with respect to the notability of baronets [116], at times he has edited carelessly Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Evidence#Response_to_evidence_presented_by_Vintagekits, see User_talk:Vintagekits#Counter-revolutionary_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_deleted_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29_edit_warring.2C_POV_pushing.2C_edit_against_or_without_concensus

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 02:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment can you please clarify what you are trying to say here. thank you. Vintagekits 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought the link was useful. You have done a great deal of good work. Fred Bauder 18:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's just a place-holder for later. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He has created and edited a number of useful articles, for example on the Stronge family. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

My comments here could just as easily apply to the sections below concerning this editor. My view is that he is merely a support player to Kitytybrewster and David Lauder. So banal and repetetive of the others are some of his edits I have at times wondered if he is their joint sock. He probably is not. Like the other bit player User: Major Bonkers his is very much a supporting role, basically he is Bertie Wooster. He makes comments like these [117], [118] belittling User: Domer48 in an AFD. I think he was blocked for these edits. Without the other two he is no threat to the project. What to do with him? I doubt there are enough mentors to go around - if someone wants to suggest it, probably just ban him from Irish related pages for a year and forget about him - the same goes for User: Major Bonkers. Giano 19:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find his comments here thoughtful. He is certainly a distinct personality. Fred Bauder 19:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right. I can't help feeling he is just the little boy in the gang anxious to please. Giano 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it necessary for you to comment on everything everywhere, and in such a rude sneering manner? Have you read WP:CIVIL? David Lauder 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David, but asking User:Giano II not to adopt a superior, sneering tone would be like to ask the wind to stop blowing! --Counter-revolutionary 15:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the Caped Crusader and the Boy Wonder again. Giano 15:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, these sorts of comments are not helping. Namecalling is never constructive. If you can't be civil in your references to other editors, you should keep your comments restricted to discussing their contributions. Rockpocket 19:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namecalling? - Moi? The Dynamic Duo were my childhood heroes. Batman and Boy Wonder flying along in the batmobile seeing off all manner of evil. I'm full of nothing but admiration for them - can you not see the similarity - have you no imagination Rockpocket? Giano 20:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the evidence, however unflattering, the similarity is quite striking. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 20:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with certain participants then come out and say so, but please stop making sarcastic jibes and then claiming "innocent observer" status when asked to elaborate on the issue. Its tedious. And that goes for your sidekick too. Rockpocket 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It got tedious long ago! In my opinion Giano is very much involved, and ought be recognised as such. --Counter-revolutionary 21:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the benefit in making him an involved party? I doubt we'll see any evidence presented to support any allegations, just the usual finger pointing and arm waving more than likely. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is behaving as such. --Counter-revolutionary 09:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Counter-revolutionary has edited without regard to NPOV[edit]

23) Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited in a manner that is without regard to WP:NPOV per evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed As I wanted to try and focus on recent editing I hadn't looked too far back in his contribution history, but I find the histories of the Norman Stronge and James Stronge (Unionist) articles to be quite disturbing. Admittedly those edits are very old, but his continued changing of "killed" to "murdered" despite the agreement on the Village Pump is problematic in particular this edit. Frank Brooke was killed during the Irish War of Independence, calling that a murder is hopelessly POV. Even ignoring the killed/murdered situation there's the usual flowerly language that tends to creep into articles edited by the "tories" - renowned, illustrious, decorated etc etc. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed real POV. --Domer48 15:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Counter-revolutionary has Edited Disruptively[edit]

23.1) Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited in a distruptive manner to cause of enflame disagreements per evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support per evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Counter-revolutionary has made persistant personal attacks[edit]

23.1) Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has on a number of occasions made uncivil and personal attacks and aided in creating a climate of disruption per evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support per evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Counter-revolutionary has abused the AfD process by !voting in a partisan manner and by canvassing[edit]

23.2) Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used the AfD process as a tool to push an agenda and has disrupted this process with partisan !voting and canvassing perevidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support per evidence. In addition while this may not be against the letter of canvassing, it's against the spirit of it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it is not against the letter of canvassing. What is against the spirit of things, however, is to nominate numerous articles which a particular user has created/taken a great interest in whilst the said user is incapacitated. --Counter-revolutionary 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You were blocked for 24 hours, AfD debates run for five days. Can you explain the problem? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Point of view language (2)[edit]

24) A number of civilians associated with the British establishment were killed in Ireland during the Irish struggle for independence and civil rights. There has been edit warring over whether these killings should be characterized as murder [119], see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Evidence#Counter-revolutionary_has_ignored_WP:NPOV for a number of examples involving Counter-Revolutionary.

There has also been edit warring over characterization of fighters for Irish independence and civil rights as either guerillas or terrorists, edit by Astrotrain.

An edit where a Catholic civilian was killed: [120].

See the debates at [121] and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#.27Killing.27_vs._murder_II.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment The "one instance where a Catholic civilian was killed" is probably just referring to the one article dispute rather than one killing, so could do with re-wording to avoid ambiguity. Finucane is one of the most high-profile victims but there's also Rosemary Nelson and hundreds of other Catholic civilians who were killed by Loyalist paramilitaries. Also on killed versus murdered there was a lengthy discussion over at the Village Pump ([122]) where the outcome was to use "x was killed" and (if appropriate) "y was convicted of murder", and naturally this doesn't prevent information like Norman Stronge#Reactions being included in the article as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some additional thoughts on this. The basic problem is that as the Provisional IRA are a proscribed organisation, any killings they carry out are by definition unlawful. In the UK to the best of my knowledge there are only two relevant types of unlawful killing - manslaughter and murder. Editors say the deaths were not manslaughter, so by a process of elimination they say "murder". However taking that to its logical conclusion the same standard must apply equally to everyone killed during the Troubles. Does it apply to IRA member Séamus McElwaine, found to be unlawfully killed at Roslea in 1986? How about the eight members of the Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade including Jim Lynagh, Patrick Joseph Kelly and Pádraig McKearney, who were found to be unlawfully killed at Loughgall in 1987? How about IRA members Mairéad Farrell, Daniel McCann and Seán Savage, who were found to be unlawfully killed in Gibraltar in 1988? If a "republican" editor tried changing any of those articles to state they were "murdered by the SAS" the complaints would come in thick and fast. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A similar POV language war occurred over the description of IRA prisoners as being "jailed for terrorism" and being "prisoners of war", mainly on the basis of adding individuals to categories (See here, here and here.) This is pretty much the only occasion where I got directly involved in content with regards to the Troubles (rather than just trying to keep editors from fighting with each other). Incidently, while the usual suspects maintained their extreme POV positions, a number of parties were able and willing to work reasonably on this to reach a NPOV solution, most notably Scolaire (talk · contribs) and Scalpfarmer (talk · contribs). By working with these editors, and marginalising the POV warriors, we were able to come up with a Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles, which I intend to enact on the conclusion of this case. Rockpocket 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is a huge problem arising (maybe as an unintended consequence) of Wiki's rules; in en-Wiki a systematic bias exists in favour of the "establishment" line because of the preponderance of reliability and citability given to the main-stream western media. NI Ireland is a classic example; the media establishment were overwhelmingly anti-Republican to a degree never reflected in votes or opinion polls of views of NI nationalists. Further, the press was actively censored by Governments; yet the censored and biased press can be used to "verify" things (without being POV!!!) while uncensored Republican publications are not regarded as "reliable". We all know that you don't get a highly paid job in Fox or The Sun if you don't push the Murdoch pov; yet by Wiki rules one of his hirelings is a credible witness! It is bizarre; and only the total banning of loaded words like "murder", "criminal" or other loaded and/or legal terms - and the use instead of neutral terms like "killed" - can go some way towards toning down the bias. (Sarah777 06:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What you say may be true in practice, as Wikipedia policies are not always fully applied in a sophisticated way, but the mainstream sources you describe are not reliable sources for the information you describe due to obvious bias. I suppose by saying this I am just making more work for myself, but that's the situation. Fred Bauder 13:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed solution is usually appropriate. Fred Bauder 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a highly contentious subject. What does "British establishment" mean? Do you mean the government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland? (Isn't Alaska part of the USA?) My question must be this: do Wikipedians believe in the pursuit of violence for political ends? If so that must mean that terrorists world-wide are OK then? Irish independence? The Irish Republic got independence in 1922 when 82% of the people in Ulster said they wished to remain in the UK. Since then the Eire government has amended their constitution dropping all claim to Northern Ireland. Civil Rights? I understand that as many republicans live in council houses in Ulster as loyalists. (Both at the expense of the British taxpayer). Correct me if I am wrong but don't we all have the same laws applied to us in court? I know of two middle-aged Roman Catholic barristers in Belfast who have practised there for years. I am sorry but I feel that North Americans sometime see Ulster events through green-tinted glasses. Lots of people don't like the countries they live in. They emigrate. They don't kill people. David Lauder 18:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - *groans**sighs* - now can people see the one eyed logic and POV that I have encountered for the past number of months. --Vintagekits 13:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment David Lauder has set out his Point of View, to which he is quite entitled, but the problem is that he doesn't acknowledge that it is just that: a point of view. Is there any simple way of explaining the simple concepts in WP:NPOV for the benefit of those who don't understand the existing guideline? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please point out what I have just said which is not factual. You might then add what the POV is you refer to. David Lauder 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: David, I'm not going to unpick all those simplistic comments, but if you really think that your brief reference to the civil rights in Northern Ireland is anything other than a partisan view, please do some reading, and you will find that council housing was one of the major issues in the lead-up to The Troubles. I'm not going to venture a view on who was right on that issue, but if you want to argue that council housing is a non-issue, then you are placing yourself on one side of a bitter dispute.
Similarly, you ask "do Wikipedians believe in the pursuit of violence for political ends?". How many times does it need to be explained to you that WP:NPOV requires wikipedia to neither support nor oppose things, but to record them? Wikipedia should be neutral in its reporting of political violence anywhere, whether in Northern Ireland or Scotland or Iraq or Burma or Afghanistan. You have brought a lot of valuable research, but there have now been dozens of comments which show you do not seem able to understand the whole concept of NPOV, and I can only plead with you to start some serious study of the concept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm beginning to think David Lauder is a slightly lost cause when it comes to NPOV after seeing this, as he seems to think internationally known elected MPs such as Bobby Sands should not be covered in an encyclopedia. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me here "Lots of people don't like the countries they live in. They emigrate. They don't kill people." This is trite and simplistic, but it is also hyper-provocative language. That is OK by me if we can all do it, but I have been forbidden by an Arbcom for making analogous but much less offensive remarks than that about a state that "believes in the pursuit of violence for political ends" and as for the question of people emigtrating from their own country if they don't like the violent Government...... (Sarah777 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I was not attempting to be provocative at all. I felt I was just stating simple facts. The history of emigration from Europe of millions of people because of a variety of reasons, but often because they did not like the regime's they lived under is self-evident. All States will defend themselves against terrorism, surely? If there were gunmen all over the streets of Leeds fighting for a cause they regarded as righteous what do you think the government would do? David Lauder 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are they still called "Council Houses"? - I must do a page on the style sometime - uniform porches I recall. Actually David you are making your comments as someone who has sat pretty in "middle England" all his life, in a lot of places in the world people do fight to defend their country and beliefs. Your country has never been invaded (let's forget 1066). You don't know what it is to have both German and British bullet marks on the drawing room boiseries both inflicted in the same year. So please spare us the histrionics. Oh and before you say I am anti-British I have both British and American blood! Giano 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone in Northern Ireland had German and British bullet marks in their drawing rooms both inflicted in the same year either. --Counter-revolutionary 23:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits is argumentative and combative[edit]

