Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:52, 23 April 2008

Talkpage

Wheres ma talk page?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone?--Vintagekits (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney

One Night In Hackney, theres One Night In Hackney, One Night In Haaaaaaaaackney.

theres One Night In Hackney.

--Vintagekits (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Kittybrewsters accusations of sockpupperty

Shouldnt someone be given Kittybrewster a warning about going around putting sockpuppet tags on long established editors pages without having a shread of evidence. Who the hell does he think he is?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits, Vintagekits

Vintagekits, Vintagekits, there's no on like our Vintagekits,

He's broken every human law, he breaks the laws on wiki-blitz.

His powers of levitation would make a fakir stare,

And when you reach the scene of crime--Vintagekits not there!

You may seek him in the basement, you may look up in the air--

But I tell you once and once again, Vintagekits not there!

Yes, he is barred , but the above was posted by an "anon" today on ANI - it is very funny, let it stay for a few hours - we need some laughs here recently. Giano (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides (you of all people should know, Giano!) being blocked doesn't ban you from editing your talkpage... — iridescent 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gold Heart - Alison 08:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned or indefinitely blocked

1. I am not banned I am indefinately blocked - theres a difference.

2. Please be so kind as to not visit my user and talk pages.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are mistaken. Per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive16#Community ban, you are indeed banned. You are correct that there is a difference—any or all of the WP:BAN#Evasion and enforcement methods may be applied. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually kid, you are wrong I am not community banned and nothing in the link you provided says that I am. I am indefinately blocked not banned or communiy banned. And you have been destroying good articles and edits on the basis that I am banned - which I am not!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrwsc, could you please show me the exact words that say Vk is banned? Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow the link in my previous message. Under the "Community ban" subheading, Vintagekits is one of two users listed. How else should that be interpreted? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All I can see is "Community ban" under which is *User:Vintagekits (previously on probation by ArbCom ruling). I guess your interpretation has some validity in the purely technical "what it says on the tin" sense:)Sarah777 (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Stay off this page Max, next time you come here or to any of my pages then I will report you for provoking me. Andrew, just because someone put my name on that link doesnt justify me being banned. If I put your name there does that mean you are banned? Where is the official decision to say that I am banned because I have never been informed of this - all I have ever been told is that I am indefinately blocked. Which means your witch hunt to oversight edits is against wiki rules and also means that I can apply to come back at any time.--Vintagekits (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

VK isn't banned. If he were? He couldn't be posting here (his personal page). GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, this is illogical. Blocking is a MediaWiki software mechanism to prevent users from editing anything other than their own user page. Banning is a social construct that the community imposes on unwelcome editors. Obviously, it makes enforcement of a ban easier if you indefinitely block the user, but the software still allows editing of the user page (if it is not protected). Since blocks and bans are distinctly different, I don't understand how you draw your conclusion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not holding any candle here one way or the other, but there is a difference between banned and indefinitely blocked. Banned means gone, never to return, while indefinitely blocked means gone with no end date. However, at some later stage an end date could be decided by someone, by which date the indef block would be removed and the user could then edit again. At least, that's how I understand it. --The.Q 13:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a message at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Clarification of User:Vintagekits status to seek clarification of your status, Vintagekits. The summary on the WP:AE archive page seemed crystal clear to me, but I can also see how there is some confusion here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Andrwsc, I was mistaken. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry about GoodDay - you were right - the link that is provided says that I am indefinately blocked and not banned - not one bit of it say banned. Anyway I should be allowed come back as long as I am not editing Irish political articles which is the only sphere in which I run into trouble. Andrewsc has deleted loads of very good boxing articles and how is that helping wiki?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple of quotes from the discussion about my block -

• "User:Vintagekits was blocked indefinitely by myself last year in a turn of events that ultimately led to the Troubles ArbCom case, in which Vintagekits was unblocked and put on probation.

Placing this here for community input as this is bound to be controversial - Alison"

• "All the accounts are indef blocked. Vk has the same recourse to appeal as any other blocked editor, should he choose to do so. If he continues to use socks to avoid the block then those will be blocked too. We move on. Rockpocket"

• "The reason they should both be blocked indefinitely is that they have both socked abusively. They probably thought they were faced with no other option. Kittybrewster"

• Good work Alison. Endorse indef block. --John"

• I suggest a pragmatic solution. We insist on a stipulated user name, in these cases User:David Lauder and User:Vintagekits. The users are not allowed any socks, even normally legitimate ones. They also forfeit the normal precautions of checkuser, and may be checkusered at any time. In fact they should expect this to occur randomly and without their knowledge. They accept this as a condition of continued editing. They are placed on a list for this purpose. They may apply to be removed from the list after two years of good conduct, including 3RR, civility etc. They are blocked for one month in the first instance to give everyone else a rest. This period of time also means checkuser will be able to be used in the meantime: too long a block will lose the data. Tyrenius"

• "At least[REDACTED] is being fair and unbiased, ie not taking sides, by indef blocking both. Personally I think this should be at arbcom enforcement with say a 3 month ban on each of them with the date reset for sock evasions, isnt that more how arbcom works and both carrot and stick. Thanks, SqueakBox"

• Keep them indef blocked, at least for about 3 months, then ask them to email asking for unblock, along with promises to behave, after that. Socks are fine for everyone to have for unrelated pages if we want, but they shouldn't really be used to back each other up/edit the same pages- used abusively. Vote stacking on Giano's ArbCom vote, even, took place on both sides. For now at least, these are excellent blocks all round. Oh and... it won't be that hard to enforce as they'll be quite easy to spot if they edit the same pages in the same way. If such people turn up, checkuser at the first sign of disruptive editing etc. Special Random"