23) User:Vintagekits automatically and invariably combatively argues against propositions put forward by "the tories". eg re goldheart

Oppose - the guy came clean, sort it out after this is all over imo. Vintagekits 16:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What evidence? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - He's provided no evidence but I will admit it, also I see nothing wrong with that per say - but if each and all editors were treated the same going forward and clear guidelines FOR ALL were laided out then I see no problem. But as for the statement automatically and invariably combatively argues against propositions put forward by "the tories". - well I disagree with that and consider it a little sneaky that that pov was added to a header that was misleading.--Vintagekits 19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified agree - Well, yes, he is, and the evidence is in his contrib history. However, I must disagree with the "automatically and invariably combatively argues against propositions put forward by "the tories"" bit. I'm not seeing evidence for that rather sweeping statement - Alison ^❤ 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's my point. It's all well and good the people with experience of the case knowing that somewhere in his many contributions the evidence may exist, but unless the ArbCom can see the evidence it's a waste of time proposing this as a finding of fact. The constant proposals and accusations made by a number of parties without any supporting diffs as evidence is getting quite frustrating. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Argumentative is great as we need to expound arguments to reach consensus, combative is, IMO, necessary in the current climate of wikipedia. its like aggression can mean negative or in the context of corporate culture can be positive and neither argumentative nor combative are per se bad, SqueakBox 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Aggression is good?" - ah, nope. This is supposed to be a collaborative environment. Aggression, corporate-style or no, isn't really desirable, IMO - Alison ^❤ 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. Must be seen in context of the deliberate provocation Vk is constantly subjected to. Also; just how many variations of a rather tired theme can we have here - is everyone going to rearrange the words and present them as a new charge? This is coming very close to abuse of the Arbcom system. (Sarah777 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Per my comments elsewhere on this page, provocation is no excuse. Many of us feel provoke or frustrated at times, but per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, editors are required not to respond to provocations by escalating a disagreement into a conflict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well he is certainly argumentative but that is good, debate even heated debate can be healthy. Combative is a strange word - is defending oneself and one's ideals combative? If is is then I admire him for it, far better to stand up and be counted than roll over and have the encyclopedia full of POV and unremarkable 14th baronets. If it had not taken so long for all these issues to have their proper airing here, then maybe he would have been a lot less combative because it now appears a lot of people are only just realising exactly what he and the other "Irish" editors have had to put up with, the pure venom heaped on me for merely trying to explain their point of view has made me realise that - they even want me blocked for a year for attempting to explain that point of view - God know what they must dream of and hope for VK and his mates who have dared to openly express an alternative point of view to theirs. Giano 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and mentored don't forget. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had indeed forgotten the "mentored" - thank you ONIH. Giano 13:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that argument, as one could equally claim that we are now also only seeing the extent of what the "British" editors have had to put up with. As myself, BHG, Alison, Fozzie et al have said time and again, the provocation and/or poor behaviour of others is no excuse for retaliating in like, so why do we keep hearing it trotted out? What is now patently clear is that there are POV pushers on both sides, there has been provocation on both sides, there is Afd vote-stacking, abuse and name-calling on both sides. The reason we are having this airing here is because individuals on both sides are unable to behave like civil responsible editors. Blaming either side for the poor behaviour of the other is missing the point entirely, as is using proposed findings of facts about one editor as a forum for getting a dig at another. As it stands, some of the comments here appear to be more suited to flaming this dispute, rather than resolving it. Rockpocket 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, disagree. What this "workshop" has shown, IMO, is the extent to which the "British" side of this debate has been shown to be using all the same tactics, language etc and having the same POV issues that (in my experience) was heretofore largely being associated with the "Irish" side. "As it stands, some of the comments here appear to be more suited to flaming this dispute, rather than resolving it." I'd feel the same about some of the charges being made here. I would be interested in your view on my observation that the repeated permutations of the same charge against Vk is tantamount to abuse of the Arbcom.(Sarah777 00:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

See my response to Giano below. The evidence simply doesn't support that opinion, Sarah. The admins involved here are well aware of the poor behaviour from both sides, as demonstrated by the extensive block logs, numerous warnings issued, and statements acknowledging as such from very early on. For example, at the very beginning of my foray into this area when Vk was caught votestacking I noted "There appears to have been votestacking going on in the opposite direction also...Its unfortunate for VK that his contribution to the debacle has been revealed so fully, when there are others that have behaved just as poorly." So who exactly, in your opinion, has this workshop exposed the behaviour of "British side" to?

I'm not sure who or what you are referring to regarding "repeated permutations of the same charge against Vk". I can only speak for myself, but I provided evidence that supported my understanding of the history leading up to Vk's most recent block. I then used that evidence to propose four distinct findings of fact that had convinced me to support an indef block. From that, one proposed remedy. That is how, as far as I am aware, the process is supposed to work: if you have evidence of something, provide and propose. The community and ARbCom may not agree with your interpretation of the evidence, but it is certainly not an abuse to propose it. I do think there are trivial and vindictive props being made in a tit-for-tat fashion, but those are the ones with no evidence provided to support them. Rockpocket 01:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket, if I was referring to one of your citations I'd have said so! It is specifically this one I was thinking of "Vintagekits is argumentative and combative". I'm half expecting to see "Vintagekits is combative and argumentative" pop up as a new charge any day. But while we are discussing suspected allegations; I was a bit concerned to read you referring to "sniped at from "uninvolved" opportunist". In context, I can only read that as referring to myself, Giano - or both. Perhaps you'd clarify; I am not comfortable with being associated with either "flaming" or "opportunism" in the context of this Arbcom - for rather obvious reasons. (Sarah777 01:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Fair point. I was actually refering to Thepiper as the "univolved opportunist." I'm sorry for not making it more clear. I agree with you that these sorts of proposed findings are somewhat pointless. I'm not sure its an abuse of ArbCom, but it certainly not particularly constructive to resolving the case. The phrasing is too wooly and not backed up with evidence and, as you say, just rehashes the same general criticisms without adding something specific. Rockpocket 04:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble was (note the tense) no one seemed to notice before this airing, as you so rightly say: "individuals on both sides are unable to behave like civil responsible editors." At least the sole blame is no longer being laid upon VK. Giano 23:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence simply doesn't support that.

Kittybrewster: blocked 4 times for issues related to this case
Biofoundationsoflanguage: blocked 3 times for issues related to this case
Astrotrain: blocked 7 or 8 times for issues related to this case
Coneypiece: blocked twice for issues related to this case
W. Frank, blocked a couple of times on a tangential issue, but what are very likely to be socks of his have been blocked a number of times for issues related to this case.

Each of those people have been blocked by the admins involved in this case. Therefore, on what basis are you making the claim that "no one seemed to notice" the poor behaviour on both sides? Everyone noticed it, and tried to do something about it, but have you ever tried to keep the peace between two warring factions? When you do, all that happens is you get accused of bias from both sides, and then get sniped at from "uninvolved" opportunists to boot. All that is now, and ever has been "laid upon VK", is the blame for his own behaviour. The same goes for the other mentioned parties. Rockpocket 23:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mabuska[edit]

23) There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of User:Mabuska

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - not sure why they're here - Alison ^❤ 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed SirFozzie 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed can't understand why he/she is being included.--padraig 21:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Found them very reasonable. --Domer48 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the mistakes he has made on wiki are due to him being new here and not understanding full the practices.--Vintagekits 09:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Certainly nothing worthy of any sanctions that I've seen. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Aatomic1 has edit-warred[edit]

27) Aatomic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred, including the use of block evading sockpuppets to continue edit wars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per Domer48's evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed Edit-warring exacerbated by using sockpuppets to avoid blocks to continue editwarring SirFozzie 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per evidence by Domer48's.--padraig 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - self-evident from the evidence provided and the block log. Also see my evidence re. "tag-warring" with User:Traditional unionist and subsequent comments on my evidence submission - Alison ^❤ 22:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition there's this stalking edit made 35 minutes after mine to an article he'd never edited before, which is also against the consensus here which was arrived at after lengthy negotiation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is being suggested that I canvassed another user, then I reject that. If it is possible to check who I have emailed through wikipedia, then I urge that to be done, as I don't recall ever engaging with this user, and have certainly not emailed them.Traditional unionist 13:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per evidence --Domer48 16:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that one is fairly obvious.--Vintagekits 09:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Bishonen is an involved administrator[edit]

28) User:Bishonen has involved himself in these matters. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose There's no evidence to support her involvement. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I've not seen any diffs to support her inclusion here. Can you point some out, please? - Alison ^❤ 09:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no evidence to support this.--padraig 16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No evidence. Rockpocket 06:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Where is the evidence for this??--Vintagekits 09:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is just another example of Kittybrewster's ridiculous trolling bad behaviour. So outlandish and ridiculous is the comment that it amounts to provocation - further example of how Kittybrewster deliberately attempts to get under people's skin and irritate - any response by Bishonen and the whole Kittybrewster crowd will descend screaming personal attack. It is a wonder VK stayed sane having to deal with this behaviour on a daily basis. I am beginning to think we need a long rest from Kittybrewster something in the region of three months - Arbcom please take note. Giano 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of this Admin User:Bishonen before and the charge is bizarre. Rockpocket, if you are reading this - it's a classic example of what I was talking about earlier. (Sarah777 19:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm reading, Sarah, and in full agreement with you. Rockpocket 06:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Bishonen is an administrator known for writing FAs of the highest calibre. She is a friend of mine (very common knowledge) so probably watches my edits, as I do her's. I think she has perhaps twice warned Kittybrewster on his page when he has overstepped the mark. As far as I am aware her knowledge of Kittybrewster's editing interests stops there. She certainly has no editing interests in Baronets, Ireland or Kittybrewster's and Lauder's family. Giano 20:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster, could you please clarify Bishonen's relevance to this case? If, as Giano says, her only involvement is to give you a couple of warnings, there's no reason for a finding of fact on her. Picaroon (t) 20:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishzilla expert troubleshooter. Will rise from waves and get involved in Troubles if pay good. bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Enough trouble here for any shooter! (Sarah777 10:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Support adminning Bishzilla and making 'zilla an "involved administrator" everywhere. --Irpen 21:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility and personal attacks[edit]

29) The following editors have repeatedly demonstrated incivility and/or made personal attacks in edits related to the troubles and/or British nobility

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, though the list may not be complete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know one editor who needs to be added, I believe BigDunc is gathering evidence to support their inclusion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment W. Frank added based on evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Traditional unionist added based on BigDunc's evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Add One Night In Hackney and Padraig also- Astrotrain 16:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add some evidence.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made personal attacks against a number of editors and people, and there is evidence posted against you. Your IRA stunt was an example of incivility as well as the abusive language used when you were blocked for edit warring. Astrotrain 16:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the facts get in the way of your finger pointing will you? You want sanctions against people, then post real, tangible evidence. Where's the evidence against Padraig? There isn't any posted, so instead of asking for sanctions against people try please try understanding how this works. First you provide your evidence, then you have a finding of fact based on the evidence, then you propose a remedy. All you have done is point fingers and arm wave. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:35, 26 September 2007(UTC)

Oppose: Already covered by WP guidelines (though "not set in stone") and so inclusion here is unnecessary. In addition, incivility/personal attacks take many forms. Some are clever, deliberately provocative acts; supporting those who have provoked etc. Incivility and so-called personal attacks are a matter of perception. Straight talking, without expletives, should not be a sin. Outside WP personal attacks are vastly different. Now why is that? Is it because this is just another WP by-law which people use to attack those they don't like or those whose points they refuse to address? No-one should be above reproach, if we are all equal on WP. David Lauder 12:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary references to terrorism[edit]

30) Vintagekits and One Night in Hackney have provoked the "Tories" and "Unionists" by making unnecessary references to terrorist organisations and acts of terrorism in the home countries of the "Tories" and "Unionists"- this includes condoning terrorist actions and mocking the victims of terrorism (Vintagekits) or promoting terrorist organisations in their userpages or signatures (ONIH).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed based on evidence posted on comments made by Vintagekits, and actions of One Night in Hackney. Astrotrain 10:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My signature never referred to a terrorist organisation, and like normal you've posted no evidence for the rest. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, Gibnews and Kittybrewster have posted such evidence against you and VK. Astrotrain 10:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no you haven't. No matter how much you refuse to accept it, the Irish Republican Army were the army of a democratically elected government and have never been classed as a terrorist organisation. If anything your actions, such as describing the Easter Rising as a "terrorist incident" are far more provocative to Irish people. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll others judge your actions with regards to your signature. Evidence has been posted on Vintagekits with regards to his racism, and pro-terrorist comments designed to provoke others. Astrotrain 11:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They already have, it was a storm in a teacup from six months ago that was dealt with and everyone moved on apart from you. Quite frankly, as the sig the only evidence you seem to have it shows quite how badly you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. If I'm such a biased POV pushing editor as you claim, why haven't you managed to provide any mainspace diffs to prove it? It's not like my edits to Irish republicanism related articles are difficult to find, they make up the majority of my edits from this year. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again we see the blinded POV of Astrotrain at work here - lots of shouts and claims but no evidence, he along with some others have provided long paragraphs in the "evidence page" which amount to opinion but it is not evidence and the diffs dont back up his claim. He states here that I am a "racist" - because I said describing Celtic F.C. as "British" made my skin crawl - the full issue is outlined here on the talk page of admin Tyrenius - how decribed the claims of Counter-revolutionary, David Lauder and Astrotrain as "dramatised out of all proportion", "milking the situation for all it's worth" and showed "every indication of fanning the flames". He also said that it was "not a racist attack" but that the three "are unnecessarily provocative" and that their "sustained behaviour of this nature is more likely to result in action being taken against them" - now isnt it very interesting how once you scratch the surface of these accusations that the picture changes dramatically.--Vintagekits 09:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius is not an arbitrator- so his opinion matters not. I guess it backs up the evidence of his bias tho. Astrotrain 10:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is an admin, and you made the complaint regarding my "racism" to him - and that is exactly what he said about your complaint - he saw straight through your soapboxing and as I am sure everyone reading this also does, however because he did the opposite of what you were hoping to do then he is now "biased" - Instead of throwing around accusation why dont you provide EVIDENCE of this bias because throwing around scurilous accusations with foundation is not helping this arbcom or your case.--Vintagekits 11:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has ever had the misfortune of dealing with you knows that you promote terrorism and are anti-British. That is why you were banned from Republican terrorist articles. Astrotrain 13:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is bltant provokation - I am not going to rise to it but I would hope that someone from the admin team would step in and have a word because this is a joke.--Vintagekits 11:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: the evidence doesn't quite support this, per ONIH. However, there have been far too many expressions of political allegiance by editors on both sides of this dispute, whether it's the "supporting terrorism" squeals from unionists or the "imperialist oppressor" howls from republican editors. It's not just that I am fed up with the tedious arguments about whether the Provisional IRA is a terrorist group or a liberation movement, or whether British Rule in Northern Ireland is a colonial occupation or a legitimate govt (it's a perfectly valid discussion, but Wikipedia is not the place for those arguments, and anyone who wants to air their legitimate views on those issues should take it to usenet or to a pub and come back when they have got it all off their chest and eaten a copy of WP:SOAP); my main concern is that the very fact of so many editors repeatedly drawing attention to their political allegiances undermines the ability of other users to assume in good faith that their editing is done in pursuit of NPOV, and increases the tensions which are inevitably close to the surface in this area.
I would strongly support a more neutrally-framed proposal which noted and condemned the excessive amount of immature flag-waving and sloganising by editors on both sides, but this proposal is just another episode of partisan mud-slinging. As another admin tends to say on these matters, "pot meet kettle". Cup of tea, anybody? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BHG in that editors can talk far too much about what they think, and this causes a lot of problems. Personal opinions are fine, but if they start to become offensive to people then they create problems and should be removed - hence why OneNight's "monarchist" userbox was removed, and his IRA signiture. Whilst editors should not be provoked, the bull might not charge so readilly if the red flag isn't there in the first place. This proposal should be modified to stress that personal preferences (and even past actions) that are clearly inflamatory should be avoided if at all possible - under penalty of sanctions given that it has been made clear here. Comments like this and this are clearly very inflamatory. I agree that this goes for both 'sides'. What's perhaps more difficult are things such as KittyBrewster giving people "feathers in their cap" or people having userboxes stating they oppose or support certain things like a "United Ireland". This is contradiction of Wikipedia where personal opinions are supposed to be irrelevent yet people are given the space to say these personal opinions on their userpages. Maybe it is best that users voluntarilly take down these things down if they are serious about getting on with other users. Logoistic 15:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference between expressing concern on anti-British or pro-IRA comments/statements than making them in the first place which is what you are suggesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs) 13:20, 27 September 2007

Maybe, but I was referring to comments like this: an assertion of political loyalties as the basis for your !vote in an XfD discussion. It's the exact polar opposite of the partisan pro-IRA comments about which you complain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you compare a tongue in cheek comment to an old friend to comments like "British actually makes my skin crawl" or "thank god for the IRA"? Astrotrain 13:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And perhaps Astrotrain isn't aware that pro-British and anti-IRA comments are just as bad as anti-British and pro-IRA comments? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we're actually referring to comments made, not imagined beliefs, right? Pot calling the kettle black ringing any bells for anyone? SirFozzie 14:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if the term "British" makes Vk's skin crawl? I think it is an impolite thing to say to a Brit unless one is looking to provoke, and I think it doesn't help us build the encyclopaedia one iota. But really, what does it matter to anyone but Vk what Vk thinks? Similarly so what if ONiH wants to express on-wiki support for any organisation, illegal or otherwise? Based on his edits, is it a big surprise to anyone that ONiH has an interest in the IRA? So why is it so offensive that he once chose to confirm that on a sig? People are looking for reasons to be offended on both sides. Yes, personally I think virtual flag waving and personal on-wiki geo-political statements are not constructive, but I also think the self righteous expressions of offense are unhelpful too. Rockpocket 05:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But I do feel that some folk (see Astro below) have not absorbed the fact that calling Republicans "terrorists" and "murderers" is NO DIFFERENT in terms of offence given than making equivalent statements about their opponents. Some non-Irish editors seem unable to accept that. And sometimes the only way to get that point across is by illustration. I was before an Arbcom for making statements in talk pages, in context in the course of explaining edits, that were not one bit more offensive than that made by Astro below and elsewhere on this Arbcom. Yet, his comments merit hardly more than a 'slap on the wrist' (and deserve no more than that I hasten to add). (Sarah777 09:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I agree. Calling other editors "terrorists" and "murderers" is completely unacceptable. Referring to other Repbuplicans as such in discussion is needlessly inflammatory, especially in discussion with those of a Republican persuasion. But the same point holds. Is any surprise that certain editors consider members of the IRA to be murders? Of course not, so why get upset about it? I just think that both sides could do with meeting half-way here. If everyone tried to done down their political rhetoric a notch and tried to be a little more tolerant of others' rhetoric then the cycle of causing offense/taking offense, for essentially different sides of the same coin, would stop. Rockpocket 16:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any issue between us on the matter of principle nor on what would make the discourse here more civil. But I was doing just what you suggest, not taking offence or making a major issue of it when British editors unsurprisingly regarded IRA men as "murderers". What I painfully discovered though, was that what was sauce for the goose wasn't sauce for the gander! My unsurprising views on the Imperial opponents of the IRA led to an Arbcom decision against me. Not much point asking the Irish "side" to take it on the chin and move on but get all worked up when they respond in kind.

Let me be explicit here, least there be any slight confusion about what I mean - calling Irish Rebublicans/IRA (1920 or 1980) men "terrorists and murderers" is EVERY BIT as offensive as referring to the British Empire as genocidal and worse than Nazi Germany. (Though I would argue the former is rather less accurate). If British editors can't accept that then we are all going absolutely nowhere in terms of resolving this. (And I an NOT referring to editors calling other editors "terrorist" or "Nazi", btw - that is totally out of order, of course) (Sarah777 17:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)) (Sarah777 17:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by others:

I would say describing murderers as freedom fighters is more provocative. Astrotrain 10:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Astro, I see this was YOUR proposal, so I assume it was not being deliberately provocative. But clearly the terrorist/freedom fighter equation is at the heart of this dispute and you and I must BOTH accept that BOTH terms are offensive to the other side and neutral language must be used. Believe me, I find that as difficult as you appear to. But there is no other solution. Otherwise every time someone writes "terrorist" someone else will reply with "freedom fighter" - as we have both just demonstrated. So in future I will not use words that may provoke/offend you; but will call you every time you offend my delicate sensibility. I have removed my comments in order to ease your stress level! Now if only you'd worry equally about MY stress level, which you could start by withdrawing yoyr reference to "murderers" above. (Sarah777 10:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think he answered that question here. --Vintagekits 11:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I notice the procative comments you've linked were written hours AFTER I withdrew my own comments in the exchange here; and I note also that his part of our exchange still stands above. Hence my remarks to Rockpocket. This just isn't going work if the "other side" can't handle the parity principle. I think the more reasonable British editors need to try and educate their less reasonable collegues, because they certainly are not listening to any of us. (Sarah777 11:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

One Night In Hackney[edit]

31) During the course of this Arbitration Committee case, One Night in Hackney has contributed significantly to the encyclopedia, bringing one article, (1981 Irish Hunger Strike up to Featured Atricle Status, and starting several new articles that appeared on Did You Know, on Wikipedia's main page. SirFozzie 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, for a "remedy" I'm about to type up. SirFozzie 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

32) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Collective 1 Revert Parole[edit]

1) The following users are placed on Revert Parole:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