It was pretty much unanimous that there should be an indefinate block 'not a banned and many editors voiced there opinion that I should be allowed to return after some time. If anyone cared to look at my edit history at the time I my block I had ditched those to socks and had decided to "go straight" and also I had pretty much stopped editing Irish political articles. I dont see the point in this block as long as I am not editing in a distruptive manner.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I originally started the ANI thread, let me just state for the record that I originally started it to request clarification of Vintagekits' indefinite block as it was bound to be controversial. It was not a community request for a ban - Alison 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits, please read the link to the WP:AE page I provided above. An "uninvolved" admin has confirmed that you are indeed banned. Also, another admin had independently added you to the WP:List of banned users a few weeks ago. If you are waiting for an admin to provide "official" notice to you, consider this message to be that notice. You are banned. All the remedies in WP:Banning policy are applicable, which means that you are not welcome to edit any page, including this talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well its quite simple that the guy is wrong - people on that discussion expressly said it wasnt a ban and that it was an indefinate block! If I was able to I would take issue with him are direct him here but I cant. Maybe someone would.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Vintagekits solicited me to also post here, I shall reiterate my comments from WP:AE. As far as I can see, the discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#User:Vintagekits led to a community consensus for an indefinite block with no clear path to resuming editing and no end date in sight. That is as far as I am concerned community ban, and will remain one until such time as an administrator decides that Vintagekits should be unblocked. At which point it will no longer be a community ban, and the administrator may or may not also actually unblock Vintagekits immediately, depending on their judgment, policy at the time, and how firmly they feel. GRBerry 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But GRBerry, that was not the concensus during the discussion and your assumption doesnt really make sense. The people on the discussion about the block specifically said that they didnt want a ban and endorsed an indefinate block. Even the admin that started that discussion stated that it wasnt for a ban and was for a block - I feel you have just been railroad into a position by Andrew and now that you have made the decision wont change it - your position seems illogical to me because no one has ever mentioned a ban.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gold Heart Question

Topic ban solution

What topic ban similar to what is proposed here.

I should be allowed edit other articles where I cause no disruption and add to wikipedia.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In light of this, it is a reasonable suggestion.--Domer48 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion certainly not an unreasonable proposal. Just look at contributions made to boxing articles, a case of cutting of your nose to spite your face by not allowing this. BigDunc (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would support VK being fully allowed back, if he proved himself first. That is three months trial, editing nothing but his boxing pages. He would not be permitted to create any new pages or edit any pages other than those boxing pages he has edited previously. He would be allowed to comment only on Misplaced Pages and policy pages that have no concern with the politics of any nation. For those three months probation he would be forbidden any contact with the Kittybrewster crowd, even by email, if they torment him - then an independent Admin (User: Lar springs to mind) could be appointed to address the situation. If VK uses anywhere on the site any obscene or seriously offensive language (in any language or spelling thereof) then he should be banned permanently (a list of such words could even be drawn up in advance). There should be no right of appeal or alteration of these rules half way through. After three months he is allowed to edit full and normally, although a topic ban on Irish political pages could still prevail. This is a very Draconian and severe solution, but people say he has been given chances before - he has never before been this severely curtailed before. He might even feel he would not rather not edit than be so curtailed, but if he is so keen to edit and wants a truly final chance he will accept. If he doesn't accept then leave him banned, he'll get no further sympathy from me. Whatever the outcome the problem is finally and irrevocably solved. Giano (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Current IBO Middleweight Champion

Hello VK. Have you any idea as to who's the current title holder? Is it Raymond Joval or Daniel Geale. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Geale is - Joval was forced to vacate/stripped because he failed to defend.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Vk. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem - all in a days work. Hopefully you will support my propose that I can come back editing so long as I stay away from editing Irish political articles - that way I can sort out those boxing articles that are in a mess.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish Boxing Pound for Pound List

Rank	Fighter	Record	Weight class	Titles held at present
1	John Duddy	24-0 (17 KO)	Middleweight	IBA middleweight champion
2	Andy Lee	15-1 (12 KO)	Super Middleweight	Irish Super middleweight champion
3	Paul McCloskey	16-0 (7 KO)	Light Welterweight	IBF International light welterweight champion
4	Bernard Dunne	25-1 (14 KO)	Super Bantamweight
5	Matthew Macklin	21-2 (16 KO)	Middleweight
6	James Moore	15-0 (10 KO)	Light Middleweight
7	Neil Sinclair	31-6 (24 KO)	Light Middleweight
8	Brian Magee	30-3-1 (19 KO)	Super middleweight
9	Oisin Fagan	21-5 (13 KO)	Light Welterweight
10	Andrew Murray	11-0 (5 KO)	Light Welterweight	Irish Light Welterweight champion
11	Stephen Haughian	13-1 (5 KO)	Welterweight
12	Michael Gomez	35-8 (24 KO)	Super featherweight
13	Martin Lindsay	11-0 (4 KO)	Featherweight
14	Jason McKay	19-2 (5 KO)	Super middleweight
15	Henry Coyle	6-1 (6 KO)	Light Middleweight
16	Kevin McBride	34-6-1 (29 KO)	Heavyweight
17	Jim Rock	29-4 (9 KO)	Middleweight	Irish middleweight champion
18	Martin Rogan	10-0 (5 KO)	Heavyweight