SqueakBox suggested that the following person be added

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

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

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

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

This would also apply to any alternate accounts or IP addresses being used by the people under Revert Parole. SirFozzie 15:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

User:Conypiece blocked for one year.[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Oppose, too long. Maybe three - six months? Davnel03 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose - there are too many folk who take a bit of trouble and strife too seriously on Wiki. Are you all some sort of super-sensitive nerdish shrinking violets? The draconian remedies (like capital punishment in real life) I oppose. One year is too extreme and drives the emotional level of these cases sky high; as I said somewhere else; register editors; use sin bins and less of these extreme "remedies" (Sarah777 20:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User:Vintagekits banned from Wikipedia[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Support Fred Bauder 01:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Agreed. Vintagekits has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to work collaboratively on wikpedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

*I would like to see the evidence - and then form an opinion as to the length of block. Giano 09:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Having studied the evidence and debate here I disagree and feel a more satisfactory solution is available. Giano 14:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Vintagekits editing privileges revoked for one year[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed, if the ArbCom does not want to endorse the indefblock which I believe is well-justified by the overwhelming evidence of Vintagekits's repeated misconduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do understand your disappointment, it must be very distressing having had hour long telephone calls with W Franks to find you have been so cruelly used. However, that is no reason to take your anger out further on Vintagekits - I think he is almost as much a victim in this case as you are. We all make errors of judgement on the spur of the moment even you. perhaps there would be less flashpoints if you were a little more worldly in these matters. Giano 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Giano, the purposes (as I understand it) of an arbcom case is to try to find solutions, not to stoke conflicts, so please could you try to be more civil? Also, it's quite bizarre to suggest that an editor whose repeated incivility includes such outbursts as this and this is somehow as much a "victim" as an admin who has been trying to resolve a problem, and whose efforts to help Vk were rewarded by abuse when she disagreed with him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vintagekits's indefblock ratified.[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Disagree, The block was initiated and based on emails from W.Frank who I believe said he felt threatened - his astertions were false and there was no threat nor was there any threats via email which he also claimed. The block is the first place was wrong and therefore ratifying it is without basis.--Vintagekits 14:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The rational of this ArbCom is to address the issues which created such a bad enviroment to edit in. This ArbCom came about because of VK's blocks. If we create a positive attitude, why should VK be denied the opportunity to edit in an improved project they helped create. If these issues are addressed, what reason would VK have for such outbursts. --Domer48 15:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's inevitable in editing the encyclopedia that that there will be times when editors disagree, when admin actions appear unfair, and so on. With civility and good faith, most of these issues are resolved, but Vintagekits has repeatedly chosen to escalate these disagreements into a conflict and to express his concerns as personal atttacks, such as when he notably torpedoed ONIH's attempt to defuse the conflict. One of the most important steps to creating a better atmosphere is to ensure that editors who can't control their tempers are not allowed to continue raising the temperature. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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 [123] 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]

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Opposed. no evidence of bias. -- Kittybrewster (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed The admins have not shown any bias in dealing with the problems arising from these issues, in fact they have done their best to calm things down all round.--padraig 18:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The admins named in the involved parties list, in particular Rockpocket, SirFozzie and Alison, have at all times used their admin powers to cool the situation, and in an impartial way. Without them, things might have been much worse. Scolaire 14:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose'Traditional unionist 14:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support admins who are involved in anything shouldnt be using their admin tools there, that is a fundamental abuse of admin rights according to policy, SqueakBox 17:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're involved parties in this arbcom request, by their very nature of being admins. None of them, to my knowledge, have been directly involved in the disputes here - Alison ^❤ 18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

Strong Oppose - unless evidence is shown that there is bias involved. Davnel03 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:W. Frank banned for one year[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

User:W. Frank banned from affected articles[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Vintagekits topic banned from articles[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Opposeper Rockpocket - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

User:Astrotrain banned for one year[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposed - this is somewhat excessive, given his prior good record - Alison ^❤ 19:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional oppose per Vintagekits. Astrotrain appears to have been highly disruptive wrt to Northern Irish issues, but not elsewhere. An article ban and a revert ban should be sufficient, unless the allegation of sockpuppetry is substantiated, in which case a ban would be apropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support ~~Despite Astrotrain's call for exactly this sanction against Vk, I think it is too harsh. Article specific ban for Astro along the lines of that proposed for Vk.~~ Recent behaviour by this editor indicates he is prepared to impose this type of sanction on other editors for far less grevious than he is guilty of. (Sarah777 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

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

The evidence says to me that edit-warring is Astrotrain's real failing. The proposed 1RR parole would address that better than any sort of ban. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Angus. Astrotrain has made many good contributions to WP outwith the current problem area and I am certain that he will continue to do so given the chance. Any remedy applied to him need only address the edit-warring aspect of his work. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Astrotrain banned from affected articles[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposed - an indefinite article ban is excessive here. A possibly shorter ban + subsequent mentoring by a neutral party may be more appropriate. Note that this editor had a good editing record prior to getting into this whole mess, so he can't really be regarded as a SPA here - Alison ^❤

Oppose per Alison Kittybrewster (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

For a precedent see [[124]]. --Rocksanddirt 18:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Question. Does anyone have any evidence of Astrotrain making any positive contribution to Northern Irish articles? I haven't closely followed Astro's role in that area, but all that I have seen has been edit warring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Has just out to create problems. --Domer48 13:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: unless all the accusators on these ArbCom pages have the same treatment. David Lauder 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vintagekits six week ban on contentious articles[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Strongly oppose per Alison Kittybrewster (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose per Alison. Apart from the fact that this sort of approach has been tried unsuccessfully before, the main problem is that Vk's temper flares so rapidly, making what would otherwise be disagreements escalate into prolonged battles. Unless that problem was resolved, Vk is likely to find himself in conflict in new areas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Agree This ArbCom, explaine a lot. --Domer48 13:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

"all these pages" means what? Kittybrewster (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Padraig banned from affected articles[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposed - an indefinite article ban is excessive here. A possibly shorter ban + subsequent mentoring by a neutral party may be more appropriate - Alison ^❤

Comment by others:

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

Oppose As Fred says, you can be right, and wrong. --Domer48 11:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Conypiece banned from affected articles for one year[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposed - a 1-year article ban is excessive here. A possibly shorter ban + subsequent mentoring by a neutral party may be more appropriate - Alison ^❤ 18:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed per Alison Kittybrewster (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed per User:Traditional unionist Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Padraig banned from affected articles for 6 months[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

VK, Conypiece did. Please watch the "reprimanded" thing, ok? there is evidence that padraig has participated in edit wars on the evidence page. I do think that the remedy is a bit OTT, and I'd prefer to get folks on a collective 1RR and get folks to talking (and compromising) on the articles talk page, but it's not completely out there. All you have to do is say something like Oppose, think it's too much of a punishment. K? SirFozzie 14:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I agree with SirFozzie comment above the major problem is that some editors such as W. Frank and Astrotrain ignore discussions on talk page and continues to insert their POV into articles, this has resulted in many edit wars, Astrotrain also has removed referenced info from articles on a number of occasions which discounts his POV. There has also been the use of anon IPs that have been used to solely revert my edits on articles and used to evade 3RR, one of the came back on checkuser as a possible for Astrotrain. So the main problem I see in the 1RR solution is that they can evade it by the use of anon IPs'.--padraig 15:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That Checkuser section has already been added to the section of evidencce against Astrotrain. And the IP problem can be remedied by stating that the remedy also applies to using alternate accounts or IP's to gain a hand in the conflict. SirFozzie 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree a wikibreak on contentious articles would do only good. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The motivation behind it is clear. --Domer48 11:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

User: Kittybrewster paroled and given a mentor[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Propose and support?? I would like the thinking behind this proposal to be explained. And I have no objection to Rockpocket or Alison or Tyrenius following my contributions if they wish. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, providing Kittybrewster does not get any choice in the mentor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support with reservations.. (I think its a good remedy, but finding an admin who's familiar with this and wants to work with Kittybrewster in this.. not impugning Kittybrewster, btw, I'm just saying there's a VERY high rate of burnout amongst admins due to the constant conflicts involved between these groups... I know Alison and I are both on that list.) SirFozzie 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concern for your health made me not add your name. Sorry to hear Alison is suffering. I think the person has to be somebody whose views I respect. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think the point of the mentor system is that Kittybrewster does not interview for the position and appoint his own mentor. The chosen mentor has to be a strong character able to deal firmly with matters which may arise, it also needs to be someone independent from the baronet and Ireland concerned pages. User: Lar would be a good choice as he not only has infinite patience and a sound head, he also has checkuser rights which he may find useful as kittybrewster's mentor. Giano 17:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the question here is what would be terms of the parole. In other cases I have seen, the parole has involved a topic ban or a ban on selected articles, or ban on particular forms of activity (such as a 1-revert limit). What exactly would this parole be for? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By parole in this case I suggest that he has to be on his best behaviour for the duration of the parole period, basically conform to the behaviour expected by Wikipedia, not goading others. If he mentor thinks this is not happening or Kittybrewster begins to ignore the advice of his mentor then perhaps it is time to say farewell for a period. If people behave themselves and follow the advice of their mentors there is no need for topic banning. The reason I have suggested user: Lar as a mentor is because he is experienced in mediation and mentoring and diplomatic but also very firm views on behaviour. He is experienced also in both writing on a wide variety of subjects but also the political and administrative side of Wikipedia, if he were to acept Kittybrewster and David Lauder would be very fortunate. Giano 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree As demonstrated during this ArbCom. --Domer48 13:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with reservations, per SirFozzie's concerns about admin burnout, and also add that provided that the mentor is aware of Kb's health issues and works with Kb to try to find ways of avoiding some of the problems those caused for him relation to his editing. (Please excuse for not expanding on that point, but withiut Kb's permission I don't think that any detailed discussion on that should be public). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose: an insulting proposal. David Lauder 18:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since Kittybrewster seems to have no problem with this himself, it appears to me (if not to all) that you are doing this all out of a sheer sense of bloody-mindedness. SirFozzie 18:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Affirm, if not also followed up with some other disciplinary action. I agree with Giano's suggestion of Lar as he is quite experienced and uninvolved. I disagree with the suggestion Kittybrewster be allowed to pick his mentor, and while I feel pairing him up with a staunch, middle-class, non-privileged anti-establishmentarian editor would be an immensely gratifying proposal and reeking of poetic justice (because Kittybrewster would be forced to think outside of the gilded box for a change), simply a neutrally-inclined editor would be appropriate, such as Lar. David Lauder needs this as well. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: David Lauder banned and then paroled[edit]

14) David Lauder has to be given a firm message that his behaviour is unacceptable in view of his use of sockpuppets in helping to achieve consensus and the general more unpleasant (than Kittybrewster) side to his remarks and behaviour he is banned for a period of two months, on his return he is provided with a mentor of the Arbcom's choice and paroled for a further six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Giano 18:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In line with the evidence produced - his sockpuppetry, POV editing and goading has gone on for too long.--Vintagekits 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. No evidence. This sounds like retrospective punishment that is unlikely to be helpful. Kittybrewster (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm being dense, no-one appears to have provided anything on the evidence page about David Lauder specifically. There are some links to his AfD comments made "in a partisan manner", but other than that nothing about behaviour, goading and sockpuppets. Could the proposer please provide some evidence on that page to support this proposal? Rockpocket 20:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some evidence to be going on with [125] will add a few more links tomorrow. Giano 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not evidence. It is not in Mainspace. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying we should ignore any evidence that isn't in mainspace? So the emails that Vintagekits sent aren't evidence? The edits he made to his talk page aren't evidence? Surely that isn't what you are suggesting is it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me both of you but Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Evidence is as far as I'm aware very mich mainspace. Always locate yourself and look at the top of the page is my motto. Giano 16:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Per evidence presented by Gino. --Domer48 13:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment:It must be plainly obvious that Giano has some sort of axe to grind against me for my straight talking, whilst at the same time expecting us all to sit back and accept his own directness, endless lack of civility, personal attacks, and general unpleasantness. That he has so much time to be able to sit down at a computer making hate sheets about those he detests must demonstrate something. As I have previously said, I may have responded to goading and bitchiness in the first instance, but I do not accept that I have ever deliberately set out to aggravate others or attack articles to which they had contributed. David Lauder 14:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What axe has he and why - come on give us some evidence!! - in fact he is pretty much the only one contributing here that is truely independent.--Vintagekits 14:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Astrotrain temporarily banned from affected articles, then paroled[edit]

15) Astrotrain is temporarily banned from articles which relate to Northern Ireland. This ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia in which Astrotrain engages in a dispute related in any way to Northern Ireland. The duration of this ban to be agreed by involved parties and the Arbitration Committee. When the ban is lifted, a demonstrably neutral third party, appointed by ArbCom, will mentor Astrotrain for a period of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as a fairer and more workable alternative to indefinite topic ban or long-term block - Alison ^❤ 20:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if a shorter sanction is needed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - he should be blocked from using his account as a tool for disruption.--Vintagekits 20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- one of the main problems in this dispute is wikistalking by the likes of Vintagekits, ONIH and Padraig. For example when I created a few articles on royals earlier in the year- they were immediately tagged for speedy deletion by Vintagekits [126]. There is no escape. When you lose your temper and snap back- a message is left on Tyrenius' talk page followed by a block. Gauding across the wiki, together with biased admins is what is fuelling this dispute, not edits on flag pages. Astrotrain 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed such unfounded allegations in my evidence. You have left a message on my talk page which resulted in my blocking Vintagekits. Your continued statements of this nature only show your modus operandi for all to see. Tyrenius 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed It strikes me that 'disruption' is a word used for editing against the POV (ie, neutrally) of the above parties. Astrotrain is the only user who I have seen as having attempted a real compromise on issues, they were removed too of course, sadly. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed As per evidence. --Domer48 13:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Padraig temporarily banned from affected articles, then paroled[edit]

16) Padraig is temporarily banned from articles which relate to Northern Ireland. This ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia in which Padraig engages in a dispute related in any way to Northern Ireland. The duration of this ban to be agreed by involved parties and the Arbitration Committee. When the ban is lifted, a demonstrably neutral third party, appointed by ArbCom, will mentor Padraig for a period of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as a fairer and more workable alternative to indefinite topic ban or long-term block - Alison ^❤ 20:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a more flag-specific one might be best for Padraig? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - no evidence to show that this is warranted, he has continued to edit contructive but has been drawn into edit warring by the now SPA Astrotrain.--Vintagekits 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose - I am not aware of any recent editing or comments by Padraig that merit any sanction. We must be careful here. Zero sanction merited. (Sarah777 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose Why the ban, what for? No. --Domer48 12:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem with the mentoring idea, but I see no grounds for any ban.--padraig 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vintagekits blocked from sending e-mails to other users[edit]

17) Vintagekits is blocked from sending e-mails to other users via Wikipedia, no matter what the circumstances may be. In other words a e-mail block is put on his account so he can no longer send e-mails to anyone else.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Opposed - neither feasible nor desired. If VK is proven to have sent abusive messages to others (proven by neutral third-party, that is) then yes, sanctions time - Alison ^❤ 21:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed - don't really see the point for a few reasons. Firstly already Vk knows the email address of many of the participants here. The most recent email to Kb was not made via the wikipedia email function. Secondly if he has the means to find the home address of other editors, he certainly has the means to find their email addresses. Finally, i'm not sure its even technically possible to block email, but unblock editing. Rockpocket 21:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support as proposer. Davnel03 20:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't mind if he sends me emails - but he's never bothered! (Sarah777 20:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Given the fact he has persistently made personal attacks, used sockpuppet and meatpuppet accounts, made threats of violence against other editors and revealed personal information of another editor with intent to intimidate, I really think he shouldn't, and doesn't deserve to have e-mail privalleges. As Alison stated earlier, he has made harrasement both on and off wiki. Davnel03 21:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who did I "made threats of violence against"??? and to who did I "revealed personal information of another editor" to??--Vintagekits 22:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giano_II banned for one year for manipulation, mischief-making and trolling. And thereafter mentored.[edit]

18) Proposed per evidence on this page and elsewhere. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ludicrous. Paul August ☎ 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Fully agree: Giano suffers from the same problems which he attributes to me and others: self-opinionated, spiteful, pompous, rude, arrogant, superiority I-am-always-right complex, and a general trouble-maker who sticks his bit in all over the place by following the contributions of others and generally stirring the pot. His contributions log speaks volumes. David Lauder 09:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I think David Lauder's summary is accurate. --Counter-revolutionary 09:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Batman and Robin have shown up. The above David if I may say so is a very frosty comment. Do you have diffs for all those adjectives, some of them or none of them? - do tell let's see. I really think I would have remembered calling you superior. Maybe some of those adjectives do apply to me (sounds like the perfect aristocrat, wouldn't you say). However, it is not my behaviour being investigated here but yours, remember whatever I am , I have never been found to be a liar and a cheat by checkuser, don't bother looking for diffs to dispute that one, because you won't find any. Have a pleasant evening. Giano 17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He does seem to have an unhealthy interest in this dispute given he claims not to be involved. Astrotrain 22:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly has an unhealthy interest in fair play and the truth - some people dont like that.--Vintagekits 22:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - this is vague and unsubstantiated. Can we see some evidence please, plus diffs as to how this relates to the case as a whole? Giano, once again, has been a pest at times, but has not been directly involved in any of the substantive issues here. I'm not sure what such a remedy as this would achieve - Alison ^❤ 22:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Giano has not edited any of the articles in this dispute, he was listed due to his advocacy of Vintagekits. I do not see any evidence from his involvement in this casethat would support a sanction on him. Did I find some of his comments annoying? Yes. However, If being annoying was grounds for being banned for a year, I think I would be banned until the year 3000, personally, so I must disagree... SirFozzie 22:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ban him from this arbcom- he is only interested in attacking Kitty and David for reasons not connected to the arbcom. Astrotrain 22:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show the diffs of where he has attacked those editors on this Arbcom!--Vintagekits 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about some of his comments here; [127]?--Counter-revolutionary 11:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence/thoughts page he has kept should be taken down once the ArbCom has finished (Since the purpose of the page will have been fufilled), but I find it disturbing that the same folks who agitated for him to be added to the ArbCom as an involved party, now agitate for him to be banned from the ArbCom. SirFozzie 22:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked for him to be added. Astrotrain 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, again lack of evidence. There is a worrying trend for individuals to jump to make proposed findings actually bothering to provide evidence to support on the evidence page. Now we are seeing proposed remedies without any evidence or proposed findings. I find Giano's hyperbole unconstructive and occasionally antagonistic, but this proposition is ridiculously extreme. Rockpocket 23:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Giano has had no involvement in these disputes.--padraig 01:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Cop on please, plain stupid. When pigs fly.--Domer48 09:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Spumoni says in your dreams Kittybrewster!

Award the barnstar of good humour to Kittybrewster for comic relief. Bishonen | talk 23:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Support Bishonen's motion, I haven't laughed like that in a long time. Absolutely ridiculous, and most likely doesn't help your case, Kittybrewster.. way to show you don't need mentoring or constant supervision. Deus Ex Machina 09:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to this trolling goes without saying; I stole that bird though! (Sarah777 10:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This proposal appears to be going nowhere, and rightly so, and I submit there is no reason to discuss it further. Newyorkbrad 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the issue is that comments like the "Batman and Robin" one are just not welcome and (likely) precisely the reason why Kittybrewster has proposed the notion. It might be funny to some (or even a "pest"), but frankly it is just goading to others (espcially if you are constantly the but of them), and surely that is enough. Whatever, it is definantly not helpful and it is only fair that these kind of snide comments are stopped, the unfounded consipiracy theories kept to himeself (e.g. the "dead in the water" one). And calling a proposal like this "comic relief" rather than simply stating why you disagree with it is not very helful either. Let's be fair here. A ban for a year is ecessive, but the proposal was not made from nothing. Logoistic 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"And calling a proposal like this "comic relief" rather than simply stating why you disagree with it is not very helful either." Diff or an apology please - I don't recall making that comment - The reason I am watching this case very carefully is that there are too many incidents such as that one. Too little effort expended getting facts accurate rather than just attributing blame in one big pile on. Actually the quoted comment was made by another editor - it seems quite a few don't agree with the views of this one very vocal camp who seem to want everyone who does not agree with them removed from Wikipedia. Well get used to the idea "it aint gonna happen" Giano 07:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you wrote that Giano, I was referring to the comment by Bishonet. Please re-read. Also, please elaborate on "Too little effort expended getting facts accurate rather than just attributing blame in one big pile on" - what are you referring to here?? Logoistic 14:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bishonet"?? That's what I call adding insult to injury. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Having followed this arbitration and the events preceding it I cannot help but agree with Logoistic that Giano by his constant Goading of a number of those involved in this debate has been less than helpful in achieving a solution. For someone who has stated repeatedly that they are not involved in this discussion in any way, Giano's contribution has been of several orders of magnitude greater than most of the involved parties. Yes Giano has rarely touched on the issues involved but has rather concentrated on the personalities involved here, much to the detriment of an even-tempered debate. I don't agree that any sanction is in order but there are serious issues to be resolved here that would progress better without a background of divisiveness. Galloglass 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that summation. Uninvolved editor's opinions are very welcome, but when their contributions appear to generate antagonism beyond that already inherent to the case, then one has to wonder what is going to be achieved. Should Giano continue to offer his opinion, I hope he ceases to make personal comments about other editors and instead keep his comments focused on content. Rockpocket 00:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the proposal by a soft-redirect to Clown as well as the userpages of the original authors. --Irpen 04:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An honest response to that would be construed as unhelpful and generate antagonism so I'll merely say that that contribution from Irpen is, ironically, exactly what he is accusing Giano of. Giano appears to be attracting a number of "un-involveds" to attack his uninvolvement. (Sarah777 07:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

??? I am "accusing Giano of"? What was that? I hold Giano in the highest regard. Where did this even come from? --Irpen 17:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with a lot of what Rockpocket says here. It seems to me that Giano has at times played a very useful role in researching some of the issues and in gathering evidence for this RfA, as well as in researching the notability of articles caught up in these disputes, but that the tone and the personal nature of some of his interventions has been very unhelpful in trying to achieve a resolution to his dispute. Comments like the "Batman and Robin" one serve only to stoke the conflict, and at this point we badly need efforts to reduce tensions, not to increase them. In the page which Giano was using to assemble evidence for this RfA, he wrote on 22 August that "The author of this page works erratically, he is nasty, bad tempered, and quite horrible to be near". I have no doubt that the comment was very much tongue-in-cheek, but Giano does sometimes give the impression of trying to live up to that label, and I wish he wouldn't. There's more than enough nastiness and bad-temperedness between the involved parties, and I wish that Giano could persuade his evil twin that this would be a good point to say ""I am just going outside and may be some time". There is also a thoughtful and constructive Giano, who has been very helpful at times, and I hope that one sticks around. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not care less whether I am deemed to be involved or not - I have been watching this situation deteriorate for months. I have seen one group of editors hurl intended insults at the other - "Terrorists", "Republicans", "anti-aristocracy", "anti-monarchy"to name but a few - then there are numerous snide little edits and digs from Kittybrewster and David Lauder and Co - all of which seem to pass noticed until I mention them and bring them up. So please do not start to throw hissy-fits because two of those editors who love to dish it out do not care to have their behaviour likened to that of Batman and Robin. For ages all we heard about was the evil Vintagekits and his behaviour, now the behaviour of others is being examined too. and it does not look attractive. You got yourselves into this mess so don't attack those that are not trying to sort it out - you had the chance and you failed. That goes for all of you in this section. Giano 12:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to sort it out is great, but that can and should be done without stoking things along the way. WP:CIVIL applies to uninvolved editors as well as to the parties. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BTW Giano, that's now the second time on this workshop page that you have accused a female editor of throwing a "hissy fit" when they criticised your conduct (see here). Please desist from this form of sexist personal attack, and from other incivilities. I'm quite sure that you are capable of making your point politely if you want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me, is only females that throw hissy-fits? I hadn't realised that. I'm afraid if people don't like having awkward diffs and facts pointed out, that is tough. If you care to cast your mind back you will remember this case was originally conceived with only Vintagekits in mind but has since, quite rightly, been expanded to include also those who have been the cause some of his behaviour. I quite understand they would like to dispose of me in the same way they wanted to dispose of Vintagekits. Had any one cared to look you would have noticed I had been of the last few days giving this page a wide berth - However since you have once again chosen to concentrate on me rather than the main issues of the case - so be it - here I am. IF you want my advice concentrate on your problems with each other, not me. Giano 18:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, Alison, Tyrenius, Fozzie, Rockpocket and others are constructively seeking to sort things out. Giano is frequently mischievous. For example, I don't think anybody has suggested Vintage is evil until now. And "Batman and Robin" are uncivil, unhelpful personal attacks, of the kind that we hear from frequently from people like Julian Clary. Why is it that Tyrenius, Rockpocket and BHG invariably manage to avoid incivility while Giano seems to think it is constructive and that he is outwith the WikiRules? - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh is Julian Clarey an editor here now too? Perhaps he could do a series of stubs on his relations too. Or perhaps you think accusing someone of behaving like a homosexual is insulting - which? Giano 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm guilty of this when it comes to my ahem.. dispute with Astrotrain a bit ago, but I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeallly think it'd be a good thing for all concerned if they went back to their corners of the ring for a little bit. This is not doing any good. SirFozzie 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it is - Kitty has just shown his true colours - I'm afraid some people will consider "people like Julian Clary" unacceptable. I for one. Giano 18:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't catch the reference the first time (remember,I'm the Yank, I'm not up on UK Comedians). Just from looking at it, if he means people like Julian Clary meaning gay, yes, you would have a point, but if he just meant in the insulting, biting style (which it notes that Clary is noted for in his article), I think that it's rather less of a problem. But since my advice and request is not wanted, I now return you to your regularly scheduled donnybrook. SirFozzie 18:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I have had the measure of Kitty and his friends quite well assessed for some time. Nothing along those lines of insults surprises me in the least. What is the expression? - "give someone the enough rope" I just wonder if those supporting and defending their views now are prepared to stand up and support them - when the time eventually comes. I shall watch for that with interest. Giano 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, please drop the injured innocence. You started making caustic comments, and got a reaction; when criticised you resorted (again) to insults. You are a clever person, and as capable as I am of looking up the etymology of your chosen insult, so I'm sure that you understand the sexism of it ... and if there is any doubt about your intent, look above to what happened when Alison challenged you on it: you responded by calling her "My Dear", a straightforward attempt at being patronising.

You accused others of goading Vintagekits, but now you are blatantly trolling this page, trying to get a reaction. You have put a lot of effort into illuminating the misbehaviour of other editors, which has at times been helpful, but when anyone criticises your own conduct, you have a disruptive tendency to descend to personal insults. Kittybrewster's comment was indeed out of order, but so was that of the troll. Stop trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the diffs. I merely reply, and that seems to be one of the problems with the editors involved with his dispute, all very good at dishing it out, until the replies start coming in, then it is always attack and re-attack, I had thought you were above that - oh well we all make mistakes. Perhaps that is why this dispute has gone on and on. Good luck with your problems here and your tediously dull and low achieving baronet pages they all look set to stay with you. Giano 21:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, the diffs are clear. A series of editors ask you not to generate antagonism, and you responded "please do not start to throw hissy-fits". So you wrote a featured article: well done. Does that give you a right to troll? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that latest jab says more about you than me. Giano 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits banned and mentored[edit]

19) Vintagekits is banned for one month (this will take into account the three weeks that he has already been banned) following his return he will be banned from all pages connected with the troubles, or even commenting on these pages for a period of 6 months. He may edit Irish boxing pages so long as they make no reference to The Troubles what-so-ever. For a one year period he will have a mentor to be decided by the Arbcom. If he breaks any of these terms or refuses to accept the advice of his mentor he is to be banned for one year. If he makes any edits containing anything stronger than a mild expletive he is banned for one year. He is to be severely reprimanded and left in no doubt the community will no longer tolerate foul language or potential threats under any circumstances from him, not even in jocular form. Anyone tormenting or goading him during this period will be warned once by his mentor and then banned

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly opposed. This has been tried and failed not least because Vk waded straight into articles on subjects such as Peerage and Baronetage. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do anything wrong on those pages?? You dont like any scrutiny of these pages do you? Why is that?--Vintagekits 14:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I would agree to this as long as the mentors put forward are admins (or even mere simple editors) whom I respect and who will last the course and not simply become "not arsed" anymore after a matter of days!--Vintagekits 14:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly opposed. This was the spirit, if not the letter, of his last parole and look where that got us. His last two paroles were issued on the understanding "the community will no longer tolerate foul language or potential threats under any circumstances from him" and the last two paroles were violated for exactly that. Why would it be different this time? Rockpocket 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly opposed. Vintagekits has alreday been severely reprimanded and as already been left in no doubt the community will no longer tolerate foul language or potential threats from him, and has already has had plenty of last chances. Very few editors who have behaved as badly as Vk would be lucky enough to get two paroles, and he has demonstrated no reason to believe that a third parole would be any more effective (for example, elsewhere on this page he pleads in his defence that one of outbursts was because he was drunk, as if drunken abuse were somehow more acceptable than other sorts). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not ONE of my outbursts - MY ONLY outburst was when I came in at two am - that is it, there are no others. Vintagekits 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your ONLY outburst???? Just taking one from the list, what about your emails to Alison after she supported your block? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Cough* Rockpocket 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed - sorry. Tried and failed before - Alison ^❤ 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well not really, there was a different climate then, all the focus was on me, now that others can not just target and attack me because of the issues highlighted here and the sanctions that may be meated means that there is no reason that it could not work now.--Vintagekits 18:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed - I think this would be a good solution and opportunity for Vintagekits to redeem himself in the community's eyes. Giano 13:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Agree, there is a considerable aura of something about the threat allegations. We know of two false charges at this stage. We are all agreed Vk is on his last chance; don't create a martyr. Rockpocket, I'd ask you to trust me on this. Blocking/banning can be done in the blink of an eye, without any Arbcom, if Vk breaks any conditions. (Sarah777 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry, Sarah. I know some people think my single goal here is to get Vk off Wikipedia, but it trully isn't. My goal is to ensure that that disruption and acrimony that appears whenever Vk is around will stop. If I thought that a topic ban would work, I would honestly support it. It was I that unblocked him last time remember, why would I do that if my goal was to get rid of him? But, sadly, everything I have seen with regards to Vk suggests to me that he simply can't participate to this project in a manner that is acceptable. If we topic ban him again, why wouldn't he just create a sockpuppet to edit those articles? He has done so in the past, why wouldn't he again? Why won't he get drunk and abuse people again? Just today on this page he told me, personally, "this will not be forgotten." Does that fill you with confidence all Vk intends to do is get back to editing boxing related articles and avoid any conflict? Hell, if Vk held his hands up to his misbehaviour in the past and vowed that that he has turned over a new leaf then I might even support him. But he continues to lie about his use of sock and meatpuppets, he continues to blame everyone else but himself for all the problems leading to this case, and he continues to provide ever more unlikely excuses for the damning evidence that would have got most editors banned months ago. We should always strive to give people every chance to redeem themselves, but when people do not even accept that their behaviour was wrong, why should we think they will change? Rockpocket 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where I lied or withdraw that comment. As for "he continues to blame everyone else but himself for all the problems" I am actually the ONLY editor at this Arbcom that has had the balls to admit that they have done something wrong - I dont see one other editor doing that. 16:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the fairest solution for VK and all concerned. He has been a abusive prat at times but he admits it, he clearly regrets it. Now he has seen a very public airing of not only his own bad behaviour but also that of many others things are falling into place. While his behaviour was still far from exemplary, I don't think it was more morally wrong than some others who used more polite language to express their grievances. This solution gives him the humiliating public telling off that many want to see, it also ties his hands completely and at the same time allows him to make valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. One breach and he is out for ever. The winner here is Wikipedia, which is what all this is about. Giano 19:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, one thing that's missing is some explanation of why Vitagekits should be expected to use this final-final-final chance more effectively than his final or final-final chances. The pattern previously has been that he promises good behaviour, but that when the pressure is on he can't hold to that promise. What's the evidence that Vk's temperament has changed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because for the first time we are seeing many of those he has been complaining of being held up for scrutiny themselves, and in many cases found wanting. He has felt (wrongly at times, I agree) victimised, now he is seeing justice being done and hopefuly in some cases acted upon - after this the air will be a lot cleaner for all. Giano 20:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this sound to you like someone who is planning to move forward having "cleared the air"? Why would one say that and what am I supposed to infer from it? It sounds to me like the veiled threats that have been made against me twice before. This depresses me and makes me even more sure that, as much as Vk promises good behaviour (again), that he still sees WP as a place to continue his personal battles. Rockpocket 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake! you are reading far too much into every turn of phrase - what is that expression? "One can forgive but not forget" perhaps it's time you began to assume a little good faith. Giano 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My good faith expired, I'm afraid, around his second final chance. I unblocked him when he promised to behave, only for him to send more abusive emails a few weeks later. What is that expression? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Rockpocket 22:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAve you seen these "abusive emails" or are you making that up? Vintagekits 22:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly think you are reading too much into those comments, Rockpocket. Re the emails; let's not start throwing the kitchen sink back into the mix. I assume these are the same "drunken" emails that have been explored ad nauseam. Let's stop inferring, interpreting, holding every remark like a diamond to the light looking for imperfections. Clear threat or clear breach - Vk is history. Just leave it at that. (Sarah777 23:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Actually the emails to which I refer are the abusive ones sent to Alison and BHG just a few weeks back. The drunken ones were during his first last chance, I know it can be confusing considering the number of last chances Vk has had. Rockpocket 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster is blocked and then mentored[edit]

20) Kittybrewster is blocked for one month following his return he will be banned from all pages connected with the Peerage, Nobility and Baronetcies, or even commenting on these pages for a period of 6 months. He may edit other articles so long as they make no reference to these subjects or The Troubles what-so-ever. For a one year period he will have a mentor to be decided by the Arbcom. If he breaks any of these terms or refuses to accept the advice of his mentor he is to be banned for one year. If he makes any edits containing anything stronger than a mild expletive he is banned for one year. He is to be severely reprimanded and left in no doubt the community will no longer tolerate editing in a POV manner or conflicts of interest. - vintagekits

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Vintagekits.
Reprimanded for what? I think it is quite funny. Since when have I been into expletives? - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[128] Giano 18:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose: tit for tat proposal. Referring to a contentious edit in February which has already been dealt with is meaningless. We are nearing the end of September. For goodness sake. Time for a few people to get a life, methinks. David Lauder 17:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold heart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) banned from Wikipedia[edit]

19) User:Gold heart is banned for one year, by direction of the Arbitration Committee. This applies to any and all sockpuppets that this account creates. A checkuser should be done to eliminate all sockpuppets found.

Comment by Arbitrators:

An indefinite community ban would be more appropriate. Fred Bauder 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, would you or the other Arbitration Committee members have a problem if I proposed just that on The Community Sanction Noticeboard? SirFozzie 21:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection Fred Bauder 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Submitted per evidence section 2.10, and principles 2, 3, 5, and 7. The only reason it's one year, is.. A) It's as long as I can ask for from the Arbitration Committee, B) Once this passes, I will ask to formalize this as a WP:BAN, via the requisite places. I find this behavior (outing another editor's private medical history) disgusting, reprehensible, and sub-human. SirFozzie 20:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per Fozzie. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And as soon as possible too. Rockpocket 22:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, per the evidence. The breach of privacy to discredit an editor is awful behaviour, and the sockpuppetry is also unacceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought it up on WP:CSN. SirFozzie 13:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

~~Sadly~~, Having read what GH said to Alison, not so sadly this is the first sanction here I find I must agree with. (Sarah777 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed: Just get rid of him permanently if possible. Has anyone compiled a list of all his socks, I have a feeling their is a lot more to this editor than initially meets the eye. Something beyond the obvious is not quite right. I also want to know how he knew how to make those claims. Giano 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison knows how GH was able to make those claims. I think her private life has been publicly discussed quite enough and don't believe we should be getting into this any further. Rockpocket 18:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well trust me on this one, if you don't get to the bottom of it and you won't stop it - it will come back again and again and again. This wants nipping so firmly in the bud that it shrivels and dies. Giano 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, there is little that can be done, on wiki, to stop a determined editor who edits from a large shared IP range. Alison's statement has revealed the individual for what he is, a troll and a bully, and from now on we should all WP:RBI as quickly as possible. Giving him the oxygen of publicity by discussing how and why it got to this stage is exactly what he wants. Starve him of attention and he will eventually go away. Rockpocket 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali wasn't the only one taken in; include me here! I genuinely thought ....that....Jeez, can't remember what I was talking about! (Sarah777 20:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Probation[edit]

20) I am thinking about proposing that all troublesome editors involved here be placed on probation with rather mild sanctions available to administrators. The articles themselves would be placed on article probation with the option of placing additional troublesome editors which emerge on probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree/Disagree. I think folks need some time off, and then come back on probation, but that's just my thoughts.. and there's some editors who deserve longer sanctions, SirFozzie 23:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. I think sanctions are in the nature of punishment. That may be appropriate (e.g. Goldheart) but the general principle is that blocks should be to prevent bad behaviour rather than to punish. Bishonen says watch what I do, not what the rules say. I am aware of WP:IAR. Some people are genuinely confused as to what the rules here actually are and those people have fallen foul as they learn. I have in mind particularly 3 or 4 "passionate" (but not wicked) relatively new editors. Those people need tuition/ mentoring. It is for Arbcom to determine who tutors whom and how. I think it would not be helpful or kind for me to specify who or what I am thinking more precisely. But an example would be VK who (in my opinion) was pursuing his particular POV when he swarmed around articles re nobility ardently seeking to strip out all the titles - which I am sure he thought was following the rules while the "tories" regarded it as provocative "republican agenda". Vk does something else which is infuriating to the (differently educated) “tories” and would not have been tolerated at school – namely “sneaking”, reporting people, seeking punishments, revenge, etc; his motivation for this is for him to know but I suspect it irritates other “tories” as much as it does me. Goodness knows how he got on at school. That behaviour would not have been tolerated at any school I went to. MrDarcy (who believed in zero tolerance) had it right when he said there are only three rules: be kind, be kind and be kind. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely on to something here. Your background is different. Likewise, your ways are irritating also, with your "flowery language" and all. However, you are all editors in good standing and obligated to maintain civility towards one another.

That last comment reminds me of Tom Lehrer's monologue introducing his song National Brotherhood Week, when he said that "it has come to my attention that there are some people who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that". Being kind is indeed a very important principle, but zero tolerance is not an act of kindness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A paradox, but I think grasping the nettle will pay off. To an American you all seem quite British as you share a common frame of reference I find quite alien. As members of one tribe afflicted by the same troubles some mutual sympathy is in order. Those who persist in "keeping the hell agoing" need to be firmly ejected from the conversation. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Aatomic1[edit]

21) Aatomic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per article per week. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per similar remedy at proposed decision. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Only fair that he share in the parole SirFozzie 14:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - as he's been a party to the revert-warring - Alison ^❤ 02:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as per evidence. --Domer48 09:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Civilty patrol[edit]

22) In addition to any other sanctions imposed, the following editors should be placed on extended civility patrol, and should be blocked for escalating periods of time for further incivility, regardless of any actual or perceived provocation

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, though the list may not be complete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean parole, not patrol, but yes, some kind of Civility Parole is necessary. SirFozzie 14:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do mean parole, although with this group, I rather like the idea of an active patrol, with sirens blazing and lights flashing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Giano_II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Civilty parole[edit]

22.1) In addition to any other sanctions imposed, the following editors should be placed on extended civility parole, and may be blocked for escalating periods of time for further incivility, regardless of any actual or perceived provocation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, slightly different wording to above (may not should), including Fozzie's correction. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to all four. SirFozzie 15:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And the newly added W. Frank? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, including the addition of W. Frank. I'd prefer "should be blocked", but maybe there's no precedent for that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add ONIH, Padraig and Sir Fozzie. Astrotrain 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole "demand without evidence" routine is a favorite of yours, isn't it? You're not just barking up the wrong tree, you're barking up the wrong forest. SirFozzie 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Astro. Just as an attempt to help you understand the way ArbCom works.. the proceedure is A) Produce evidence that a person is misbehaving (with links to specific diffs that show the behaviour) on the /evidence page. B) Propose a finding of fact based on the evidence in the appropriate section of the /Workshop page we're on right now. C) Propose a remedy based on the finding of fact for discussion. Going straight to C) does no good. SirFozzie 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence posted against those users by various people (including you) Astrotrain 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted evidence against User:SirFozzie? I'll have to go back and check. I know his type though, I bet you there's plenty of violations of WP policy, don't you think? SirFozzie 17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I thought your essay was rather uncivil Astrotrain 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you didn't try and get it deleted as an attack page then.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your actions were a major part of my thoughts at the time I set down that essay, I wouldn't doubt you would, Astro. But since I'm such a nice guy, I will do step a) for you and submit it as evidence for you. SirFozzie 17:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well no one asked you to get involved in these disputes, but you agreed to mentor VK (failing spectacularly) as well as your bias towards ONIH (confirmed in your essay). Astrotrain 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I'm biased towards ONiH, I must also be biased towards you, because I noted what a good editor you WERE, before you became an editwarrior. I mentioned how many articles you had created, adding to the encyclopedia. Make no bones about it. I'm all for people contributing to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, while you dropped off, and mired yourself in fight after fight and edit war after edit war. ONiH was off writing Featured Articles and adding new articles, while you would log on, blindly revert your opponents and log off. So yes, I consider ONiH a net positive to the project. And it is true I consider you a net negative. You are no longer here to build an encyclopedia.. you are here to win your political fights. Period. SirFozzie 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather simplified way of looking at things. And I've created lots of articles this year. Astrotrain 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and before you accuse me of slipping away from questions I don't want to answer, regarding VK.. you should have seen the emails I sent VK after that drunken idiocy (and I'm sure that even he will admit it was actually that). But it turns out that when I attempted to DO my job of mentoring VK, and try to resolve issues (blocking an editor who snidely asked "Spasming your revert reflex again, Vinnie? Try engaging your braincells first", in the middle of a revert war where the editor actually also breached 3RR).. I got stick from several editors on your "side", Astro. A great part of the reason we're here is Vintagekits's behaviour, true. However, the incivility is rampant on both sides of the ledger, and quite frankly, you do your viewpoints harm with your attitude. SirFozzie 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility seems to be such a vague concept, however I have never lowered myself to the profanity displayed by VK or ONIH. Astrotrain 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(De-indenting) Before I leave this discussion alone (Wasted enough work time arguing with you) Just going over your recent articles created, quite frankly, if it wouldn't have been a WP:POINT violation, I see at least two articles that utterly fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines and would have nominated them for deletion. Edwyn Burnaby (1798-1867), Anne Caroline Salisbury, I understand that as a Scottish Monarchist, you feel these people are worthy and deserving of having an article in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that's just not the case. What we have here is just a general listing of generations of people who were born with a title, lived, had children and passed away. No assertions of Notability otherwise. I have no problems with the content, just that Wikipedia is not the place for them (perhaps someone should create NobleWiki for all this info?). If someone's claim to fame is that they were the Great-Grandparents of Queen Elizabeth II, that's a bit distant to be hanging your hat on.. or at least this is my opinion. SirFozzie 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend VK nominated Edwyn Burnaby for deletion when he was wikistalking me under your mentorship. Any when did I say I was a monarchist? Astrotrain 19:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to even try, I don't know why I bother. SirFozzie 19:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotrain, have you any evidence of me being uncivil to any editor.--Padraig 08:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add Giano_II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. See here, the procedure has repeatedly been made clear. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civilty parole Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

22.2) In addition to any other sanctions imposed, the following editor should be placed on extended civility parole, and may be blocked for escalating periods of time for further incivility, regardless of any actual or perceived provocation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as per evidence.--Padraig 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, supported by evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the evidence is there. --Domer48 09:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Civility[edit]

23) All editors in this arbitration are reminded that if they cannot get along civilly with each other, that they face the prospect of being blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, and a mile better then my first thought. "All editors are sent to their room without supper, and won't be allowed out to play with the other kiddies till they promise to play nice. SirFozzie 20:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Giano_II banned for three months; then put on one-revert every 24 hours[edit]

24) Proposed per above evidenece. Ban him for three months (basically from now till Jan '08), then put him on one-revert every 24 hours. If he breaks this, he is back blocked indef. BTW, what will happen if someone is involved is blocked for say for instance three months, but then immediately after being blocked requests unblock? Would the block be extended? Davnel03 21:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongest possible oppose and troutslap What's going on here? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no evidence to support this.--Padraig 21:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per lack of evidence and lack of direct involvment in this case. Let's be real here - Alison ^❤ 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This proposal is inane, bordering on trollish. Not only is it unsupported by any findings or evidence, but no one has contended that Giano has engaged in any inappropriate reverting at all. It seems to be completely random, and therefore unjustified. Parenthetically, although it wouldn't excuse poor user conduct, the people proposing to ban Giano might wish to bear in mind that he is responsible for, among various other things, yesterday's mainpaged featured article.

As for Davne103's question, although I don't see it as having anything whatsoever to do with Giano, the answer to the question is that no administrator has the right to overturn a decision of the Arbitration Committee, so an unblock request under those circumstances would automatically be denied. Newyorkbrad 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brad - I did revert one or two people several hundred times (so it seemed) yesterday on the main page, perhaps that is what he was referring to. I would advise all others to not waste their time commenting on this - BHG is keen to block a troll tonight so I expect the unfortunate nominator is already blocked. Giano 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, this proposal is daft, but your trolling is getting very tedious. For the record, I have no desire to block anyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Don't worry about it, we all get forgetful [129] - perhaps I just imagined that was a not very well veiled threat. Giano 06:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm - I read that as a reference to a proposed ban resulting from the ArbCom case (this one, actually) - Alison ^❤ 06:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, obviously. But this is just one more troll proposal. Is their no sanction for such manifest abuse of the Arbcom process? (Sarah777 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Apologies. Looking at it now, maybe it was a bad proposal. Apologies to anyone affected. I won't propose any more things here. Peace, Davnel03 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And peace to you. We all have our off-moments (at least I do!). Regards (Sarah777 23:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Probation 2[edit]

25) The following editors are placed on 1 revert per week probation with regards to articles pertaining to The Troubles or British baronets. This does not include reverts of IP Address edits, but should be applied liberally (I.E., if it's the usual group of editors who are editing the article, then this remedy would apply.)

Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Pared down the list from the proposed decision to those who have actually been blocked at some time in the past for edit-warring. The next remedy will be for anyone else who wants to join in. SirFozzie 13:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I oppose this idea, as this reduces this to a numbers game, can I suggest that instead that these editors listed cannot make changes to articles without first discussing them on the article talk page and achieving consensus there first, and any editor that dosent abide by that will have their edit reverted, and be blocked if they revert again.--Padraig 13:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking up that idea would break into pieces the spirit of wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.Traditional unionist 15:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So players like Domer48 and Barryob get away without any restrictions for their part in edit wars then? Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bio: I looked at EVERY name from the proposed decision list and looked at their block log. Only folks who have been blocked for edit warring were put in my list. If you have a suggestion, you can always post your own list if you wish. SirFozzie 15:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case how come W. Frank is not included.--Padraig 18:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The probation should cover all editors, not just a list proposed by a biased admin. Note that he misses out his friend ONIH who has also been blocked for "Attempting to harass other users: Personal attack continues after discussion and final warning"[130]; and others in the Irish Republican cabal- Domer48 [131]. Astrotrain 16:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Biased admin" - check!. "your friend" - check!. "Irish Republican cabal" - check!. 10 out of 10 points to Astrotrain for covering all bases :) - Alison ^❤ 16:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I selected a criteria, and included EVERYONE who fit under that criteria. That's both sides, right there. And considering it was a proposal designed to limit edit-warring, it made sense to include everyone who had been blocked for edit-warring. Just like I did, Astro, you can certainly put in a request to have everyone who's been blocked for breaches of civility (such as the block that ONiH got), put on a Civility parole, that they are being held up to higher standards. But it's more fun to just complain and throw accusations of bias and cabals, instead, apparently. I should try it sometime. SirFozzie 16:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a time limit on these people's 1RR ? - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The time limit would be indefinite, people can always submit a request to ArbCom that the remedy no longer apply to them, however. SirFozzie 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am in favour, but think additional consequences are appropriate re non edit-warrig issues (eg ThePiper). - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindenting) - Well, ThePiper/GoldHeart is now banned from Wikipedia, and has apparently stopped their activities. What other consequences were you looking towards? Let's see if we can hammer something out. SirFozzie 16:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Although W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for 3RR, so needs adding. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This provides admins with a much-needed tool to stop the edit-warring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I too would add W. Frank. Rockpocket 22:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Probation, going forward[edit]

26) If other editors become involved in an edit war on articles pertaining to the Troubles or British baronets, then any two uninvolved administrators may place them under the same probationary terms as above, by notifying the Arbitration Committee on the Arbitration Enforcement page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This should cover any new folks who want to jump in, and any of the involved parties who have not edit-warred in the past, but may do so in the future. SirFozzie 13:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Very good idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - absolutely - Alison ^❤ 18:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One with some sort of general Northern Ireland theme might be best? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Though I would clarify what you mean by "uninvolved administrators". Administrators not edit warring, administrators not under terms of probation or administrators not involved in the case. Rockpocket 22:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

One Night in Hackney is urged to continue to contribute to Wikipedia[edit]

27) One Night In Hackney has said that he will be leaving Wikipedia at the end of this ArbCom case. Taking into account his contributions, to bringing articles up to the highest standards possible, he is urged to reconsider his decision to depart.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. To have a good article writer like ONIH feel like he needs to leave at the end of this ArbCom is a bad thing for Wikipedia.. we need MORE of the article writing and improvement, and less of the edit warring and name-calling, which is what ONiH generally provides.. SirFozzie 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed He should remain and continue his contributions to the project.--Padraig 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - a bit unorthodox in an ArbCom case and most likely something that the committee will not be considering but yes, ONiH has been a superb contributor to the project. It's a pity other on all sides here don't heed his example - Alison ^❤ 18:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm nothing special really, it's just I have the inclination to do a job properly. Anyone looking at the articles I write/improve can see what sources I use, as to write comprehensive articles you generally need some/all of the many books available. Buy the books or borrow them from a library, it's simple enough. I've shown you how it's done, so who's going to take my place? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment As I've said to various people privately and also said publicly, I'm here for the duration only. That's one of the reasons I've been busy writing articles, as my time here is limited. I'd like to think the articles I've written since my return are good examples of what can be achieved if editors are prepared to spend their time constructively? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, disposable is as disposable does. If he doesnt go he should be an admin.--Vintagekits 01:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't think it is appropriate as an ArbCom proposal, which is why I'm not going to support. I don't understand ONiH's insistence he will depart, and I'm not entirely convinced he will be able to stay away, anyway. I certainly hope he doesn't, as he is almost unique among all participants in this case in that he has a strong interest in the content of The Troubles, yet has (almost entirely) conducted himself appropriately. If all the other involved editors followed his editing model, then we will have no more problems. However, the main reason I hope he stays is for more pragmatic reasons: then we won't have all the inevitable accusations that every new editor with a pro-Republican interest is his sock puppet. These breed bad faith and draw other editors into the mix. Rockpocket 18:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the last part of your response, seems to me that the folks who will be making these "inevitable accusations" need to spend some time re-reading the pages on Civility and Assuming Good Faith SirFozzie 18:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But if it was that simple, we wouldn't be here in the first place. Rockpocket 02:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators are unlikely to adopt a proposal of this nature, although their doing so is not completely unprecedented (see, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee#Worldtraveller). I too dislike seeing any contributor feel forced to leave the project, although ultimately we are all volunteers and will stay around only so long as we feel we are accomplishing something and/or having fun. To One Night In Hackney's last point, I am reminded of something Isaac Asimov once said, when he was writing a book on word origins and his wife objected, "You are just copying the material out of the dictionary." His reply to her was "here is the dictionary, honey; why don't you write the book?" Newyorkbrad 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this might not be the right place to insert a trivial observation on Wiki administrators? (Sarah777 02:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Editing in retaliation is a blockable offence[edit]

28) Meaning tit-for-tat in an area outside one's normal interests.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment What is the basis for this, are editors supposed to list the interests they have on their Userpage and restrict their edits to just these as a basis for them being able to edit articles, I can't speak for other editors but I frequently use the 'Random article' link in the navigation box, to find articles that might be of interest and if I come across errors or spelling mistakes on these I will correct them, are you suggesting that I shouldn't.--Padraig 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. That is not tit-for-tat disruption. - Kittybrewster ☎ 15:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous proposal - who is to say what anyone's intersts are, I've often added a fact (with a cite) that I have read in an out of date magazine, in the dentist's waiting room or somewhere equally time-wasting, to a page about which I have no or little interest. I know of one well known editor whose prolific edits depend on who is in the daily Times' obituary column. Giano 15:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not tit-for-tat disruption. - Kittybrewster ☎ 15:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then how can it be proven that a editor is engaged in 'Tit for Tat', I was accused by David Lauder of vandalism because I edited on and I moved a few Baronecy articles that where incorrectly titled, even though I explained in the talk pages of these exactly why I was moving them before hand. Unless it can be shown a editor is deliberately vandalising or blanking articles, then its hard to say what is or isn't 'Tit for Tac', and if a editor is making improvements to article and adding information or sources then that is for the betterment of these articles and wikpedia.--Padraig 15:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is something you might normally do then it will be unlikely you would be blocked. If it appeared to be retaliation then it might be. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Inherently biased, see forthcoming amended proposal below. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.--Padraig 17:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, on the pragmatic grounds that such a 'rule' would be unenforceable. Think it through. (Sarah777 22:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting to note the objects here. I have a list of editors who have deliberately gone to articles I commenced or made significant contributions to in order to harrass me in a variety of ways. Anyway, the good thing is that I see in the ArbCom's decision there is a majority supporting this motion. David Lauder 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't include me in the "interesting list" as I wasn't even been aware of your existence till this Arbcom. (That implies you are accusing the other two of harassing you; here, in an Arbcom - so you must have evidence I assume). "the good thing is that I see in the ArbCom's decision there is a majority supporting this motion." What decision? Where? (Sarah777 20:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Put your money where your mouth is and post this list, complete with diffs of the alleged harassment. Last time you made that claim Tyrenius told you to stop whining I believe. Oh and "inappropriate" =/= "blockable offence" for the record. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing is a blockable offence[edit]

29) Editors who edit disruptively may be blocked, whether the disruption is "tit" or "tat".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--Padraig 17:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--Domer48 22:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already is. - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well there's no need for your walled garden proposal above then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

30)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: