Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 21:04, 31 August 2007 view sourceGiano II (talk | contribs)22,233 edits →This supposed threat← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:52, 19 September 2023 view source Courcelles (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators434,776 editsm Changed protection settings for "User talk:Vintagekits": Restore prior. ( (indefinite) (indefinite))
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{collapse top}}
	{{warning| If you are here to point out my spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, poor punctuation, don't bother - I know its poor and no amount of spell checks can sort that out. I'm not perfect; you're (possibly) not perfect; there's only ever been one man in this world who's ever been totally perfect and they even ]}}
			== Since you continue to be disruptive.. ==
			Take 48 hours off, VK. Your attacks on Elonka are outside the lines, and you should know that by now. ] (]) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
	'''This is a troll-free zone.'''
			:Yawn! exact reason?--] (]) 17:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
			::Personal attacks and disruptive editing. I've brought it up here. ] (]) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::I am quite astounded by your retarded logic! Not sure why because I shold come to expect it to be honest. So who am I attacking and what is the attack because I cant figure it out.--] (]) 17:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::Well?--] (]) 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::So why is vvvkts....zzzz....ACCUSED (sorry) of not observing good manners? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			{{unblock reviewed|1=I dont know why anyone ever does one of these because they are never overturned and fellow admins always see things from the other admins perspective. Sir Fozz says that I have been disruptive and made a personal attack yet refuses to clarify the block, which is poor form. I wasnt being disruptive at all - I hadnt been involved in the revert war that was being discussed and I never suggested that Domer should ignore the probation only that putting him on probation was wrong - I wasnt alone on that. So there can only be the personal attack issue - I made no personal attack, I asked Fozz what was the attack and who was it made towards? Sir Fozz certainly does have a COI with regards me so maybe that clouded his judgement.|decline=You clearly don't ''want'' to understand the meaning of ] or ]. Look right above this unblock request for a perfect example of why you shall remain blocked. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
			*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, <u>or</u>
			*the block is no longer necessary because you
			**understand what you have been blocked for,
			**will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
			**will make useful contributions instead.
			Please read our ] for more information. ] (]) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)}}] (]) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
	'''This editor has full permission to remove, without replying, any comments he feels are likely to inflame dispute. If you have a problem with this editor, you are invited to bring that concern to the attention of ] or another member of the administrator community, but please bear in mind that we have a zero-tolerance approach to harassment. Constructive dialogue is always welcome, but if your message is removed it is safe to assume that ] has read it and chooses not to debate with you at this time.'''
			{{unblock reviewed|1=there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. ] (]) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)|decline=No one appears to have objected to your first edit to that thread, but the second one constituted a personal attack. Per your block log, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. I suggest that you consider modifying your behaviour to reflect Misplaced Pages standards, rather than implying that you are being singled out due to cultural differences. ]<small>]</small> 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}}
			:What "second bit" - throw me a fecking bone here and explain exactly why I am actually blocked instead of having me chase my tail.--] (]) 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			::. ]<small>]</small> 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::You dont like making it easy do you. What '''EXACTLY''' is the personal attack that warrants a 48 hour block.--] (]) 00:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::What a load. You just refactored this page to remove the links to the ANI thread and previous attempts to explain it to you. I'm revoking your talk page access for the duration of your block to avoid you're wasting any more of other's time with this foolishness. ] (]) 00:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::::The fact that, considering you have a block list that is literally as long as my forearm you still don't get what you're doing wrong here makes me a sad panda. Which, in itself is odd, since I'm not a panda. It ''does'' still make me sad, though. Have you ever considered maybe going somewhere else on the internet? ] (]) 00:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::(EC x2) I have Elonka's biggest fan, and for all I know she may not have made the correct decision as far as Domer48 is concerned. There is nothing wrong with questioning the probation itself. To that end, however, it is unnecessary to disparage Elonka herself; a review can take place without such comments, which are not conducive to a productive editing environment. As a corrollary of what you can see at the top of ], comment on the action, not on the administrator. If you really feel it is necessary to review an administrator's action on a wider scale, there are other venues for that which are more productive. Likewise, note that ] says that "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruption." Much as in the case of the probation mentioned here, your history of being blocked for personal attacks was likely considered as a contributing factor when deciding to block your account. ]<small>]</small> 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			==Ban==
	{| class="infobox" width="315px"
			As you already know, you have been indef'd and banned per . <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	|-
			::FYI to all the summary in the block log was the result a wrong pasting job. It should have been <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	! align="left" | ]<br />]
			:::I have restored your email and talkpage rights. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	----
			::::Thank you, Rlevse. Vintagekits, please set a good example with your communications. I've vouched for you to a certain degree. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	|-
			:::::Jehoch, which is in effect, SirFozzie's 48 hours block or Rlevse's indefinate ban?--] (]) 10:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
	|
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	|}
			==For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....==
			{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
			|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
			|rowspan="2" |
	Comments from unregistered users will be deleted!
			|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''
	==Good job 2==
	If he doesn't take action, I will. ] 16:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Cheers.--] 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	==Incivility==
	Please stop refering to me as Weggie ] 11:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I was informed that you are Weggie - p.s. whats uncivil/incivil about it anyway?--] 11:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	==Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)==
	I think it could be useful information. But the medical explanation wasn't sourced &mdash; the law article didn't say anything about that. &mdash; ''']''' <sup><font color="#CC5500">]</font></sup> 22:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I was wondering what the source of him being a member of OIRA was as I have never come across this claim before.--] 02:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::I added the source ya dimwit - I was also quite surprised to read it myself and I didnt know it.--] 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Sorry I didn't see that, first I ever heard of it, I wonder did he switch sides in prison, as the OIRA were defunct in all but name by then.--] 02:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::I'd say he switched prior to the bank raid but I dont know, I would say OIRA via C na hE was his idological entry into republicanism but didnt do feck all for them in reality and then he move to PIRA and entered the war for real but thats all guesswork.--] 02:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Possible, as that would explain why it is seldom or never mentioned.--] 03:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Gibnews ==
	Hi Vintagekits and thank you for your message. Can you find me the diff where he said that? The one you sent me was of him removing the warning. You have done the right thing in raising the matter with me. Not to be picky, but why do you call me Gunniog? That never was my user name and I've been User:John for quite a while now. Best wishes; I will help you if I can. --] 01:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I gave him a last warning; that wasn't enough for you but I bristle at the accusation of double standards. Blocks are preventive, not punitive and I always give people a last chance to stop poor behaviour before blocking. I hope you can rein in any tendency to be uncivil in complaining about a matter based around civility, as I'm sure you can see how silly that would be. Let me know, please, if Gibnews continues to make problematic edits. --] 02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::If it wasnt for the other two final warnings that you have given give (one for NPA and one for edit warring) then I might have consiered '''this''' final warning more seriously. Second;y, the reference to double standards is with reference to your asertion that you would like to block him because you would "too close" - pity that wasnt the case for me and especially ONiH for whom you became the straw that broke the camels back. slainte!--] 02:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::I think you had quite a few final warnings from me yourself over a period. I only blocked you in the end after a discussion at ]. I declined ONiH's unblock request because he was continuing to behave badly. I repeat, I always give people a chance to improve because I believe established editors deserve that, however problematic their behaviour. As I'm sure you know, Gibnews was blocked by Tyrenius, so the result you wanted was achieved. I'd like to see you as part of your improvement plan put all these grudges from the past behind you. You could achieve a lot more if you did. --] 03:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::I've been to confusion (its wikis version of confession!) and Fr. O'Leary has absolved me of my sins so as far as I am concerned its a clean(ish) slate.--] 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Your protection of ] ==
	Hi Tariqabjotu, I'm not sure that your protection of that template is all that useful. When I first separated the infobox out of the main article (]) as a single-transclusion template, the intent was to keep the main article unprotected for other non-infobox related edits, while the dispute on the infobox played out. However, since the main article is currently unprotected, editors are able to create their ''own versions'' of the infobox and put it in the main article, ''completely bypassing'' the protected template. This has already happened. My attempt at dispute resolution was a failure. I think the proper course of action is to reverse my work and put the infobox code back inline into the main article and protect ''that'' instead. Thanks, ] 21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	:That might work. Perhaps this should be presented to ] for more feedback, however. {{user|Padraig3uk}} appears to have been disruptive with flags in a lot of places. -- ''']''' 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Can I comment on this, firstly Andrwsc, you did created a seperate template to allow the Northern Ireland article to be unprotected, something I agreed with, and also something I did myself in the past if you care to check through the edit history over the past 6 months, on that occassion the template was nominated for deletion by another editor involved in the dispute on the flag issue.
	:::The template you created this time you didn't protect when you created it, dispite being told it would need protection to prevent an edit war, you then allowed one editor to reinsert the flag, and carry out 7 reverts in a 48hr period, before you protected the template and give that editor a warning about edit warring dispite the fact they had broken 3RR and should have been blocked from editing, yet you failed to revert the template back to it original state.
	:::There are a small group of editors trying to use WP as a soapbox to promote a particular political POV on Northern Ireland the flag issue is only part of that they are also pushing the notion that all Northern Ireland people are Northern Irish as a ethic group or nationality, this is completely false as people in Northern Ireland can either regard themselves as British, Irish or with duel British/Irish nationality, Northern Irish is a Unionist creation.
	:::I believe that WP should present the facts of the political situation in Northern Ireland, in this the Official Flag is the Union Flag, not the Ulster Banner. I also have no objection to the use of the Ulster banner in its proper context, when dealing with the period of 1921-72, I even used the Ulster Banner in this ] template I created to deal with the government and elections of that period, nor do I object to its use when dealing with sports people that identify with that flag or play in the commonwealth games under that flag. But I do object with their attempts to protray the Ulster Banner as representing Northern Ireland and its government today or since 1972.--] 02:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::I would second that, Padraig has done more than most to resolve this issue, I would assert that it is the actions of {{user|Astrotrain}} that we need to be looking at as I believe the he creates the problems regarding this issue on many pages. --] 02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Padraig's creation of a second template to avoid the protection for ] says enough. -- ''']''' 02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::::A second template in my opinion is very necessary and has been discussed for some time on the ] talkpage - I again see this as a great effort on his behalf to resolve this issue. --] 02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::I would like to see where that was discussed. -- ''']''' 02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::No problem, ] and linked to threads either side.--] 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::That thread has nothing to do with this template. -- ''']''' 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::It discusses creating the articles for which the ] would be used.--] 03:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Vintagekits, we aren't discussing that template, but the infobox template I created to restore the ] article back to the agree format before ] made his edits.--] 03:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) II==
	Hello Vk. I was reading the above article that you have been contributing to and noted some serious issues with attributions. There are plenty of statements in this article that are written as facts, but when you read the sources they are most certainly not independent reliable sources. Just two examples:
	*''The funeral had embarrassed the anti-Republican Fine Gael/Labour coalition goverment in Ireland at the time and its then-Taoiseach, Liam Cosgrave'' is sourced to '']''. How on earth can the mouthpiece of one political party be an independent, reliable source of criticism of its opposition? This has to be attributed.
	*''Six to eight guards would restrain the prisoner and drag him or her by the hair to the top of the bed, where they would stretch the prisoner’s neck over the metal rail, force a block between his or her teeth and then pass a feeding tube, which extended down the throat, through a hole in the block'', a description of the British method of forcefeeding, is sourced to ]. Again, this must be attributed, as the source is not independent.
	Obviously, I could go ahead and do this myself, or bring it up on the talkpage. But I'm not really familiar with editing in this subject area, and first wanted to determine whether this sort of lack of attribution is the norm, and whether there would be protest about among the regulars. So I thought I would discuss it with your first.
	Just to be clear, i'm not disputing the validity of this content, not am I saying that it is not accurate. I'm simply proposing that the content be attributed in the text, to make clear to the reader that this info is from sympathetic, rather than independent, sources. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 08:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:*Thanks for the email Rocket, we have a ] with what some might call "editors of another persuasion" that these sources are used especially, An Phoblacht, as it is the largest political weekly in Ireland and was one of the primary sources of news for the republican and nationalist communities is the O6 for many years. Anyway the basis of the agreement is that these sources are 1, used as fact unless there is a source which contradicts the informaton, then 2, if there is contrasiting then its is attributed and finally 3, if same information can be found from what other editors deem to be a more neutral source then the reference from say An Phoblacht, ] etc then the references from those sources is removed and replaced with the new source. regards--] 12:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::: Ok. That seems fair enough. Thanks. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::And just what "persuasion" are you labelling me with VK? ;-) This is one of the articles we could apply the rationale to, the referencing could definitely be improved. Its a pain in the arse doing it though, which is why I haven't yet. ] ] 08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Hey Vk. I wonder if you could shed any light on some issues about Gaughan. Do you know if his conviction was on terrorist-related charges or just criminal charges (and by that I mean explicitly, obviously the motivations of the prosecution may have been political, even if the charges were explicitly criminal). Secondly, it appears from his hunger strike demands that he was never awarded special status, can this be confirmed? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::To answer 1. I dont know is the answer as for 2. he may have had it at the very beginning of his internment but definately didnt at the end.--] 19:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	==Michael Gaughan==
	Thanks for your message. Two points: Firstly I have indeed read WP:RS, and Noraid is a textbook example of a questionable source. To quote: 'A questionable source is one with no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. This includes websites and publications that express political, religious, anti-religious, or racist views that are widely acknowledged as extremist.' Noraid is therefore fine as a source for Republican perceptions of Michael Gaughan, but as a source for a NPOV description of British force-feeding methods, or the political impact of the hunger-strikers it is entirely useless, being about as partisan and unbalanced as it is possible for a source to be.
	Second point: I am concerned about the use of the term 'Volunteer' for IRA members on Misplaced Pages. To me this seems to be favouring the IRA POV (that they are a legitimate army and therefore entitled to be addressed by their ranks) over the British POV (that they are criminals/terrorists). The neutral description would seem to me to be 'members'. I'm guessing that this has come up before: is there any discussion or guideline that you could point me to? Thanks.--] 22:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:1, Have you got any proof that the Noraid article has a. "no independent editorial oversight" b. "no fact-checking process" or c. "a poor reputation for fact-checking." - actually if you read the articles on their website that totally debunks that issue. 2. If you read the article ] you will understand that its a rank. If consider members of the British Army to be terrorist, murderer or criminals (which many people do) would that negate that fact that they held a rank in that organisation no matter how lowly they would consider that organisation or rank?--] 22:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::1)Noraid claims on the front page of its website to be 'the voice of Irish Republicanism in America'. Nothing wrong with that - but it clearly means it is partisan on the subject of Irish Republicanism. Its entire purpose is to support the Irish Republican POV, not to be a neutral conduit of balanced information about Ireland. It does not claim to be independent in the way that the New York Times or the Sydney Daily Telegraph would claim to be when writing about Ireland. This does not mean that everything in it is POV or incorrect, just that we cannot rely on anything in it to be NPOV. 2) The difference between the British Army and the IRA for Misplaced Pages purposes is that the British Army is, de facto and de jure, the army of an internationally-recognised state with control over its territory, recognition from its neighbours and the UN, and subject to international law. None of this applies to the IRA, which is only recognised as an army by its supporters. This is true even if you consider members of the British army to be criminals and murderers - they are, objectively, an army in the legal sense: it is this that entitles them to be known by their ranks.--] 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::1. Neutrality is a quality that is in scarce supply with regards the issue of NI, and to claim that a Unionist paper like that Daily Telegraph is a paragon of neutrality speaks volumes to me. Also neutrality does not preclude a source from being reliable per ]. 2. The point I was making is that like it or not that the IRA has systems, ranks as well as an, , ,, , North and South Command etc in its - it exists we all have to deal with it.--] 22:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Re: Names. ==
	Thanks. Was just about to leave you a message saying well done with the work you've done to the Vol. Michael Gaughan article. Keep up the good work. ] 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Cheers a chara, ] is next up.--] 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	::I added some info the Frank Stagg article earlier, also sorted the sources on ] and removed the tag.--] 10:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Cool.--] 10:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	==Dia duit==
	Go raibh maith agat a chara, conas tá tú inniu? ] 10:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Ta me go mhaith - failte romhat i do cumann a chara.--] 10:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Sláinte chugat. Cárb as duit? Is as Dún Dealgan mé. ] 10:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	==Prisoner of war category==
	I'm not sure this category is appropriate. It should probably be discussed before being inserted into all IRA articles. I'll maybe start a conversation at the ]. ] ] 10:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I'll stop for now. Crack on with the discussion.--] 10:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Started it at the IWNB. ] ] 10:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Tom William's ==
	Hello Vintagekits, could you look over my edits? Seen it on the project page as needing work. Regards--] 20:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	==That Article==
	has it. Let me know when you feel it's ready for prime time, and I'll undelete the article ] 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Mairéad Farrell ==
	As I already explained to you, Member/Volunteer is not an option. Please revert. --] 00:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I've explained to you the ]. Now if you want to start a new mediation cabal then crack on but your not going to bully me.--] 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Can't see anything there that justifies your position. Tell you what, I'm getting tired of your incivility as well. --] 01:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::You keep shouting about incivility - I havent been uncivil - just because you dont like the point I am putting across doesnt mean I am being uncivil.--] 01:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::Hi again Vintagekits. Can you please explain how the ruling justifies always capitalising the word "volunteer"? According to our MoS this is wrong. I'm looking at the sentence "Lower case "v" should be used for the time being." Thanks in advance. --] 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::No a lower case v wont be used in the mean time - read the mediation cabal ruling and then read the article talk page.--] 18:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I was quoting from the cabal ruling. I already quoted you the MoS section. I have lots of patience but it isn't infinite. --] 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Hey VK.. just step it down a bit man. I just noticed this on my last go round on WP before tying to catch 120 winks or so (got a killer bug and currently feeling like a steamroller ran over me..) Let me read the section and see what's going on and we can see where we need to go on it. ] 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::No probs Fozz. The cabal stated that the capitalisation of Volunteer should be further discussed on the talk page, it was then agreed that it was to be capitalised. P.S. hope you get better soon mate--] 18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::VK, this is what I'm seeing. Remember two things, A) That I'm looking over this quickly, and B) I'm not as sharp as I normally am, anyway. I'm gonna have to agree that John looks correct so far. I'll provide my reasoning in a new section below. Remember, I don't have the experience that you guys have with this whole thing (read a good article on sports as it pertains to the situation, I should send you the link someday when I can find it again.) ] 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Clinton Picture ==
	You might want to back that up with some evidence.{{unsigned|Fermanagheditor}}
	:I am asking you a question. also - please sign your comments.--] 01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::I dont know anything about signing comments as im new to wikipedia and I wont be signing this comment.
	::I see you have got yourself a bit of a negative reputation here on wikipedia thus my reason for deciding to ignore and delete any future comments from you.
	::P.S wikipedia should be respected. Its been very benefical for me and I and im sure many other users would appreciate a bit of respect from you.{{unsigned|Fermanagheditor}}
	:::So despite banging on about ] you are blatantly failing to adhere to this and also convieniantly ignoring the issue of copyright violation - interesting.--] 01:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	I have uploaded the pictures under 'my own work' and have stted on ALL pictures that i took he myself so is there any point in e answering any queston when the answer is on the image ta?
	--] 03:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:still no very civil but at least you are signing your posts so thats something.--] 02:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::This new user uploaded a bunch of images and tagged them as his own work. Unless you actually have evidence that he did not take this pictures, you MUST assume good faith. Why? If he's going to lie about it the first time, he'll lie about it the second time, too. Therefore, asking for a "confirmation" is a waste of time (if he's not being truthful) and rude (if he is being truthful). Now I know you don't want to spend your days wasting your time ''or'' being rude - so your best bet is to think of something else to do - like finding outside evidence that the images are copyvios - or complimenting the new user on his helpful contributions. ] 02:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Two points - 1. I did say he did I asked him to confim if he did take the shots, 2. an admin has deleted the pics cos he obviously had doubts about them. I did assume good faith but as you can see if you look through the editors recents edits that he is acting a little irrationally!--] 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	==My reading of the MedCab case==
	'''Consensus on IRA member and volunteer'''
	'''Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article.'''
	(Signed agree) Vintagekits 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	I don't see anything after that that would indicate disagreement with the MedCab results. And I tried to look for it, man. Hope you take this in the spirit offered, and to see where the other side is coming from. Off to bed, then.... ] 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:], the reason that I agreed to the cabal resolution was that this issue was to be discussed further. The two main protagonists on either side were myself and Logistic and both of us agreed that it was to be a capital V.--] 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Your individual agreement with another user, while meritorious in a way, does not for a moment override the MedCab decision or Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style. I can't think why you would believe that it could. If you look one section down on the talk page you refer to you can see a reasonable summary of the position from Tyrenius. Please make sure you adhere to it in future. Thanks. --] 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Nonsense, ask Tyrenius, he was the one that stated that we should agree that between us what the issue of the capitalisation should be. YOU ADHERE TO IT!--] 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::Can you show me where Tyrenius gave you and another user permission to decide consensus between yourselves on a usage that contradicted both MedCab and MoS? No offence, but I find that very hard to beleive. --] 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Why dont you post a messege on his talk page if you require clarification. I feel like I may become uncivil relatively soon, so I am going to disengage.--] 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	(deindent) That's fine. I don't think I am getting anywhere in discussing your behaviour with you directly so I intend to take it up with SirFozzie as you are supposed to be on parole. Best wishes, --] 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:No one has had a problem with me -except you, and shocking you were the one that blocked me - you are bullying me, you have done for some time and I am pretty sick of it. What you want me to do is bow down you whatever you say at every turn and if I dont you say I have been uncivil - which I havent. I would actually appricate if you never posted on this talk page again and stayed away from me as you seem to be the main root of the trouble that ever comes my way. I mean all this in the strictest wiki sense. regards--] 19:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Advice ==
	Hello Vk. I'm going to offer a bit of unsolicited advice here, which you are entirely free to ignore, of course, but I hope you will at leat think about it. I wonder if you ever consider why you seem to find yourself almost perpetually in conflict with other editors? Of course, you certainly edit in controversial areas, and that is obviously part of it, but there is more to it that that. I edit on controversial areas all the time, but generally get on pretty well with most other editors.
	Consider an editor makes a few comments about something that are perfectly civil and appropriate , immediately you strike an aggressive an accusatory tone , report the editor as a sock to an admin with no good evidence whatsoever. For some strange reason SirFozzie appeared to have taken your assumption as Gospel and indef blocked this user on the most flimsy of circumstantial evidence. This is the most egregious failure of ], starting a chain reaction leading to a terribly unjustified block. This would be bad enough, but when it eventually gets sorted out and the blocked editor - perfectly civilly - notes your role in this mess , you don't apologise, nor to you even acknowledge your actions. What you do is delete the comment with a rather incivil "be gone".
	My point is that to be a successful Wikipedian, we have to address other editors with a basic level of respect and civility, whether they agree with you on any specific issue or not. This editor afforded you that respect and in response you have treated him very poorly indeed. This is a perfect example of why you meet conflict at every turn here. I don't know the reason for it, whether it is just your attitude towards the purpose of the project, or whether you don't see a problem with it, but this sort of constant borderline incivility ''is'' problematic. Each comment or act in itself may seem insignificant, but it appears to be continual and the sheer weight of conflict is a huge energy sink for those editors drawn into it. In the past you have argued you are simply responding to what you see as incitement from other editors (cf. John in the section above), but I can't find a single incivil word or act from {{user|Hegertor}} to justify this response (apart from the fact you are convinced he is a sock of someone you had a run in with in the past).
	So, my request to you is twofold. Firstly please seriously consider ] and use it. Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is always outed in the end (as you are painfully aware), so there is no need to act on rash accusations without proof. Secondly, can't you just be a bit nicer to people? Would it make you less of a man to respond to to Hegertor's reminder with, "thank you for your comments, they are duly noted", then delete it (as is your right)? Because your perpetually anatagonistic tone is counterproductive to both you and the project and it will only be tolerated for so long. Thanks for your consideration. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Rather one sided view but I that your point. If you had to dealing with the literally 100's of socks of RMS then you would understand - obviously Sir Fozzie thought the same and he did unblock him but still had concerns over the account. I still believe Hegator is a sock if not of RMS then of someone else - all you need to do is read his first three edits and if that doesnt convince you then I dont know. Additionally how come I've never had any conflict with anyone over any of my boxing articles? strange that! Anyway point taken. --] 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
	:: Actually I have my own pet banned troll that has, literally, hundreds of socks (see ] and ]), so I know exactly what it is like. Some have taken a while to confirm though, because its really important not to block unless you are convinced. Blocks are not punitive, therefore there is no good reason to block if there is no immediate threat to Misplaced Pages, or you are convinced it is a banned/blocked user.
	:: Remember it is not against policy to have a number of accounts, nor is it against policy for an experienced editor to disappear and reappear under a new account. In fact I'm reasonably sure an erstwhile colleague of yours who left recently has done exactly that, but that is his right to remain anonymous. So whether Hegertor has edited previously is not really an issue, even if he is a previously blocked editor, so long as he edits constructively and civilly now, is it really a problem? If Hegertor is some persistent troll, then his true colours will be revealed in time and he will be dealt with. In the meantime, this is where ] comes in.
	:: Anyway, thanks for considering my comments in the manner they are meant. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Re: NI Infobox Template ==
	Why is the template saying the Union Flag is the official flag and then not including it? I've replied to your comments about the FAI League of Ireland on my talk page. Regards. -] 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Because its not the flag of Northern Ireland, if you are interested in contributing to the discussion with regards this topic please for to the talk page of the ] article.--] 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
	==Boxing==
	Clearchoice here - Thanks for the welcome. I'm an ex-boxer myself...interesting pages you've put up. I'm no expert on Misplaced Pages so thanks for your offer of assistance!{{unsigned|Clearchoice}}
	::No prolem mate, if you need any help or guidance just just me a shout.--] 11:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)--] 11:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
	== NPA ==
	Vk. is unacceptable. You need to ] off now and take a break. If you repeat this sort of language I will block you per the terms of your probation. Please chill and come back when you can discuss matters without resorting to personal attacks. You will not be warned again. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
	:What are you going to do about his provokation. I was the one behind the compromise from the start and trying to bring editors together on this issue and then he thinks he can talk to me like that!--] 21:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Terry Magee ==
	Hi, Look, I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Betws is not part of Ammanford (there's a river between the two). I could give some very precise references for Terry's address but I'm not sure he'd want this personal data posted so prominently. As you said, you don't know the area. I live here. I appreciate the situation is confusing but believe me, many people use 'Ammanford' as shorthand for this whole area which is why so many references give it as his home town. ] 11:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I dont doubt the information is correct, I would wouldnt be surprised in you know Terry very well and I am sure what you are saying in correct and he lives in Betws - however, the two references say he lives in Ammanford. Wiki works on verifability not truth - please read ]. If you can get a source per ] that counteracts the two existing sources then I would be happy to look at them. regards--] 11:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Well, in the reference I gave it does state that he lives in Betws (26th OCTOBER 2000 - THREE OF SEVEN "TERRY MAGEE ...is due back to his home in Betws...") and given that the postal town for the whole area is 'Ammanford' then it's not a contradiction to find references saying he lives in Ammanford when to be specific he lives in Betws.
	::] 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Listen, like I said I dont really care where the guy lives - Boxrec says - Ammmanford and so other references say "Known famously to those in Ammanford for is out standing commitment to the community" - but if he lives in Betws crack on and stick it in. It doesnt bother me at at.--] 12:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
	==The current situation==
	The system does work, if you let it.. just have to be patient.. I keep telling you and domer that. :) ] 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I hear ya!!--] 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
	==You have been Blocked==
	VK, I've asked you to keep a cool head and walk away when you get in these situations. No getting the last word, just walk away, Unfortunately, you have crossed over the line. I don't CARE what other people are saying to you at some points. You need to be the bigger man in these situations. I told you that if you let the system work, it works. You didn't here. I'll see you tommorrow. ] 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Fair enough, I wont be uncivil and say what I think of John, looks like he's got his wish and his bait has caught its prey. I will be gracious and take it on the chin, oiche mhaith a chara. Tiocfaidh ar la!!!!--] 22:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Tobermore Again ==
	Contact admin for me doing what? Moving what Tobermore means and is derived from in one of Northern Ireland's minority languages to the section (Location and Name Origin) following on straight after the introduction? I was just stopping unneeded repetition and cutting down on the clutter in the introduction, hence the creation of the Location and Name Origin section.
	You can't say i was trying to erase your Irish identity from the page especially as i put it in the following section and since i myself put the Irish meanings of Tobermore and Calmore into the article in the first place. If your edit was politically motivated as some of your edits on articles have been in the past, i would like to ask you to please stop with political POV edits. ] 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I am not pushing a political POV and do not appricate the accusation - I have been very fair with you in the past and have assisted you when you were a new user and dont appricate this breach of ]. It is standard practice to have the Irish name of places throughout Ireland followed by the Irish version of that name. You unecessarily removed this without any reason given or any discussion opened. Also when did I say that ypu were ''trying to erase your Irish identity''?? Also I never edited the article I dont understand how or why you can say ''your edit was politically motivated as some of your edits on articles have been in the past, i would like to ask you to please stop with political POV edits'' - can I request you read both ] and ] before you continue editing.--] 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
	::I'll only refute by saying that i said at the start of what you (partially) quoted ''If your edit''. I said IF. I wasn't saying that it WAS politically motivated but IF. Funnily enough you ommitted the IF from your quote which included every other word in the sentence. So you can't say i was saying that you where definately 100% politically motivatedly editing articles. I said IF which implies, that you maybe or maybe not editing with political motivation. There is no malice in that insinuation, only a raise of an eyebrow as you have previously edited other articles with a POV that can be interpreted as politically motivated. I don't feel that raising an eyebrow to such a matter is a breach of ] or ] ] 21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::I am getting pretty tired of your unfounded accusations. Have you read the policies that I requested you did?--] 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::I quite clearly explained my comment in my above response and on the point of those NPA and CIVIL articles, where you not recently banned for incivility. If an admin thinks i am in breech of those articles then i will accept it and won't protest. And pointing out POSSIBLY politically motivated POV edits isn't a crime or in breech of Misplaced Pages standards - rather it is something that i assume Misplaced Pages would look into seriously to ensure neutrality. ] 21:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Yer bang out of order actually, I left you a perfectly polite messege regarding the ] article and you come on here with all sorts of unwarranted accusations. What politically motivated edits have I ever made to the Tobermore article or when have I been uncivil to you and what makes you think you can be uncivil to me?--] 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
	==A Request==
	As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Misplaced Pages, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation regarding articles about Ireland, Northern Ireland and its people and groups by signing up ].If you have any questions on what it would entail, please do not hesitate to ask SirFozzie on his talk page or via email.
	Basically, VK, what this would be for is to get all the disagreements out, and start hammering out a set of rules (1 RR, as we discussed, except on ALL sides.), and higher level of civility. Basically, it's to stop the pointless back and forth sniping (on both sides).. get people focused on improving the encyclopedia instead of spending all their time doing and undoing each others work. It's worth a shot, at least. ] 14:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Yes/No? Sorry VK to kinda push this, but we're getting about a week on this, and I haven't heard from you on this. I'm also getting pinged on a couple comments you're making.. And while in general, even folks on the other side have said in general you're getting better.. there's still areas apparently where I need to work with you. Shoot me an email if you have a free moment, I am exceptionally busy today at work, but I will work with you anytime. ] 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Tyrenius' talk page ==
	Reply , but again, apologies. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Replaceable fair use Image:Bernard_Dunne5.jpg ==
	]
	Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under ], but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our ] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
	# Go to ] and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, '''without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template'''.
	# On ], write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
	Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, ], or by taking a picture of it yourself.
	If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> ] 09:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Help ==
	Thanks for the offer of help figured out what I was trying to do if stuck again is it ok to ask you for assistance? ] 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Naughty words ==
	Please would you be consistent in your position and agree the position with BB: ] was '''not''' murdered but, in reference to Gibraltar, "Whats desparate times - the unarmed ASU were surrendering and then murdered.--Vintagekits 08:26, 25 July 2007"...<span style="border:1px solid lime;color:green;">Gaimhreadhan <sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ) </small></font></sup>]</span> • 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Is this necessary, this could have been brought up on the article talk page, It looks like your trying to harass editors you disagree with, I think it would be better if you refrained from this.--] 18:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Appearances can be deceptive
	::VK knows why I don't bother to e-mail him, and this inconsistency of wording applies on more than 100 separate article pages - to raise it on each individually really '''would''' be harrassment!
	::This really is not academic since we need to harmonise and make consistent across the project the use of "Naughty words". Thanks for alerting me to your point of view....<span style="border:1px solid lime;color:green;">Gaimhreadhan <sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ) </small></font></sup>]</span> • 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
	== Indef block ==
	I have extended you block for an indefinate period due to threats of physical violence, gross personal and sectarian attacks and indicating you will engage in further meatpuppetry. I will ask for a review of this myself, therefore you do not need to. I will leave this page for you to plead your case, should you have a change of opinion, but be aware that if you continue to use this page as a platform for soapboxing or personal attacks, I will protect it. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Due to continued abuse from Vintagekits, I've protected this page. This will have the effect of limiting Vintagekits's ability to make a case here. ] 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
	==Unprotected==
	At Vintagekits request, I have unprotected the talk page (the only page he can edit while blocked). Please do not come here to gloat or attempt to wind up VK any further. ] 18:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Thank you Fozzie.--] 18:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Foz, I've been away chillin out. I'm gonna stay off for a month and then request that I am aloud back but not to edit on republican articles for a further six months. How does that sound?--] 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::I would support that request.
	:::But '''only''' if the list of "republican articles" is published in your (SirFozzie's) talk space first, publicised in appropriate article discussion areas (ie most of the embargoed articles) and then a period of 7 days allowed for the community to add to the "six month embargoed" list.
	:::I would also suggest, as a preventative measure, an escalating series of edit blocks beginning at 1 hour and '''only''' rising in 1 hour increments to try and correct breaches of policy (obviously including edit warring and personal attacks). VK's editing skills have improved with leaps and bounds and it would be a notable educational achievement to welcome him back as a conscientious editor.
	:::The penultimate, and obviously controversial, proposal I would make is a ban on "Admin shopping" by VK. You, SirFozzie have a certain amount of respect in the community <s>which is not shared by infallible admins like Tyrenious and Alison</s>
	:::The final, and obvious, proposal I would make is a 3 month ban on my editing any article I have not edited previously and '''before''' his return that he has edited '''after''' his return so as not to run the risk of antagonising him...<span style="border:1px solid lime;color:green;">Gaimhreadhan <sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ) </small></font></sup>]</span> • 19:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::: VK, I think that sounds reasonable, and I'd support that. Foz is away ill at the moment, but I'll see that he gets the message - "Infallible" ] ] 19:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Alison, please would you clarify whether it is an unconditional return that you support or one with the conditions I have described?...<span style="border:1px solid lime;color:green;">Gaimhreadhan <sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ) </small></font></sup>]</span> • 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Some of the conditions I see as reasonable, some I do not. Overall, a conditional return would be okay. - ] ] 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::I think it would be helpful if you would clarify exactly which of my proposed conditions are unacceptable. Sorry to press you, Alison, but I think it might be helpful to Vintagekits if he knew exactly what behaviour was expected...<span style="border:1px solid lime;color:green;">Gaimhreadhan <sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ) </small></font></sup>]</span> • 20:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::: That's neither mine nor your decision to make. All I can do is state that I'm okay with a '''conditional''' unblock. Appropriate behavior for all of us is already well established by ], ], ], etc, etc. As I'm not directly involved in VK's issues, I'll defer to SirFozzie on what the best approach is. - ] ] 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::I understand the blocking admin is usually involved in such decisions? I've notified him. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::I would agree with Alison, we have policies and I would not support policies being made ad hoc, by anyone.--] 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::I'd support resetting the block to something like 2 weeks (in all). VK did ban me from this page so I hope he wont object to me commenting here but he is unquestionably a useful editor and if people have issues with his behaviour we have disputre resolution processes and an arbcom; I am not comfortable with this user being indefinitely blocked without coming up in front of the arbcom first, and that is definitely following our policies and guidelines, ] 22:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Actually, it is not unusual for a user to be indef blocked without coming in front of Arbcom. Vk is not ], his block should only stand as long as his contributions are likely to be disruptive to the smooth and proper functioning of the project, as they clearly were when I issued the block. I indicated I would let others decide on whether Vk's block should remain. I stand by that and will not object to his unblocking should any admin choose to do so for whatever reason. For what its worth, my personal opinion is that Vk's problems on Misplaced Pages stem from his editing of articles and talk pages related to Irish Republicanism. Should he steer clear of these either by choice or by an enforced ban, I don't see any good reason to enforce a block. Should he continue to edit these article, though, then I think he will continue to be a disruptive influence and see little point unblocking at this time. I should also note, though, that any repeat of the behaviour the led to the current block would, from me at least, lead to it being immediately re-instated. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 02:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::Would that be a slective block then, i.e. not editing Republican articles? Is that an existing policy option, as I have already indicated I'm opposed to any ad hoc policys? --] 08:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::It wouldn't be a block. It would be a ban on certain articles. There is plenty of precedent for this, usually through ArbCom, which is a last resort, and if things can be settled before that stage, then it is best to do so. The ideal is an agreement between the editor whose conduct is at question and other relevant editors/admins to resolve any problem. ] 10:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::I'd have no problem with Vk coming back, under the terms he has proposed himself above. Note, though, that Vk's "problem areas" are not necessarily limited to the "Irish Republican" sphere of influence but could be extended to include "anti-British". ] for a past example. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::I note yer concerns, hence the reason that I have offered to not edit republican articles (and to be more specific so there there can be no debate about it that includes all articles with WP:IR which I think covers all republican and republican linked articles) and then after I have earned the trust of Fozzie again I will request the "full membership" is reinstated.--] 10:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Agree with lift. I thought that some editors were talking about a fresh start. I don't believe that making threats against Vk at this stage is making a ''fresh start''. However I hope something is done about the continuous trolling on the relevant pages, this is the real problem, and these are the editors that sneak in and out and rarely ever get blocked. ] 10:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Huh? Noone is making threats, against Vk or anyone else for that matter. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: I expect GH is referring to my indication that I will re-block Vk again if the same circumstances arise. I think it is Vk's interests to be straight with him about that and I don't think it is particularly controversial considering the circumstances that led to the block. If that is considered a ], then so be it (though the fact blocks are not punitive, rather discounts that in my eyes). ]<font color="black">e</font>] 19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	*There is no place on Misplaced Pages for users who continually intimidate others, and even threaten violence!, to continually push their PoV. Vintagekits is one such user. --] 10:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:*I've had a lovely break and wont be rising to that!--] 10:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I think Vintagekits offer to refrain from editing these articles is a fair offer and he should be allowed to show good faith by having his block lifted.--] 10:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::...and I don't. Just as you have your opinion I have mine. --] 10:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Yes you give your opinion and I give mine, so why the need for your comment above.--] 11:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	An indefinite block remains in place until such time as an admin is prepared to lift it. Alison and Rockpocket have already stated they consider it can be lifted on a conditional basis. ] 11:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	Take it the arbcom and let them sort it out as a neutral party. ] 11:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I think VK offer is reasonable and clear. That it is self imposed, I would have no problem. --] 13:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	===Suggested conditions===
	How about this (I'd ideally want admins to comment, but any constructive criticism would be fair).
	The unblock would be lifted under the following conditions
	1) VK observe a MININUM 6 month topic-ban on all republican and republican-linked articles. Once six months are up, we can look at VK's editing , and response to provocations and the like, and look at lifting this topic-ban.
	2) VK agree (as he did before) to a 1 RR on all topics.
	3) Depending on how my illness goes, I may or may not be able to fully mentor VK.. hopefully in a few weeks when I can get back to editing fully, I can resume my duties. Right now, my WP editing is limited to 1/2 times a day. If I can't I will try to get another, neutral admin to help mentor VK.
	Fair enough? ] 13:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:aye.--] 13:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	: I'll endorse that. Furthermore, I'll agree to mentor if VK and others are okay with that. I don't edit such articles myself as a rule - ] ] 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	: I don't object to that, though in the interests of clarifying exactly what that self-imposed topic ban would entail, would Vk exclude himself from contributing to associated talkpages and XfDs also? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 19:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Slight problem with that; Vk's PoV-pushing has not always been restricted to Republican articles in the past. Maybe if we made it boxing-only? --] 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: Seems a tad too restrictive to me. VK could get indef' for fixing a typo in, say ], because it's not boxing-related. Opt-out, not opt-in - ] ] 20:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Why not just say "dont get involved in political articles", ie any politically charged articles, that way places in Ireland say are great but eg Flags is not a good idea. A more liberal approach would be to jsut say dont get involved in disputes over political articles as adding to the Republicanism articles in a non-controversial way could help expand the encyclopedia without anybody minding. Its the conflicts that need avoiding, ] 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::The conflicts appear to arise whenever he takes part in anything to do with Ireland or Britain. One previous attempt at mentoring having failed I'd say the onus is now on Vk to be flexible, rather than the community. --] 20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::*I wouldnt agree to that. The restriction of staying off articles in within WP:IR is explicit definition and sets a defined list or category of articles and leaves no debate as to what I should or shouldnt be editing. Also I would say that blocking from associated talkpages would be counterproductive. The reason I myself have offered this solution is to show that I can be trusted - I know I am on my last chance and I will need to show a level of maturity and by editing the talk pages this will benefit me in a few ways 1. it will show that I am able to approach subjects in a logical and retional manner, 2. it will show that I am able to not rise when baited (which I am sure a number of editors will attempt to do) and most importantly 3. it will get my used to solely solving issues on talk pages instead of getting involved edit wars - to that end I would also agree Fozzies suggestion of 1RR. Finally, I would disagree that Fozzies mentoring didnt work. I think must editors would agree that my contributions to wiki had improved significantly - fair eough I let him down with one drunken late night spate of editing but I wouldnt say that that was the failing of Fozzies mentorship.--] 10:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: I wasn't suggesting you do that, simply asking if that was what you were proposing. Personally, I think if you did stay off controversial talk pages and AfDs you would have a better chance at keeping your cool and thus be less likely to find youself losing you temper again and getting reblocked. Nevertheless, if you can engage with other editors and remain civil then all credit to you, and that would be a strong indicator that the partial ban can be lifted sometime in the future without worry. As far as I'm concerned its your choice as to how restrictive you wish the conditions be. You appear to be very aware that it really would be a last chance, so if you feel that you can handle talkpage editing on controversial issues (and the inevitable conflict that will arise) then great, go for it. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Well I made 2 suggestions so perhaps the no political articles would be best, ] 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I don't think its fair to block an editor from commenting on an articles talk page, even if he has agreed to not personaly edit the article itself, that would stop him from pointing out errors on those article that other can correct, or engaging in discussions on content within that article.--] 13:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Any restriction should only be to articles, ie never to talk pages, ] 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	SirFozzie your conditions set above contain a massive loophole. VintageKits has come into conflict on articles that aren't just WP:IR or political. Its also articles to do with Britain and Britishness that conflict with Irish republican ideals. So i'd suggest a ban on him editing WP:IR and '''ANY''' article (politically and non-politically) that deals with Ireland and Britishness and Britains role in foreign territories. Irish republicanism and anti-Britishness go hand in hand. ] 13:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	*''Comment'', on 26th July user Rockpocket wrote the following ''"Vitagekits. I have blocked you for 31 hours for persistant low level incivility"'', so why the extreme conditions? ] 20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Because immediately after the 31 hour block for low level incivility, further things were said. See the top of the page. See the page history. But I believe you're aware of this anyway, as you commented on the block on AN/I at the time. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	: What "extreme conditions" are you referring to? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 00:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Sorry Rockpocket, my fault. That question is addressed to SirFozzie. ] 01:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	Please may I comment on all this compassion as someone who has been, on numerous occasions, at the receiving end of Vintagekits vitriol. The first thing I would say is that the template says he is indefinitely blocked. Does this now mean that indefinite is only temporary? I have no great interest in Irish affairs but when I strayed into that arena once, many months ago, because I objected to the sanitisation of a terrorist organisation responsible for countless innocent deaths, all hell broke loose upon me led mainly by Vintagekits who then proceeded to goad me constantly. Silly me, I reacted accordingly and one of the pro-Irish lobby then placed a short ban on me for being uncivil!! So all very cosy, I thought at the time. Vintagekits and his pal One Night in Hackney, not being content with that, also proceeded to articles I had commenced or made major contributions to and changed them or at least tagged them causing an unnecessary degree of worry and harrassment to someone who carries out his research and writes Wiki articles in valuable time and good faith. At the same time, Vintagekits was engaged in arguments with ] and set upon, with several fellow travellers, using all manner of Wiki Rules they could locate, a campaign of tagging articles he had commenced or made major contributions to as Articles for Deletion. I do not propose to enter upon the merits of this or that article. The question is: was Vintagekits the slightest bit interested in any of these articles? Answer: no he wasn't. What I am saying here is that Vintagekits has amply demonstrated that he will oppose and harrass anyone on Misplaced Pages he does not like or who demonstrates opposition to edits he has made. Discussion is utterly pointless because his responses are similar to listening to a broken record or otherwise intellectually insulting and designed to wind you up to fever pitch. I for one would oppose his return. You have to ask yourselves whether leopards do change their spots. ] 13:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	::See ]. ] 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I'd say that the block is indefinite until or unless Vk can demonstrate the capacity for good behaviour. I too have had bad experiences with this editor and he has already had several last chances. Although he has made some useful contributions, at this stage his balance is way over to the negative side. I would repeat; it is for Vk to be flexible and convince us he would not abuse the privilege of being allowed to edit here. Failing that, the block can stand. --] 15:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	::As I have said above, I cannot ''"convince us he would not abuse the privilege"'' if I am unable prohibited from doing so. I feel a little like an eager footballer on the bench urging his manager to put him on so that he can prove what he is capable of.--] 15:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I haven't really had any run-ins with VK as far as I recall, and I don't frequently edit the kinds of article that seem to provoke his ire. I have come across his edits in the past however, but hopefully I can speak as some kind of neutral. There is room for all sorts of opinions on-Wiki, of all political persuasions. But *everybody* MUST undertake to edit impartially and without any agenda. I'm afraid it's blatantly obvious that VK (et al.) see Misplaced Pages as a POV battleground on which to further their own POV. This has also in the past boiled over into extreme incivility, racism, and downright nastiness, which is just completely unacceptable. Everybody deserves a second chance (and on Misplaced Pages, sometimes a third, a fourth, a fifth...etc.) and obviously VK sometimes acts in good faith and can make good contributions. But I strongly agree with John above- the onus here is on him to alter his behaviour, not on the other few hundred thousand or so of us to change our rules. It's also obvious that there is a lot of good faith being shown here and few want an indefinite ban to remain in effect. To reiterate, I would favour taking this to the arbcom and letting them sort it out. I suspect the outcome would be similar (some kind of parole with limitations on editing) but it would have the benefit of unassailable legitimacy, and the arbcom may also decide to look into some of the wider issues involved which could led to a wider solution. ] 16:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::I understand what you are saying badger, however, to pick me out like this is a little unjust and unfair - many of the editors who many come on here and wanted the indef block to continue have been blocked for personal attacks on me (one who has been blocked again just today), so its doesnt surprise me that they have that opinion. As for arbcom, I am not sire hat would solve anything and would just take up more time and energy of all editors also I dont think that the outcome of an arbcom would suggest any restriction more stringent than the proposed in have suggested myself. As for proving that I can be trusted - actions speak louder than words and I will prove it be showing my editing skills and resolving issue in an amicable way without recourse to edit warring.--] 16:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Yes, that's more or less what I meant by "wider issues"- from my (admittedly superficial) knowledge of your history on Misplaced Pages, it seems there are at least two sets of editors, each with a political agenda, who seem to delight in off-topic provocation of each other, POV pushing, and brinkmanship. Personally, I would like the arbcom to look into the behaviour of *all* the editors involved, not just you. Banning you indefinitely (whether you deserve it or not) is like sticking a plaster on a gaping wound- it's not an end to the problem. To be honest, in the absence of any groundswell towards taking this to the arbcom, I'm personally in favour of another chance for you, although I'm not an admin and 9 blocks in 6 months is a pretty poor rapsheet. Equally, I can't help but think that as soon as you go near any political article (Irish, British, terrorism, whatever) then problems are going to inevitably arise, and even if you're paroled from editing these I suspect you'll find a way to push your agenda somewhere else...sorry if that's harsh, but it is based on my reading of your edit history. Anyway, as you say, you can't demonstrate that you are prepared to change if you don't get given the chance. ] 16:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I wouldn't disagree with you to be honest, and yes, there needs to be some sort of mediation to govern all editors and an strict nonosense approach taken by admin to edit warring and POV pushing. I would be willing to sign up to that. I would also point out that the disruption and edit warring hasnt gone away just because I have been blocked, infact in the week or so that I have been blocked its arguably been much worse.--] 16:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::That's conciliatory, Vinnie.
	::::::Now can I clarify that you are unequivocally ''"willing to sign up to"'', as your very first edit if and when your block is lifted, ''"some sort of mediation to govern all editors and an strict nonosense approach taken by admin to edit warring and POV pushing."''?
	::::::You are giving your promise to make a leap of faith in SirFozzie now and sign up to SirFozzie's - or do you still have havers and quibbles and a bit of ] to do yet?...<span style="border:1px solid lime;color:green;">Gaimhreadhan <sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ) </small></font></sup>]</span> • 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Edit summaries ==
	If you look at the top of the page, you will see that I was the first editor to support your request to be allowed back to WP.
	I personally know how aggravating and annoying it is to have users you loathe and detest post what may be regarded as provocations in your user space. You may think that, as ''per'' ], you have an unconditional right to take the attitude that inappropriate text will typically be read but then deleted without comment <small>(except for the edit summary, perhaps)</small> but I am a litle disturbed by some of your recent edit summaries here on this page
	Do you have a specific list of existing editors you are unwilling to interact with?
	If so, I think it would be better if those editors are also banned from interacting with you should you return....<span style="border:1px solid lime;color:green;">Gaimhreadhan <sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ) </small></font></sup>]</span> • 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:There are many editors who have commented here that I wouldnt care to have a drink with, many have had their say here and voiced their opinion without me removing their comments. However, I drawn the line at having Astrotrain interject on this talkpage. I am happy to work with him with regards articles but I not going to allow to go attempt gloat or lord over me on my talk page.--] 17:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	::That's positive, Vinnie. A very short list of one, then.
	::Would you be so kind as to comment on whether you are prepared to sign up (as requested by SirFozzie) in the first section of this edit:
	:::As I have already outlined I would be in favour of some sort of mediation - as long as its treats all equally, which is fair enough I think.--] 18:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::I don't wish to badger you, Vinnie, but that is really not very specific. Could you perhaps take some time and address yourself to the specific and precise question in the section above and give us all a Yes or No. If you need clarification, I believe you still have SirFozzie's e-mail address...
	::::Now I think I've said enough on this page for the week...<span style="border:1px solid lime;color:green;">Gaimhreadhan <sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ) </small></font></sup>]</span> • 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Amended concrete proposals ==
	After examining all comments above (up to, and including 17:47hrs UTC, 6 August 2007), I would still support ] request to have his indefinite ban lifted at 18:47hrs UTC, ] ]
	* But '''only''' if
	(1) the list of articles that Vinnie is banned from editing until 18:47hrs UTC, ] ] (the embargo list) is precisely defined and published in ''this'' and ]'s and ]'s talk space '''''first''''' and then</br>
	(2) that draft list is publicised in appropriate article discussion areas (ie most of the embargoed articles) and</br>
	(3) a period of 7 days is then allowed for the community to add to the "six month embargoed" list</br>
	(4) as a preventative measure, an escalating series of edit blocks beginning at 1 hour and only rising in '''small''' 1 hour increments to try and correct breaches of policy (obviously including edit warring and personal attacks) is implemented so other users can see that admins are vigilant and active and are then not tempted to edit war or revert themselves</br>
	(5) the '''talk''' pages of embargoed articles are specifically '''not''' embargoed (since Vinnie says he wishes to prove his reformed behaviour) - but only if</br>
	(6) three specific admin parole officers in different time zones are assigned to monitor '''all''' incivility and disruptive behaviour on articles that Vinnie edits (by ''any'' editor)</br>
	(7) a ban on "Admin shopping" by VK is implemented</br>
	(8) Vinnie publish his list of editors that he refuses to interact with here '''before''' his return</br>
	(9) consideration is given to banning editors on Vinnie's aforesaid list from editing specific articles that Vinnie edits '''after''' his return so as not to run the risk of antagonising Vinnie...<span style="border:1px solid lime;color:green;">Gaimhreadhan <sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ) </small></font></sup>]</span> • 13:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::I appriciate your time and effort G but I dont think that you are in a position to lay down what criteria or hoops must be jumped through. I have outlined the terms that I should be back on and I think they are more than fair.--] 17:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	::With regards to 3, who decides if articles added by the "community" to the embargoed list are to be part of the finalised embargoed list? Also why is there such a long wait (ie a month) until VK's indef ban is lifted? Surely as a sign of good faith we could lift his ban as soon as he agrees to any proposal?] 14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::It is worth taking some time to make sure this will work. The community has no need to prove its good faith, only Vk needs to do that. --] 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::I agree that only VK can make this work, but he can't prove anything onless he is able to edit on some articles. So dragging this out, or making him wait ontil x time has passed is not very helpful.--] 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:{''Clarification for Derry Boi and Padraig''}: I have '''not''' proposed "dragging this out".
	:Vinnies original proposal was ''"I'm gonna stay off for a month and then request that I am aloud back but not to edit on republican articles for a further six months."''. It shows the good will and faith of the community that we are already discussing a "request" now, that is technically not due to be made for more than another three weeks. Now the post I just quoted from Vinnie was made by ] at 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC) - hence my proposal at (1) above that ''"the list of articles that Vinnie is banned from editing until 18:47hrs UTC, ] ] (the embargo list) is precisely defined"''.
	:In regards to concrete proposal (2) above, ''"a period of 7 days is then allowed for the community to add to the "six month embargoed" list"'', there is nothing to stop either SirFozzie or Rockpocket starting this list in a specific area of their talk space right now so the list can be firmed up in the next 3 weeks and then the initial finalised list can be published here. My suggestion is that the ''draft'' list is '''not''' worked on here so that Vinnie does '''not''' have an opportunity to ''debate'' the entries since I really don't think it is for him to decide where he has been incivil and disruptive and biassed at this stage - once he is unblocked he will have ample opportunity to fight his corner again....<span style="border:1px solid lime;color:green;">Gaimhreadhan <sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ) </small></font></sup>]</span> • 15:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)</br></br>
	How about the following to take the best of both worlds:
	A) Banned from editing articles relating to Irish Republicanism, broadly based. (IE, VK will have to show that it isn't tangentially related to the subject, not that others will have to prove that it is). This will last six months at a minimum. We can review it then.
	B) If any admin determines that VK is disrupting any talk page in the slightest, he can add a talk-page ban on that article unilaterally. (VK, this means you're going to have to be on your best behavior no matter what, and there's a chance that an admin might decide to add a ban you consider to be unfair. You're going to have to go along with it, however).
	C) Vintagekits will endeavor to remain civil at all times. If he has problems with any other editor, be they an administrator or an editor, he will bring it up privately with myself, or if I'm not around, ]. This will prevent what has been termed as admin shopping.
	D)VK places himself under 1RR, and will be blocked if he violates this.
	E)It is strongly recommended that VK and the editors who oppose him minimize their contact if at all possible.
	] 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I think that sounds fair, can I add something to point E, that any editor that opposed VK or was involved in a dispute with him, in the case that they try to deliberately harass him on the articles or talks page he can edit, that the admin take action against that editor.--] 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Not too bad, but I'm just wondering will D) be set in stone? Ok the 1RR is fair enough, but at the end of the day I'm sure VK will over the course of six months make a genuine mistake and revert something twice. I just hope that if this does happen, he isn't instantly blocked without question. I'm sure VK will try his best to uphold the 1RR proposal, but at the same time I'm sure a genuine mistake will be made over a long period of time like six months. ] 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	::It's not going to be an indefblock for violating it, but maybe a short term block (3-24 hours is what I would recommend) ] 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Getting close. I suggest amending (a) to a ban on all political articles, to avoid a repetition of the user's unhelpful contributions to ] in late May, for example. Although this kind of article has nothing directly in common with Irish Republicanism, more edits like this would be unacceptable. My other question is about the enforcement; it is a lot to ask of Alison to do it. I would need to see her assent to the job, which will be a long-term one, before I accepted the unblocking. I would like it explicitly stated too that this offer constitutes the absolute last chance for Vk; I would hate to see us all here again in a month or two. --] 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::<center><font face=arial size=3 color="#CC0033">I need to see Vinnie's response to
	::::'''before''' I can properly comment</font> on SirFozzie or Padraig's comments on my concrete amended proposals.
	::::For now I will confine myself to saying that there is a danger in making things too complicated for folks to understand and an equal danger in having too many "nooseholes".
	::::Before I see Vinnie's response I agree (C) is compatible with (6) since I assume SirFozzie and Alison are in different time zones, however I do have misgivings with them being 2 of the assigned 3 parole officers since they have both said they are under extreme time pressure and SirFozzie has also been very recently ill and his parole supervision ended in flames last time. If it does not seem too rude I see him contiuing more of a mentoring rather than a parole officer role. I fear that the three "parole officers" will need to be eternally vigilant in weeks 2 and 3 after Vinnie's eventual return. is completely compatible with (9). is implicit in (4). is what I already intended in (1) - except that it is more precise in that only admins can add to the definitive "six month embargo list" - any editors wishing an article added to the list can simply contact an admin of their choice.
	::::That leaves .
	::::I wish to make it quite clear, SirFozzie, as other editors have already done above (even though many complaints and concerns have been deleted by various parties at various times and for various reasons and currently can not be viewed on this user's talk page) that the community's concerns '''are not limited to "Irish Republicanism, broadly based"'''. I would take a great deal of persuading that a loose definition like should ever replace (1), (2) and (3) above. God bless!...<span style="border:1px solid lime;color:green;">Gaimhreadhan <sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ) </small></font></sup>]</span> • 15:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	*I agree to Fozzies point '''A - E''', however, I would clarify that A is limited to WP:IR articles, should you look at the list of articles that are in the WP:IR then this will show they are most of the articles I edit anyway. Also to ban me from articles which are "Irish" or "British" or "political" is both unworkable and counterproductive. If I can show I can handle editing editing non WP:IR articles then that will go some way to showing I can edit all articles.
	P.S. I just hope that other editors will also now have to buck their ideas up.--] 17:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I think there is a strong argument to bring this case to arbcom as it strikes me that there are 2 sides to this dispute and it isnt right to just single out VK, ] 18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	===break===
	:::::: I like SirFozzie's proposal, though would agree that its should be made clear that the ban includes other controversial political issues also, like Gibralter and the Falklands for example. I don't see the need to create a list, because in doing so we will inevitably forget something. Besides, Vk is not a child and he is not stupid. He, I'm sure, understands that this is not something he can wikilawyer around, that it is the spirit of the ban that is important not the specifics. Moreover, the ban is to ''help him''. It is in his interests to avoid anything that could lead to conflict until he is confident, and we are confident, that he can deal with conflict in a manner that is acceptable to the community. If he edits a controversial article that is obliquely tangential to Irish republicanism, but does so in a responsible, civil and uncontroversial manner then its no big deal. He has contributed in a positive way. If he edits the same article in an incivil, irresponsible or controversial manner, then he will have shot himself in the foot. It will be Vk's decision on whether to edit articles around the margins of the ban, and if he is smart he will err on the side of caution.
	:::::: Similarly, it is the spirit of 1RR that is important. If Vk was to accidently violate 1RR, one would fully expect an admin to remind him of it first, rather than just block him. The onus would then be on Vk to act appropriately in response (acknowledgement and relf reverting).
	:::::: I think there is a danger of over complicating this. Misplaced Pages cannot exist with editors having a complex sub-set of things editors can and cannot do. All Vk really has to do is avoid making controversial edits until he can convince the project he can play nicely with others. It isn't rocket science, and thousands of other editors do it every day without too much effort. Either he can manage that (Great - welcome back, Vk) or he can't (Goodbye, Vk - Misplaced Pages isn't for you). In addition to Fozzie and Alison am happy to assist Vk in this if he would like, though he may prefer not to use me, and that is fine. But he doesn't need to be watched 24/7. He can't do anything that can't be retrosepctively assessed and reverted relatively trivially, and if he does melt down, what does it matter if it takes a day or so for an admin to intervene? I can't see him getting another chance after this one, so 24hrs is going to make little difference to an indef block.
	:::::: I say as long as Vk understands and accepts Fozzie's conditions, and realises that it is the spirit, not the specifics, that are important - then he may as well be unblocked tomorrow. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::BTW nobody should ever be punished for reverting obvious vandalism, even arbcom restrictions dont go that far, flexibility has to be the name of the game, if VK finds someone making ridiculous, obviously vandalsitic edits (so and so is a prat etc) this needs to be reverted by the first person on the scene, ] 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::: Of course, anyone that wanted action taken against Vk for vandalism reverts because they broke the terms of his parole would be equally guilty of wikilawyering. The onus is on Vk to prove that he can edit in an acceptable fashion, fencing him in with too many restrictions is not the way to judge that. There is two ways of looking at it: we give Vk enough leeway to prove to us that has has the judgement to edit constructively, or else we give Vk enough rope to hang himself. Either outcome solves the problem. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::Irrefutable logic.
	:::::::::I just don't want any condemnation of the hangman or rope afterwards if it, sadly, goes that way...<span style="border:1px solid lime;color:green;">Gaimhreadhan <sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ) </small></font></sup>]</span> • 18:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::I refer to reverts like as being entirely uncontroversial, ] 18:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	(deindent) Rockpocket, if it's all right with you then it's all right with me. I'm going away for a few days, so I hope this works out. --] 18:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	*With regards the articles which I wont edit - obviously I wont edit WR:IR articles as state, and if I edit any other articles but then Fozzie or Alison says dont edit that article then I wont edit that either. Now can the block be lifted please Fozz.--] 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Agreed. I haven't taken part in this discussion, but I think there is a clear consensus now. It's time to get on with it and lift the block. ] 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Agreed, best of look ], hope it works out well for you. --] 12:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::I've come into this discussion late for a number of reasons, and can add nothing that has not already been said (and probably better) by someone else. Let me say simply that I am glad to see your block lifted, VK, and I wish you the best. Occasionally, justice prevails. ---<font face="Georgia">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 17:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::I'm not back yet - but thank you for your messeges of support. Fozzy has to remove the block yet, however, he is ill at the moment and doesnt edit much at the moment.--] 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I support the unconditional release of VK --(] 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC))
	*Still no sign of Fozzie, I hope he is he ok, has anyone heard from him?--] 19:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: I haven't. However, if you can acknowledge that you understand and agree to:
	:*Sir Fozzie's ban conditions above,
	:*That - with regards to articles tangential the subject-specific ban (like contentious British issues such as the Falkland and Gibralter) - you will consult with an admin before editing,
	:*That you are free to edit the talkpages and AfDs of ''any'' article, but that you will be held to the utmost level of civility on these pages, and an admin may ban you from these if they consider you to be disruptive,
	:: then I will unblock you in his absence. A simple ''yea'' or ''nay'' is fine. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 21:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Thats what I have been saying all along, so aye.--] 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Ok, done. Happy editing, Vintagekits. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	==]==
	Hi there, long time no speak!. I have made a slight alteration to the Jamie Moore boxer page and added a couple of references. Hope they sit well with you. Regards ]
	:By adding one reference you have taken out another. I'd fix it if I could.--] 14:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Response to deleted messages ==
	Anon has made his/her point, and the way forward suggested to him/her should they wish to do so. This should be the end of the matter on your talk page. As for a global ArbCom case, that would be a mammoth task. Moreover, the amount of mud raking it would generate would, I think, prove counter-productive. If someone wants to do it, then they should go ahead. But I personally, think a concerted effort of a few admins to enforce our policies ''across the board'' would be a lot more effective. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Agreed, I only think arbcom would be appropriate were no admin to unblock VK say within a month of the block imposition because I certainly dont think he should be just blocked indefinitely. As one of his political opponents I have no reason to want to see this case go to arbcom but recognise it takes 2 to make an argument and that VK should not be singled out for an indefinite ban. Hope this is clear, ] 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I know how tyhe sock is - I have there IP edits saved from whn they wernt signed in as their other accounts. --] 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: Could you email me this info? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Obviously I cant do a checkuser, but its strong circumstantial.--] 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Response to deleted messages 2==
	Anon has made his/her point, and the way forward suggested to him/her should they wish to do so. This should be the end of the matter on your talk page. As for a global ArbCom case, that would be a mammoth task. Moreover, the amount of mud raking it would generate would, I think, prove counter-productive. If someone wants to do it, then they should go ahead. But I personally, think a concerted effort of a few admins to enforce our policies ''across the board'' would be a lot more effective. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Agreed, I only think arbcom would be appropriate were no admin to unblock VK say within a month of the block imposition because I certainly dont think he should be just blocked indefinitely. As one of his political opponents I have no reason to want to see this case go to arbcom but recognise it takes 2 to make an argument and that VK should not be singled out for an indefinite ban. Hope this is clear, ] 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I know how tyhe sock is - I have there IP edits saved from whn they wernt signed in as their other accounts. --] 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	Anon has made his/her point, and the way forward suggested to him/her should they wish to do so. This should be the end of the matter on your talk page. As for a global ArbCom case, that would be a mammoth task. Moreover, the amount of mud raking it would generate would, I think, prove counter-productive. If someone wants to do it, then they should go ahead. But I personally, think a concerted effort of a few admins to enforce our policies ''across the board'' would be a lot more effective. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Agreed, I only think arbcom would be appropriate were no admin to unblock VK say within a month of the block imposition because I certainly dont think he should be just blocked indefinitely. As one of his political opponents I have no reason to want to see this case go to arbcom but recognise it takes 2 to make an argument and that VK should not be singled out for an indefinite ban. Hope this is clear, ] 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I agree. Is there a procedure for IP accounts to take a case to arbcom?
	::I am not arguing for a permanent ban or block on Vkits. I am arguing that our processes should not be abused and gamed.]
	:::On 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC) you, Rockpocket wrote on this very page: ''"I have extended you block for an indefinate period due to threats of physical violence, gross personal and sectarian attacks and indicating you will engage in further meatpuppetry. I will ask for a review of this myself, therefore you do not need to. I will leave this page for you to plead your case, should you have a change of opinion, but be aware that if you continue to use this page as a platform for soapboxing or personal attacks, I will protect it."'' Now I am being attacked as a "sockpuppet" and my own comments (and that of other editors are removed by Vkits, the source of the need for this page to be protected. Surely it is a obstructive of communication with him and others if he just keeps blanking whole sections?
	:::Is there a Misplaced Pages policy that means that the contributions of IP editors are disregarded and discarded? Surely it is what I write that is important?]
	::::Only ones that edit off Opal communication servers and change IRA to PIRA - ring any bells. If you cant honestly identify yourself, then I am not going to have a conversation with you.--] 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::What are "off Opal communication servers", please?]
	*Proinsias, I am requesting that you kindly do not edit my talkpage again, if you do I will consider it harassment.--] 21:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	My name is not Proinsias, your fishing will not work - I've skittered IP's.] 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Ok, this isn't going anywhere. Anon, the solution to your point about ArbCom has been offered. Vk clearly doesn't wish to discuss the matter with you, lets leave him to get on with his editing, shall we? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Why no arbcom? ==
	I understand why ], Vintagekits former Parole Officer, has been reluctant to refer Vkits to an arbitration committee because it now seems that ] is to be blocked for one year. However, as an administrator his loyalty should be to the community at large - not his former client. To show neutrality he should refer the issue of if and how Vkits should be unblocked to the same arbitration committee that rules here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Great_Irish_Famine/Proposed_decision ]
	:No COI here and IMO VK should only go to arbcom if he doesnt get unblocked, which should happe in the next few days. If thast does happen there is nothing here for the arbcom, ] 20:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	::What does "COI" mean, please? ]
	::: ] - ] ] 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: SqueakBox, three or four times you have mentioned that you believe Vk's position should be determined by Arbcom before blocking. Now some anon is suggesting that Arbcom should determine whether Vk should be unblocked. If someone wishes to take this to Arbcom, I suggest they do so, rather than suggest others should. One doesn't have to be an admin to propose a case to the committee. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::My point was that arbcom should determine if he were to remain blocked if he was still blocked after a month or so. If he is unblocked, which he is, there is no need for arbcom. So my position was/is very different from that of the anon and there is no need to involve arbcom right now, ] 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Thank you, Sir. With respect, there ''should'' be a conflict of interest in this case. Advocating local and temporary solutions to widespread and persistent problems is not appropriate. Arbcom should be looking at the whole issue of Single Purpose Accounts and gang harassment.]
	::::Not sure SQB is advokating arbcom - I would be happy to go to arbcom but dont see the point, it would not only be counterproductive but a waste of editors/admin time. p.s. I am not happy about anon socks using my talkpage in this manner--] 20:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Please assume good faith and do not make allegations without evidence. It is precisely that sort of behaviour that made many users doubt your assurances of reform. After the "attempted suicide" last nght do you wonder why users are now scared of harassment?
	:::::If you don't see the point of arbitration, Vkits then I really wonder why you bother to participate here - you certainly have not shown any signs of either remorse or reform in respect of your past behaviour]
	::::::I certainly think Vintagekits should be left alone to make useful contributions - but it's not a good sign that his first contribution to a co-operative project is to censor other editors and allege sockpuppetry]
	:::::::1. Please respect my talk page and 2. dont edit here anymore. Thank you.--] 21:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	You have been ask not to post on this editors user space, now respect that wish, and remember this editor has the right to remove any content he wishes from this page, you on the other hand have no right to revert that when he does so.--] 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Welcome back. ==
	] ] 21:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	Good to have you back. ] 22:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Cheers a chara.--] 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	::So, where did YOU go for your holidays?! (] 23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC))
	:::Nowhere sunny, I cant tell ya that.--] 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	*] Welcome back, dude :) If there's anything you need a hand with, just give us a shout! - ] ] 23:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Cheers, hopefully I wont need any help but I am sure there will be some editors who will try and push me (like a certain editor tonight) but I should be cool!--] 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	::That was the week that was, nice to see again! ]. ] 10:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Glad to see you back, VK. Sorry I haven't been around much.. but hopefully now that you're back to stay.. if you just need somebody to bounce things off of, you have my email.I'm not editing WP full time due to my medical issues at the moment.. but my email is always open. ] 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Thanks mate, come back when yer fellin better. I'll say a prayer for y and get me mother to do a decade of the rosary - now thats chicken soup if there ever was.--] 18:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
	==Unblock conditions==
	''Copied here from earlier on the page for clarity.''
	A) Banned from editing articles relating to Irish Republicanism, broadly based. (IE, VK will have to show that it isn't tangentially related to the subject, not that others will have to prove that it is). This will last six months at a minimum. We can review it then.
	B) If any admin determines that VK is disrupting any talk page in the slightest, he can add a talk-page ban on that article unilaterally. (VK, this means you're going to have to be on your best behavior no matter what, and there's a chance that an admin might decide to add a ban you consider to be unfair. You're going to have to go along with it, however).
	C) Vintagekits will endeavor to remain civil at all times. If he has problems with any other editor, be they an administrator or an editor, he will bring it up privately with myself, or if I'm not around, ]. This will prevent what has been termed as admin shopping.
	D)VK places himself under 1RR, and will be blocked if he violates this.
	E)It is strongly recommended that VK and the editors who oppose him minimize their contact if at all possible.
	] 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:*Sir Fozzie's ban conditions above,
	:*That - with regards to articles tangential the subject-specific ban (like contentious British issues such as the Falkland and Gibralter) - you will consult with an admin before editing,
	:*That you are free to edit the talkpages and AfDs of ''any'' article, but that you will be held to the utmost level of civility on these pages, and an admin may ban you from these if they consider you to be disruptive,
	:: then I will unblock you in his absence. A simple ''yea'' or ''nay'' is fine. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 21:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Thats what I have been saying all along, so aye.--] 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	==]==
	As a preventative measure in light with the unblocking and for your protection, I am asking you not to edit those articles or their talk pages or discuss them any further, until one of the admins involved with the mentoring has a chance to attend to this. ] 01:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Hi Ty, I hope I have proved that I am able to discuss rationally and not rise to provokation on those pages and to try and find a settlement through discussion and rational policy based arguement. But like you ask, I will cease editing the said articles and talkpages until one of the admin has had a look at it. regards--] 08:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Vintagekits; thank you for the message and welcome back. I am just back from holidays but will try to have a look at the situation later today or tomorrow. Best wishes to you, --] 18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for your further message. I did have a look but I couldn't see a policy violation there. I suggest continuing to discuss in talk, frustrating as I know that is. --] 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	==My comments re your unblocking==
	You should put it down to my British sense of fair play. Would that some of my fellow compatriots would follow suit, ] 01:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Lol! Aye, we'll put it down to ] alright! Just kiddin, cheers anyway.--] 08:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Yes that tragedy along with the Guildford Four has done no good whatsoever to our British reputation (any more than the minority of football hooligans who made it uncomfortable for any Brits like me to be seen in many cities of Western Europe in my youth). I suspect the Brum6 miscarriage also explains some of your own hostility towards certain aspects of British culture, all of which is very sad, and in this case especially for both the 6 and for the victims' families, who didnt and dont have any justice. Regards, ] 20:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	==M. Comerford==
	Thanks / please improve and rate it. I was amazed that she hadn't been wiki'ed, given many pages on a lot of rather irrelevant and tawdry people. BTW she asked me to join the Fianna (a sort of Komsomol or Hitler-Jugend) when I was a young lad in the 1960s and gave me her book. Clever and charming but rather missed the big picture.] 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I'll have a look at it. I'm very familiar with Na Fianna, ;) --] 18:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the 'unsourced' comment. I was hoping that some serious expert (like yourself) would help with that. NB it is no more 'unsourced' than the pages on Markiewicz and MacSwiney.] 10:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Lol, the unsourced tag wasnt an attack it actually helps the article. I will sort the article out further when I have a moment - give me a shout if you need any further help a chara.--] 18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	==Images==
	It might be more appropriate to use <nowiki>{{Non-free fair use in | Article}}</nowiki>, bearing in mind the historical images section in ]. It is relevant if a person is dead, so that a current photo taken of them, and there is no known free image available. You should provide a rationale under a heading <nowiki>==Fair use rationale==</nowiki>. Also separately put a link to the source and copyright info. The site states all material on it is copyright. ] 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
	==Copyright violation in ]==
	]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:1|1|]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]),}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.<br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. Feel free to contact the ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.''' --] 14:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
	==Copyright violation in ]==
	]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:1|1|]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]),}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.<br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. Feel free to contact the ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.''' --] 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Bless you, my child ==
	Bless you, my child, for the service you have rendered unto the Irish Republican Cause and Holy Mother Church by removing Cometstyles' revert of 27 April 2007. For further information, please see the "Gerry Adams" discussion page. ] 23:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Writtenright
	: <s>Ha ha. Good work, Vk. That ] has had it in for Gerry from day one, Lets just hope he doesn't have the ] ear, or else you could be in trouble at the pearly gates. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 23:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)</s>
	:: Actually, I was looking at the wrong revert, it appear you ''replaced'' the Vatican edit (which was to delete the Adams allegation). Still, at least you have the Big man on your side ;) ]<font color="black">e</font>] 06:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	: Wowz! - ] ] 00:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Thanks for inviting me ☺ ==
	Hi thanks for inviting me to join! I will be looking forward to taking an active part in the site once i finish college in september. I probably will have more questions for you but its great to finally see a proper Irish Republican area to Misplaced Pages at last.
	take care mo chara
	--<small>]]</small> 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Baronet renamings ==
	Vintagekits, please stop this splurge if moving articles on baronets from the format Sir X Y, Nth baronet to plain "NY". Many of those who you have moved are ambiguous names, being shared by other notable baronets, not all of whom yet have articles. Moving the articles to the undisambiguated name has in several cases led to links pointing to the wrong articles.
	I know hat you dislike baronets, but please don't let that lead you to disrupt wikipedia by removing titles which are needed for disambiguation. --] <small>] • (])</small> 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I did '''not''' ''" disrupt wikipedia by removing titles which are needed for disambiguation"'' - I moved article titles that were over disambiguated and against wiki guidelines - you as an admin should know that and shouldnt have moved them back or created a load of bogus disamb pages with nothing but redlinks to avoid wiki guidelines.--] 21:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::If they havent got articles yet then in wiki terms they are not notable. If they are 1st Baronets then I will listen to reason but secondary and further Baronets are not inherantly notable. I am sure there are thousands of articles yet to be created - should all pages be disambiguated in anticipation of those articles being created?--] 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Indeed, don't let you're PoV get in the way, as it did in the past (before you were indefinitely blocked) try not to let it happen again. --] 16:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::If you are just going to troll me talkpage please dont not post here again. I was never blocked for POV pushing - if you want to go down that childish route please remind me what you were blocked for!? Please step down from your soapbox CR, dont not accuse me of POV pushing when I am following wiki guidelines.--] 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::It's not just that much-needed disambiguation is being removed, but there have been no efforts made to fix any resulting double-redirects, even though the move page clearly places that as the responsibility of the editor performing the move. These moves were done at a rate of up to five per minute, which makes it impossible for there to have been meaningful checks carried out. Please count this as a formal warning: a repetition of this may lead to you being ]ed. --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::You are completely wrong to issue a warning - if some redirects name to be sorted then fine - but I checked all article moves before I moved them - I have been squeaky clean since my return to wiki and deeply resent your slur - I am following wiki guidelines with relation to the moves and you are out of order with the line you are taking here.--] 17:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::I think to be fair that Vk is right on the naming issue. It may be that he needs help clearing up the loose ends created by his moves. --] 17:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::No he is not right at all. By notable I'm a very sure that ] meant that many of the baronets were MPs etc, whose pages have not yet been created but have automatic notablity as MPs. By moving all on mass, which is very disruptive, during a discussion and not fixing the links, he should really be blocked again. There is no excuse for this disruption, or this blantant POV attitude.--] 18:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::That to be honest is pure nonsense - if you want to create articles for people who dont have articles then please crack on and I would be more than happy to reassess the situation. Also to go through the rest of your points - 1. ''"I'm a very sure that ] meant that many of the baronets were MPs etc"'' - you know what BHG is thinking now before she even says it do you?? 2. ''"By moving all on mass, which is very disruptive, during a discussion and not fixing the links"'' - you have a point about not fixing the links - however, I have amended a number of those now. Also there was a discussion on a number of pages and it was unopposed - also I dont see that there is a real problem not having a discussion when wiki guidelines are being followed. 3. ''"he should really be blocked again"'' - blocked because I follow wiki guidelines - maybe you shoujld ask for those to be blocked because they didnt name the articles correctly in the first place! 4. ''"There is no excuse for this disruption, or this blantant POV attitude"'' - please explain what POV attitude. The is possibly the least logical post that has ever been posted on my talk page.--] 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Right so we should move pages, them move them back when the pages are created! Well that is certainly logical and saves time!! And I may not be a mind-reader, but I use common sense. And fixing the links "now" is not good enough, you fix them as you go along, a very basic and simple policy to follow. The discussion was not finished, so you should not have moved the articles. And you know you have a POV, everyone is this discussion knows your POV, so please don't pretend you don't have one. We all know you do.--] 18:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	Be reasonable, VK. You know very well that there is currently a discussion about naming formats for Baronets on ] where you have taken part. Would it not be right to leave baronets alone until that is resolved? Regards, ] 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I am very reasonable on this issue - however, accusations from some editors would editors want to ensure ALL articles are named correctly! The discussion is to change the guidline, so far there is no concensus to change it, however, after I a little annoyed at BHG's accusation and unless she apologies for her accusations I will ensure that all Baronets are titled correctly - if she apologies then I will put a hold on any changes until the issues if fully sorted out. regards--] 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Vintagekits, I was not aware of any change being discussed, but as you well know, the existing guidance at ] is to use the "the format Sir X Y, Nth baronet" ''when disambiguation is necessary''. In plenty of the cases where you have renamed articles, when disambiguation clearly is necessary, even if the other articles do not yet exist.
	:::It is also clearly not true that you checked before making your article moves. Very few checks are possible when moving articles at the rate of five per minute, and the result was many cases where incorrect links were created as a result of the move, where double redirects were not corrected, and were articles were moved to undisambiguated namespaces which would be more appropriately used for a disambiguation page. Your that disambiguation pages should only be created at "foo (disambiguation)" is clearly wrong: read ].
	:::Finally, however, I take your latest comment as a clear threat to engage in ], to make a ]. Your editing actions should not be conditional on whether or not you think that anyone else is being nice to you. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Please read point four of the guideline that you have quoted and then come back and apologies for YOUR disruption and YOUR breach of ] not mine - if you followed policy instead of making false accusation then there would have been no need for any of this.--] 18:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::As for ''"It is also clearly not true that you checked before making your article moves"'' - nice breach of ] there - I did check all the page and after I made the checks I changed the articles titles to the correct format. As for no previous unopposed discussions see - ], ] and others.--] 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:In response to your comment on my TalkPage, as BrownHairedGirl says above read ]. It is very clear. --] 18:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I just thought I ought to add that UpDown was entirely correct in assessing my comments above about there being other notable articles. Vintagekits has a point in saying that if there are other notable people of those names, the articles should be created ... except that some editors are indeed working hard to create such articles, and their work is impeded by disruptions such as Vintagekits's insistence on ambiguous article names.
	::And, as to ], I stand by my points above. Articles were being moved at a rate if up to five minute. In the course of that process, ''no'' other links were corrected, even though the article moves created double redirects and misdirected links. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::If articles are created there should be a disamb page - you disgracefully and pointed created a load of redlink diamb pages to create this situation and blatantly just bloody made up some nonsense about me "threatening" to breach ] dispite the fact I didnt and despite the fact you breached ] by creating a load of red link disamb page. Your actions today have disgusted me to be honest.--] 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	=== Blocked for 3 weeks ===
	{{blocked|3 weeks}}
	This block has been issued for your clear threat above to disrupt wikipedia by renaming articles based on your misinterpretation of the current guidelines. A block such as this would usually follow several warnings and be for a short period, but in view of your long history of disruptive editing and of targetted campaigns against particular classes of article, I have blocked you for three weeks.<br />In view of your history, other admins may choose to extend the block. I note in particular that before your indefinite block was lifted, that "a strict nonosense approach taken by admin to edit warring and POV pushing".
	Threatening to mass-rename articles if someone doesn't apologise to you is absolutely unacceptable under the no-nonsense approach you asked for, particularly when you are already part to a discussion about a proposed change in the guidelines which would forbid such moves in all circumstances,
	Since some editors may consider it inappropriate for me to make the block having been the admin who set about undoing some of the damage caused above, I will post to ] to ask other admins to review this case. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:That is a digrace, I made those changes in line with wiki policy. The issue was discussed on a number of article pages and was unopposed. I made no threats whatsoever - You shoiuld not have made a block like this as you were the one who was disputing it and especially as another admin (who usually disagrees with me) ] agreed that my edits were correct.--] 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::The blocking admin is involved in a dispute with me, and my actions were supported above by administrator ] above. After I started moving Baronets to the correct place per Wiki guidelines, BHG started creating redlinked disambiguation pages have been created to circumvent Misplaced Pages guidelines on the naming of articles about baronets. Look at where BHG creates a disambigution page with redlinks and only one bluelinked article. This was created just to keep ] at the current name instead of at ]. Look at ], Baronets should only be at their full titles for disambiguation, so unless '''articles''' exist no disambiguation is needed. Creating disambiguation pages when articles don't exist is in itself disruptive, surely you only need to disambiguate if articles exist? Then I beleive that she wanted to just block me for an reason and choose ] which is totally unsubstantiated.--] 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	{{tlx|unblock|1=The blocking admin is involved in a dispute with me, and my actions were supported above by administrator ] above. After I started moving Baronets to the correct place per Wiki guidelines, BHG started creating redlinked disambiguation pages have been created to circumvent Misplaced Pages guidelines on the naming of articles about baronets. Look at where BHG creates a disambigution page with redlinks and only one bluelinked article. This was created just to keep ] at the current name instead of at ]. Look at ], Baronets should only be at their full titles for disambiguation, so unless '''articles''' exist no disambiguation is needed. Creating disambiguation pages when articles don't exist is in itself disruptive, surely you only need to disambiguate if articles exist? Then I beleive that she wanted to just block me for an reason and choose ] which is totally unsubstantiated. I have calmly discussed the issue and this admin is just using my past against me despite the fact that I have been squeaky clean since my return. This is not how an admin should be using their powers.}}
	{| align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
	|-		|-
			|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Glad to see some one <s>has</s> had the '''ability''' and '''tenacity''' to defend NPOV against the imposition of POV-by-numbers <span style="font-family:Celtic">] (])</span> 09:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	| valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | {{tick|40}}
	| style="padding: 0.1em" |
	'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s):
	<br><br>unblocked by the blocking admin
	''Request handled by:'' ] ] 19:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) -->
	|}		|}
			Jeez Vk; you break my heart! Why keep effin' and blinding at people when you '''know''' what will happen????? Still, hope you get back. Maybe look up ''"apology"'' in the dictionary and practice in front of a mirror - without head-butting the glass :) ] (]) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	*Vintagekits, I did not say I supported your actions, particularly not your threat to rename other articles in a way which others are unhappy with. I said I thought you were right on the content issue. As you know, this is a cooperative venture and we must all work together harmoniously so that it works properly. That said, I think the block is on the harsh side and I would support shortening it if you acknowledge your error and guarantee to avoid repeating it. --] 20:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Actually you said I was right not in changing the names - I dont understand why you are changing your story now! Puzzling. I did not threaten to do anything - I offered to stop changing the names in line with wiki policy if BHG apologised but would continue if she didnt withdraw the unfounded accusatiuon - nothing wrong with that.--] 20:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::SHORTENING IT!!!! WHat the hell am I supposed to have done?????? Editing to wiki guidlines after discussions is disruting?? I would say that creating a load of redlink disamb pages to avoid wiki guidelines is disruption and a brach of POINT not what I did - this is bloody crazy.--] 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::sAm I supposed to be psychic. If no articles exists and there's no mention of these people in other articles (I'm sure that applies to some, there will be a few where you're guilty) how are you supposed to know if disambiguation was needed? As for no discussion - see ]!!--] 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
			:Hmmmm.....Maybe '''I''' should be apologising: it seems you were merely ''explaining'' the phrase "cop yourself on" when an Admin interpreted that as a personal attack. Bad call. ] (]) 10:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	**I said I agreed with you on the naming issue. However, you were wrong to threaten to continue renaming articles unless you received an apology. BHG asked you nicely not to do that while a discussion was in progress. That seemed like a reasonable request, and not one necessitating an apology. --] 20:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:**Nevertheless I have left a message with the blocking admin to see if she will agree to unblock if you realise your mistake. Good luck. --] 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::*I didnt threaten to do anything thats such a smokescreen for an admin who was indispute with me just to block me - if you can call it a threat to follow wiki policy - I also threaten to assume good faith and threaten to make not personal attack. BHG never asked me to do anything BHG just made accusation and gave out warnings and created redlink disamb pages to avoid wiki policy - yet I am blocked - this is a bloody disgrace. It just seems a convieniant made up excuse to block me because she didnt like my edits - also did I change any new articles after I "threatened" to follow policy. Am I in a mad house here? By the way I am very calm here--] 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
			::Is the Barnstar something I should NOT wish to have on my name? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::This block is totaly out of order, VK was following WP policy by moving these articles to the correct article titles, I have moved about 10 of these articles myself over the past few weeks, if the editors that create these articles can't do so in accordance to policy then other editors have the right to move these articles.--] 20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
			== Not banned yet ==
	::::Second Padraig. If VK really is in the wrong a 24 hour maximum block might be appropriate, ] 20:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
			The debate about blocking or banning is still ongoing at ANI, as such VK should be permitted to edit his talk page. Everyone has a right to defend themselves before a sentence is passed. There seems to be a lot of unssemly and undue haste on this matter - why? <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	::::It should also be noted that the blocking admin is a member of ] this is a COI that he is involved in both the Wikiproject and also in a edit dispute with VK on this.--] 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I would also point out that this admin blocked me before for edit warring on an article about a Baronet and didnt block another member of the Baronet project despite the fact that that editor had reverted that page more than me that day - interesting!!--] 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::For me evidence this whole British/Irish editors disputes should be up in front of arbcom and not left in the hands of individual and often biased editors. But the arbcom authority is being undermined every day by comm sanctions board and individual admins, ] 21:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::I wouldnt disagree with that at all. However, there should not be a dispute here. I was following ] to the letter of the law. BHG created a load of red link disamb pages to avoid this guideline despite there being no other articles about people with the same name. To turn this around on me is a disgrace - truely some action should be taken against this admin for his actions here.--] 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
			:I have to say this looks like a witch hunt. As I look at it, it is beginning to stink. A discussion about a possible ban was opened... a dozen or so people voted straight away to say ban... and then people tried to close the discusion AFTER AN HOUR and impose a ban. Sounds like some canvassing was going on there and some people letting their hurt feelings over rule their reasonable side. Having had a look into this yes VK has some WP:Civil issues but really... complete ban after an hour's discussion? I have to say I think a number of editors should step away from this issue completely. --] (]) 10:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	This is so out of order, so bang out of order. Guilty of creating a problem that dose not exist? And guilty of addressing a problem that dose? Having played by the rules, to be blocked by an admin with a declared bias!] Logic turned on its head. Could someone explain to me how this works? To abide by the guidelines is considered POV pushing, by editors who breach the guidelines in order to push their POV. Have I got that right? --] 22:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
			In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point:
	:No, I'm afraid that you haven't got that right. Please bear with me while I finish writing a (neccessarily rather lengthy) explanation. --] <small>] • (])</small>
	::For some, no explanation is necessary, for others, none is possible. --] 23:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Well I wait the explanantion eagerly, ] 23:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
	::This block is totally out of order. How can a user be blocked for following wiki rules and rectifying a problem that exists on WP? Total madness. Also no offence to BHG, but she definetly has a conflict of interest here. An admin who is a member of the wikiproject and an admin, certainly isn't a fair referee in this case. The block is 100% unfair. ] 00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: I'm a bit concerned here re. this block but I'd like to see what BHG has to say, so suggest people hold off until she has written up her explanation - ] ] 00:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	*The real issue here is the incorrect naming of articles to suit POV. These articles are named contrary to wikiguides and we should really be focused on those that create these over disambiguated titles rather than block those how actually would prefer if wikiguideliens are adhered to. Here is a taste of some more unnecessarily over disambiguated articles about Baronets are -
			<blockquote>"To RLevse: ''The discussion about my block is ongoing and as half of Europe has just woken up I think you should allow them the chance the have there say.''
	*] - has a redirect of ] - why?
	*] - but nothing for ]
	*] but nothing for ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] but nothiong for ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] nothing for ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] and nothing for ]
			''Can you a. please restored by block to the original 48hr b. unbar me from sending emails and c. unblock me from using my talk page.''
	I could go on and on - and on - but I think the above highlights the real issue here - articles are incorrectly titled - members of the Baronet project have a default policy of incorrectly naming their article - this is the issue here - but god forbide that you you try and rectify that issue our else "friendly admin" will silence you.--] 11:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::VK, you do go on and on, and have gone on and on :(
	::But please consider the two examples I have shown below, one from this list, and one from a move by Padraig, where there is clear ambiguity. And, again: The naming conventions are not a policy and '''are not set in stone'''. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples below? --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
			''You have left me utterly armless and legless in being able to defend myself against the allegations put.''! From Vintagekits</blockquote>
	=== Extended reasons for the block ===
	The underlying problem here is that VK has been on one pole of a lengthy and bitter dispute over baronets. Some editors have argued that all Baronets should be regarded as inherently notable by virtue of their baronetcies, which is a proposition I have argued against at length on ], and which is not supported by the proposed guideline ] (which was itself rejected because it was too inclusive).
			Posted here by <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	At the other pole, VK has a very strong bias against what he perceives as the British establishment. There's nothing wrong at all with that, and the presence of opposing POVs is one of the checking mechanisms which keeps Misplaced Pages balanced, but in this case it has gotten right out if hand. I don't know who started it, but so far as I can see the disputes arose when some editors working on the British aristocracy got into arguments with VK over two things: where to find NPOV in articles relating to Northern Ireland. The British crew objected strongly (and angrily) to the use of neutral words like "kill", insisting on "murder" etc, a position which seems to me to be a very poor one (I much prefer the ] policy of using neutral terminology). They ended up block-voting and various other no-nos on articles about Irish Republicanism, and VK and a few of his friends proceeded to launch a lengthy deletion campaign against baronets and nobility, but particularly the boaronets (apparently because ], one of the most energetic members of the Baronets project was one of those who had offended VK). Some of their targets were indeed non-notable, but many were not, and a huge amount of time was taken up in what became a pitched battle. There were numerous AfDs, and some outrageous behaviour on both sides.
			:I'd support that. I'm of the view that Vk was by no means the only person sending emails last night. And the initial block was so bad it merited a severe reaction. IMHO. ] (]) 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	I was frequently called on by both sides to intervene, and my talk page archives are full of lengthy arguments; I began to loathe them and wished they would all calm down (see e.g. ]) and some (such as ]) appeared and grew on my talk page withut even any involvement from me). Two features are notable: both sides have been deeply inflexible, and Vintagekit takes it all ''very'' personally. My archives are full of deep hostility from him, and gross incivility; but the most notable and destructive thing is that if VK feels offended, his response has on countless occasions been to set out to disrupt the area of wikipedia worked on by those he feels are his opponents.
			:Show me the diff that justifies preventing this user from any sort of communication. I don't see it. When people get blocked we expect them to get heated and do a little cussing on their own talk page. Escalating at that point is harmful to Misplaced Pages. Just let them blow of steam and if they are still in the mood to cause trouble after 48 hours, reblock them. If you think the user has warn out community patience, you need to give the community a chance to comment. One hour of discussion is not enough. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	My thanks for this has largely been to earn the displeasure of both sides. ] was deeply offended that I eventually came down hard on his persistent breaches of ] (I imposed several blocks), and Vintagekits assumed that any time I didn't weigh in his side that it was due to deep partisanship on my part. One particularly bizarre example is a thread called ], where VK launches a tirade at me because I don't want to commit a whole further dose of my time to the never-ending conflict. :(
			::If you do adjust the block, and consensus seems to be against the idea, please do not re-enable e-mails. I don't appreciate e-mails of the type I was sent last night, I don't need to hear how disgusted VK is with me or any of his other opinions on me. There is always the unblock mailing list, or arbcom to e-mail. E-mailing other Wikipedians has already been abused. ] 15:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	I would happily avoid the while thing, except that unfortunately it overlaps with my core area of work: British ] and parliamentary constituencies. If you look at my contribs list, you will find that I have created many hundreds of articles on them, and had a big hand in building and populating the categories, lists etc.
			:::Have we had a chance to look at this infamous email yet or do we have to just take you word on it that it was as bad as you have been making out? --] (]) 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	(Bear with me, I'm getting to the point).
			*Chillum, you have email enabled so you can receive emails - was the email abusive or was it not, perhaps you are "''confused''" - again? In fact, I think I will seek VK's permission to post it here, then we all may judge. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			*Wow, the choke hold is off! I would like to know why I was banned from my talkpage in the first place. If my talk page wasnt banned then no one would have received any emails - as it was my only outlet of communication at a time that editors were discussing my very "wiki-life" what was I supposed to do.
			:Even though it was late and I was tired and should have been in my nest, I dont think I sent anything untoward, I may have expressed my disgust and disappointment the way some experienced appeared to be screwing the facts in what I considered a "witch hunt". I am happy for any editor to disclose the content of any email I sent last night to allow others deem if it was offending or not. --] (]) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	The problem is that many MPs became peers (either through ennoblement or succession), and in previous centuries many many baronets were MPs, so many of the articles I edit are on baronets, and it can be ''very'' hard wor to get them right. Some baronetted families held parliamentary seats pretty much as personal fiefdoms for many generations, and many of them recycled one or two or three firstnames. So there could be several "Sir John Smith, xth baronet"s in parliament, through generations; in many cases there is more than one baronetcy of the same name, so one can find two or more "Sir John Smith 2nd Baronet, of X" being notable MPs and in many cases several other untitled family members with the same names sharing the same cluster of parliamentary seats; some of them are also very notable in other contexts. Disambiguating these people can be a nightmare: there are times I have spent a dozen or more hours sorting out the links to members of just one family, who may have a five or ten very similarly-named people who on investigation have an automatic presumption of notability per ].
			*SarekOfVulcan, asks if Elonka considered my comment a personal attack. Shouldnt the more pertaintant question be to Domer - i.e. if my interpretation of what he meant by "cop yourself on" was a more polite version of what I said.--] (]) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	Slowly, with some families, we are getting to the point where we can identify with reasonable certainty which family members are definitely non-notable, as ] has just done very neatly with the ]. But until that is done, and the non-notable family members identified, it is very important to use the precise titles ''until it is clear which title-holers are notable and which are not''.
			*I have little desire to continue explaining my actions here over and over. My removal of talk page access had nothing to do with the discussion at ANI, and pre-dated any serious discussion of a ban/indef block. I was simply trying to prevent VK from posting any more unblock requests during what was at that time only a 48 hour block. Next thing I know this is in my email inbox:
			<blockquote>You obviously have never experienced bashing your head against a brick wall for months on end. I am hounded by British sympathising editors on every page I venture onto because of my support for physical forces Irish republicanism - what you Americans would now call "terrorism".
			I never expect a fair shot so was not suprised by your decline - admins look at my block log and say "fuck me this guy is a monster" - however the vast majority of the blocks were bad blocks and most of the time an admin with enough balls to spot it unblocks me.
			Its simple just come to an end now - I've had enough.</blockquote>
			*and another:
			<blockquote>its utterly contemptable and inflamatory to block someones talkpage - a talk page should not be blocked unless it is being used to abuse wikipedia, cause further breaches of policy or to out another editor. NONE OF THESE WERE BEING DONE!!!
			YOU ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO PUSH ME INTO MAKING A REAL PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU WHICH I AM ON THE VERGE OF! you are a disgrace!</blockquote>
	Please note that is ''not'' because I think that baronets are automatically notable: under all current and proposed guidelines, they are not. But, under current guidelines, many of them are notable, because of their military, parliamentary, naval, commercial or other careers. (Yes, onlya minority overall, but that's still often several in each family).
			:I'm not particularly offended or appalled by these, but they are not exactly helpful or logical either. VK seems to believe he is the target of some vast British Wikipedian conspiracy. I can only speak for myself of course, but I can assure you my actions were not based in any way on his nationality or political views. ] (]) 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			::*you are not offended because there is nothing to be offended by - he is merely explaining to you how he feels. If he feels ganged up upon and victimised, can you really be surprised after the events of last night, when while all of Europe was fast asleep a group of mostly American acted as they did in a seemingly co-ordinated fashion and at such speed. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::Get real, the idea that this disruptive user feels ganged up on and victimized is a joke. ] (]) 17:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::(ec) You need to stop beating that drum. Perhaps the closing of the discussion and imposing of a ban was a bit hasty, I must say I was surprised to see things progressing so quickly, but the idea that it was some deliberate "anti-European cabal conspiracy" has little to no merit. If anything it was VK who was doing the canvassing with all of his email activity. ] (]) 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			*I'm very much afraid you people should have considered your actions and words more carefully during the night - then things may not appear as they do. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::: "Perhaps the closing of the discussion and imposing of a ban was a bit hasty" - when you can say something like that I really just shake my head and wonder how you were ever allowed be an admin. Rlvese acted acted as judge, jury and executioner last night - and all down in the record time of an hour - whilst all of other had slept, they would have awoken to find me beheaded. I find it strange that until Alsion turned up this was unanimous to ban me - but since then it is even with regards bans and opposes. I find that very strange. Either there is a mailing list or there are a lot of lemmings - maybe both. I dont know, all I know if that I have had the shitty end of the stick here. You personally havent even taken one moment to consider this from my perspective and it shows.--] (]) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			Howdy Vk. It's your usage of foul language, that's getting ya into these block problems. Personally, I don't mind the colorful words, but it appears an increasing numbers of editors do. ] (]) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			:I know i have a potty mouth - it doesnt bother me to be honest its not turned on to insult people its just the way I talk. I supposes it could be a cultural thing.--] (]) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			::If the community chooses 'not' to ban you, I'd recommend no more foul words. Afterall, once the Wiki community tells an editor he/she is out? he/she is out. ] (]) 17:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::Perhaps somebody could write a Javascript filter that would clean up your posts. Watch out for the ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::I hear you GD, and thank you for all your support and advice in the past. It is genuinely much appriciated.--] (]) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::No prob, Vk. ] (]) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::PS: I've voted '''oppose''' on the Wiki ban proposal, as you haven't vandalized any articles. ] (]) 17:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	Once the list of X baronets (e.g. ]) has been checked, I have no problem with the articles being renamed without titles if here is no clash; but until then, it is immensely disruptive to lose the precision of linking which cones from using the titles.
			:::::My personal motto at Misplaced Pages is "go with the flow". Right, GoodDay?--] (]) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::::::PS, I also voted '''oppose'''.--] (]) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::::::Yep. ] (]) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
			Howdy Vk. I decided to delete my 'vote' from your Ban case. I shall have to take a neutral stand on it. ] (]) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	That's all I seek here: '''don't remove the titles until sufficient checks have been done to ensure that there really is no ambiguity'''. That's entirely compliant with the guidelines to use the titles when necessary for disambiguation.
			:I saw! I have to say that I am a little disspointed that you did that. Answer me this what made you change it? When in the last year have I vandalised a page or caused so much disruption that it woul dwarrant an indefinate ban?--] (]) 10:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
			::I had to revert to 'neutral', when I was reminded of your past sock-puppetry. Which (I'm glad) you haven't committed for over a year, since your last Banning case. ] (]) 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
			I have to say that certain people have been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over VK's emails. They frankly look like reasonable responses given his limitations on communication at the time. I have taken some time to look over some of the troubles articles and there does seem to be a systematic Britsh POV bias going on. No wow I will lay my cards on the table here... I am a Brit... but being from an Irish family I am probably more aware of and attuned to the issues at hand than most editors. Most editors seem to take the Britsh POV and are backed by what would seem to be a a number of admins all with either a British POV or American ones with a strong anti terrorism POV. Take the "British Isles" as an example. Geographically and geologically speaking the term seems fine to me - simply meaning the group of Islands the biggest of which happens to be called Great Britain. That is pretty standard terminology for any group of Islands to be refered to by the biggest. Now the term is also used in political and economic sense where its use is not so clear cut and can have overtones that are not welcome that most British editors are simply unaware of, and the term is used in this way, which can be considered an inflamatory way, throughout wikipedia. There are alternatives to the British Isles which can and should be used outside of purely geographic or geological articles yet the weight of editors on the British side surpresses this. It is no wonder to me that editors who try and redress this balance problem feel like they are beating their head against a wall sometimes because frankly they are, though I would say it is not a wall of anti Irish sentiment but one of ignorance to the issue. --] (]) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
			I've changed my mind (yet again). I'm once again, opposing the indef-ban, as I've no evidence of sock-puppetry (since the last Banning case). ] (]) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
	Vintagekits, however, has shown no interest at all in making those checks, renaming articles at a rate of up to five per minute, despite creating some mistaken links in the process, and hindering he process of disambiguating articles under construction. It appears that VK's checks consist of looking at the bare list of names of baronets, seeing if there are any other blue links of the same name, but not looking behind the redlinks, or at other incoming links.
			== Official statement requested ==
	Other editors are doing those checks, and I myself rename baronet articles without the titles ''when I have checked that I am not creating ambiguity''. That's all this is about: not creating ambiguity which will lead the reader to the wrong page, as some of VK's edits did
			Jehochman has asked for you to write up and post an official statement to be contributed to the ANI discussion before it's closed. Can you create one here and indicate when you are done editing and want it copied over? Thank you. ] (]) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
	In other cases, that would be no problem: the overwhelming majority of editors are keen to try ensure that the encyclopaedia is accurate, and will happily discuss the issues and in many cases join in the work of doing the mountains of cross-checking. Unfortunately, because of the long and bitter dispute, Vintagekits is not prepared to do that: his main interest is in deleting as many baronets as possible, and talk page archives are full of his sneering comments about them. He's entitled to his views (and I am not a devotee of the hereditary principle either), but what he is doing here is ''not'' about improving the encyclopaedia: it is the latest round in what has become a war by VK against anything to do with baronets.
			:George, I wasnt on line much yesterday and will be away from my computer for most of today as well as I have family visiting. That issues would you like me to address.--] (]) 09:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::Vintagekits, my advice is to request a full and thorough Arbcom case, so much has happened in your career here that is does need cold and calculated scrutiny - a laying bear of facts if you like. Then a few people can assess if you are of any value to the project rather than a braying bob. The strange behaviour of some very important Wikipedians yesterday in the threads concerning you has convinced me, you need to be examined only by the Arbcom. It will be unplesant for you - you have many wiki-faults, but are not alone in that - as I see it you are standing on the trapdoor with a noose around your neck, and the mob have their hands on the lever - the lever needs to he in the hands of a responsible few. That's my advice take it or leave it. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
			:I think the issues which I would hope you would address are the comments and issues raised in the ] thread. A number of editors have commented, there and in the various alternatives which flowed out of that in the major heading.
	The reason I implemented the block was very simple: that having already inappropriately renamed a dozen or so articles, VK threatened to set off and wreak havoc across the rest of them purely as a matter because of a personal dispute arising from his personal conflicts with some other editors who work on baronetcies. I acted to protect the encyclopaedia from further damage.
			:Any specific ideas, comments, opinions that were raised there and statements you'd like to make. Someone's going to have to make a determination and close the various proposed community actions threads, and it's only fair if you have a chance to be heard and respond to the issues.
			:I see Giano's comment above requesting an Arbcom case. That's probably premature at the moment - nobody has closed the community remedies threads, so for right now you're just indef blocked, not banned or otherwise restricted. I recommend that the community discussion be allowed to come to an end and then if you disagree then appeal any decision to Arbcom. That's purely procedural - I think Arbcom will want to wait until the community decides, so it wouldn't make sense to appeal to them before. Once there is a community decision of some sort then you should feel free to file an Arbcom appeal or ask for a case to be opened.
	Just as well, I did too: in the time between first messaging Vintagekits and blocking him, he made a long list of edits such as in which he not only bypassed a redirect from ] to ], but also removed his title. Why? That's not policy or guidelines, it's VK's anti-baronetcy POV. The block at least put a stop to that of disruption. (And before anyone accuses me of taking a POV stance on this, do ''not'' assume that wanting something accurately recorded is the same as championing it. I just want links to point in the right place).
			:If waiting 24 more hours while you have family over and are unavailable to comment here will help, I will post a request to the thread asking for no admins to close during that period, until you have a chance to respond. I believe there's no harm done to anyone by a decent wait - a week would be hard to justify, but another day (or even two) won't hurt the community or you in any way.
			:] (]) 02:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
	Could I have imposed a block for a shorter time? Yes, of course. But in imposing blocks, admins are advised to bear in mind the previous record of the offender. And in this case we have some with a clear and lengthy history of trying to disrupt content associated with editors he dislikes or subjects he dislikes, and indeed some clear guidance from VK himself.
			:::George, if you could that would be great. There is a ] and they will want to be brought out for that as well. I hope to put an hour aside tomorrow to get my thoughts down. Thanks.
			----
	Please folks, re-read the lengthy discussions above when VK was indefinitely blocked. (start at the section beginning ], and read the discussion of conditions for he lifting of the block). One particularly relevant contribution is where, that "a strict nonosense approach taken by admin to edit warring and POV pushing". When he threatened a disruptive mass-renaming of articles, I took him at his word.
	One final point: accusations of a COI. If VK performs this threatened mass-renaming, the result will be many hundreds of ambiguous links, which will taken many many hours for editors to sort out. To get an idea of the sort of ambiguity problems which arise with baronets, look at ]; consider the consequences for link integrity if very great care is not taken to make detailed prior checks before renaming.
	If trying to avoid the morass of broken links that arises from unchecked removal of precision in naming is a COI, them it's a COI which I hope is shared by every other editor on wikipedia. I have no desire to be involved in any of this, and no inherent dispute with VK: I just find myself, as so many others have, being accused of deep hostility for having dared not to support him on something (consider again his response ] when I asked him to go to ANI with a problem beacuse I hadn't the energy to try to resolve yet another of his conflicts), or in this case to disagree with him. We see exactly the same thing here: Vintagekits threatens to disrupt Misplaced Pages by performing a mass-renaming as a way of forcing an apology, and when bocked denies making a threat.
	The core of this simple. Do you want to give free rein to an editor with a long track record of disruption who has repeatedly expressed his deep hostility to a subject where he wants to perform lots of edits?
	The document on which VK is relying is ]. It does ''not'' ban the use of titles where disambiguation is needed, and in any case it is not a ], it is a guideline, whose header says ''"it is not set in stone and should be treated with ] and the ]"''. Is it common sense to seek an interpretation of a guideline which makes it harder for readers and editors to ensure that links point where they should, and that article names err on the side of ambiguity rather than precision? That's what VK claims. --] <small>] • (])</small> 01:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Excuse my French but that is a crock of bs, you just ramble in a hope that editors see my previous poor history and think I must have done something here but dont address reason for this block - what has my history got to do with this either, I have been squeaky clean since I came back to wiki, I have engaged with those who have opposed me and infact quelled situations on many occasion, I dont deny my previously poor behaviour but I havent put a foot wrong since I came back and I thought that that was the whole reason I came back with a block on republican articles so I could start with a clean slate - when I retitled the articles they were all moved to what they should have been correctly titled in line with wiki policy - you obviously did not like that then YOU went and created a load of disamb pages with the only article actually on it being the article I rename being the that of the article I renamed and the rest being redlinks - a pure breach of ] and then you try and turn this around on me!!! For proof see - ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] for proof of the stunt that this admin has pull to try avoid wiki policy.
	::::Lets get on to the '''threat''' that I made - I threatened ''to ensure ALL articles are named correctly'' - that is what I threatened to do - I threatened to follow the rules and I am blocked for three weeks by an admin who is in dispute with me and a member of the Baronet project.
	::::As for having no positive interest in Baronets - thats an interesting point especially as I created ] only a week ago - and may I add that I changed the article title on that page also after I found that it was unecessarily disambiguated.--] 09:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Sorry I disagree with you on a number of points, firstly if members of the baronetcies project titled these articles correctly in the first place instead on insisting that titles be used in all cases then this problem wouldn't arise.
	::You say VK moved these without checking them first, because in your opinion they where moved to quickly, how do you know he didn't check through them all before starting to move any of them. In any case the first instance of the use of the name has no need to use the title, only from the second or more occurence. You haven't explained your setting up of disambig pages containing redlinks, it is not common practice to do this, as your well aware.
	::VK was editing in accordance to the policies and guidelines of WK, and has not breached any policy in his edits in these articles, so his edits are not disruptive as you claim. Nor do members of the baronetcies project have the right to ignore the naming conventions of WP that all other editors have to obey.
	::The ban on VK should be lifted as it should not have been imposed in the first place and as you where involved in the same dispute you should have been the one to impose it anyway even if he breached any policy which he clearly hasn't.--] 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::As an uninvolved admin... the claims by both sides that they're not disrupting the project ring pretty false. You all are wikilawyering.
	:::These actions, probably on both sides, were disruptive and damaging to the project. Maybe blocking everyone involved would be more fair, but this is what happened so far. If the two "sides" can't work out a reasonable cooperative way to deal with this, as opposed to resuming edit warring over it, I am going to predict more blocks in the future.
	:::If you're using policy to attempt to justify being a ] and disrupting stuff, expect to get swatted on the nose and told to knock it off.
	:::I don't want to ascribe blame for starting it, but everyone involved needs to handle it in a more cooperative and adult manner going forwards, or this will not be the last administrator intervention. This behavior is absolutely not acceptable.
	:::I don't personally know or care what the answer ends up being. If it's "we're still edit warring" in another few weeks, a pox on all your houses, and away you go. ] 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::: This sort of ] is exactly what was hoped to be avoided by banning Vk from "contentious" subjects as a condition of his recent unblocking. The specific terms of the ban were articles ''relating to Irish Republicanism, broadly based. (IE, VK will have to show that it isn't tangentially related to the subject, not that others will have to prove that it is).'' The purpose of this was to allow Vk to contribute while avoiding situations where he had trouble dealing with conflict. That Vk almost immediately started editing baronetcy articles worried me, because the past conflicts associated with the Irish republicanism pages spilled across to these too. It depresses me that Vk rushed to get involved into this situation, barely weeks after his ''very last chance''. It really doesn't fill me with confidence that Vk can deal with conflict in an acceptable way. I don't know the ins and outs of the baronetcy issue, I'm going to decline to offer an opinion on that. I will note, however, that is ''never'' a good idea to threaten to edit an article in any manner unless another editor makes an apology. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 03:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Please tell me exactly what this massive threat was!!!! Also did I carry out this massive threat??--] 09:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Padraig, this isue actually has little to do with the baronetcies project: I only joined it for help with baronet-MPs, as you can see , and I ]. It is really about disambiguating Members of Patrliament (MPs)
	:::::The question of what you call "titling the articles properly" is the nub of it. First thing is that I am not arguing that naming conventions should be ignored, far from it: simply that they should be interpeted, ''as the guidelines themselves require'', '''with common sense'''. Interpreting the guidelines in a way guaranteed to cause disruption, when there is a clear history on VK's part of a desire the disrupt and delete articles on baronets, is 'not'' common sense.
	:::::I asked you on my talk page to consider some particular situations, to explain why it is disruptive, and I'm sorry to see that you haven't addressed the details, so let me set it out here.
	:::::Take the example of ] (1621–1702): an article should be written on him because he was a ] for Huntingdon from 1661-1679 and for Huntingdonshire 1685-1687: he therefore has automatic presumption of notability per ].
	:::::Now look at ], and you will see lots of other John Cottons listed, all of them redlinked. By your logic, an article on him should be at ] (unless there is, as in this case, another article on a John Cotton).
	:::::If you look at the list of Cotton Baronets, you'll just see a list of names. You won't be aware that there were in fact no less than five John Cottons who were MPs (I have created that list on the dab page at ], and one of these days must incorporate that info into the list of Baronets). If I hadn't done the research you probably won't be aware too that here were actually two people called ] who were MPs (and similarly with Sir John Cotton, 4th Baronet)
	:::::The Cotton Baronets are an extreme example, but there are many dozens (probably hundreds) of baronet-MPs who also had a namesake baronet in parliament. Leigh Rayment's useful appears to offer some assistance by listing beside baronets which ones are MPs, but unfortunately it is misleading, because it misses 25% or more. The peerage/baronetage guides such as Debretts can be moe helpful, but it usually takes multiple sources to unravel who was who, and building list of MPs in constituency articles such as ] requires a lot of cross-referencing of birth dates to ensure that links are accurate.
	:::::Because so often identically-named members of the same family represented the same constituency, there are only two ways to do this: disambiguate pre-emptively by date of birth, or by title. According to the guideline, the correct method is by title, which is what editors have been doing.
	:::::The reason I can say with a high degree of certainty that Vintagekits didn't make such checks is that I know from bitter experience that they are very time-consuming. To check all the articles that VK renamed would take days; and to check all of those he was threatening to rename would take many months. Given VK's oft-stated dislike of baronetcies, it's stretching credibility beyond breaking point to suggest that he has been doing that work.
	:::::It's common sense to try to avoid creating ambiguous links. It's not common sense to try to use a flexible guideline as a tool to justify turning carefully-researched precise links into ambiguous ons.
	:::::Aren't we here to try to improve the encyclopedia? How on earth is it improved by deliberately renaming article in a way which reverses the efforts of other editors to ensure that links point where they are supposoed to?
	:::::] says "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Misplaced Pages, ignore it"; VK is doing the reverse, trying to use a narrow interpretation of a rule to damage the encyclopedia because he despises the subject matter. Vintagekits is quite entitled to despise baronets, and to despise the system of title, but not to disrupt wikipedia because of it.
	:::::Faced with a clear threat to continue continue that disruption, I acted promptly to prevent it. As it turned out it was more than a threat: more ] was actually underway when he was blocked. --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::That is a false argument - I checked wiki to see if there was another article of the same name - there was not, there was only redlinks - if they are redlnks then an account of there notability does not need to be taken into account. I was following ] to the letter of the law - you caused the problem after this by creating redlink disamb pages.--] 09:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Georgewilliamherbert thanks for your comment: I agree that the whole situation is far from ideal. But seriously, what should I have done?
	::::::Ignore the dusruption? Take it to somewhere like WP:ANI and while I took time to explain the nuances give VK more time to do the damage he was threatening, undoing hundreds of not thousands of hours of work by other editors?
	::::::The bottom line here is that is rare to find a situation where these issues cannot be reserved with an editor genuinely seeking to improve the subject area, regardless of their POV. (It happens, but it's nearly always possible to edit an article to accommodate both sides of an issue). This is the only case I have ever encountered of an editor who is setting out with he main objective of removing as much trace of a subject as possible.
	::::::Here's one interesting point: so far as I can see, nowhere in any of these discussions, have seen any effort by Vintagekits to extend or improve coverage of MPs or of baronets, or even any desire to do so. All I have ever seen has been negative: arguments to delete articles or otherwise disrupt them. Isn't it time to extend his ban to cover other areas such as MPs and baronets, where he has such a long track record of conflict? --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I support your actions 100% BrownHairedGirl, I had no idea Vk was doing this. Per Rockpocket, I am horrified that he has rushed back into a contentious area. When I naively supported my own stylistic preference for the naming, I did not know this had been a whole area of conflict. Vintagekits, you have been told a good few times now you cannot use this encyclopedia for POV-pushing. Threatening editors with making edits unless they apologise is ridiculous behaviour. That is what you are blocked for and if I were you, knowing the whole story and everything, I would just accept the block and be thankful it isn't a longer one. --] 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::You have hated me since I joined wiki and have tried at every turn to get me banned - initially you actually agree that my edits were correct but now that there is a sniff of a banned and that this may impeed my from getting back to editing republican articles now all of a sudden you are supporting ''100% BrownHairedGirl'' despite the opposite above and are also now "horrified" - please explain the threat that I made - this threat BS is a total smokescreen to take away from BHG creating this problem.--] 09:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	: I have to say, I'm largely satisfied with that explanation from BHG and am somewhat disappointed that VK went straight back into the baronetcy controversy like that. From what I remember, there was a slew of RfCs last year over this whole thing. VK's show a lot of activity, all with the comment "per MOS". Personally, I'd not have applied a block of that duration; rather I'd have started at a day or even a week, from the agreed unblock resolutions above. Though I'm not familiar with/interested in the subject, I can follow BHG's rationale for the existing naming scheme and, unfortunately, I find it hard to do the ] thing here, given VK's past history. There are over a million articles here and VK's stepping back into the whole baronetcies thing was not in the spirit of his unblock agreement. In short - it's a long block, but I have to endorse it here - ] ] 04:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Alidon - why block me - why, what reason I have done NOTHING wrong - please read ] and then explain why I am blocked. Earlier this week Padraig moved a number of these articles unopposed and cited the same reason - there was nothing said about this as it was within wiki guidelines - then I do the same a couple of days later and I am blocked for three weeks. This makes me sick - I have done nothing whatsoever wrong here, I dont deny my previous bad behaviour but this is wrong, completely wrong.--] 09:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I'd support a shorter block. Actually on this issue I tend to be on VK's side (see Jeffrey Archer) but we should surely be using blocks to stop bad behaviour which a 24 or even 72 hour block would do well, plus it would avoid any tiresome accusations about the validity of the admin's action, ] 04:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::The issues with ] are rather different, because a) he's clearly v. notable on several counts, and b) there doesn't appear to be anyone else of the same name even potentially notable enough to merit an article.
	:::::::However, on Vintagekits's block, how about shortening it if his ban is explicitly extended to cover baronets and British MPs (as a more limited version of a suggestion above at ])? These are clearly-defined topics where his passions run high, and where as a result he regularly gets into conflicts when he ventures into those territories. --09:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::I was blocked from articles within the WP:IR - not articles on Baronets - I edited within wiki guidelines, no matter how manner bogus smoke screen you try to throw up to ignore that - it is the facts - you then subsequently created the issue with all of your redlink disamb pages - that was the breach of ] - you should really have the issue with those creating articles with incorrect titles and not me. --] 09:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::''"I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously"'' - really!!! Seems that here you have used it arbitrarially and as a weapon to silence editors who dare to disagree with you - all you have actually done is shown a massive lights on how wiki guidlines and policies are being ignored in this area.--] 09:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	*Why is BHG not mentioning all the moves I made and only the ones that she created disamb pages for after I moved them (correctly and in line with wiki policy) - what about ] - who was incorrectly disambed to ] or ] - who was incorrectly disambed to ] or ] - who was incorrectly disambed to ] or ] - who was incorrectly disambed to ] or ]???? I could go on but I just looked at the Baronets beginning with B. Once again - admin close ranks and throw up a smoke screen to deflect from one of "their own" breaching policy and acting like a warrior - but no sahock there eh.--] 09:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	In the above explanation, I can see a lot of what passes for motivation, personal motivation that is. In fact, there is a lot there for editors to disagree on and at the same time lose the substance of the real discussion at hand.
	Therefore, as to the commentary, weasel word and peacock terms. I suggest editors park it for the moment, and address it in a RfC. VK has been the subject of an indefinite block, which has been addressed, rehashing it now, is to mitigate the actions BHG, in place of dealing with '''this issue''' at hand. That is VK actions '''in this case''', and did he breach the conditions outlined in their lifting of the Block.
			Yep agree a full and thorough Arbcom case. To cut out the BS insist on Diff's for any and every accusation. --<span style="font-family:Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></span> 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
	VK inappropriately renamed a dozen or so articles. What were they, list them?
	Threatened to wreak havoc. (BHG acted to protect the encyclopaedia ). What did VK threaten to do? “I will ensure that all Baronets are titled correctly - if she apologies then I will put a hold on any changes until the issues if fully sorted out.” Apply guidelines, or cause BHG problems. I totally disagree with VK suppressing their views and opinions, to facilitate ambiguity, rather than insisting on the problem being address.
	I would suggest BHG address the ambiguity, and not the editor. BHG keeps going on about disruption, and then lists the problems they are having with the articles, and how this will discomfiture them. Wanting VK banned from BHG’s area of interest is an abuse of position, in other words, it will be ok to have this ambiguous situation if there is no one to question it.
	VK bypassed a redirect Gervase Beckett. The problem associated with Baronets is not a problem for VK, and their interpretation of guidelines. If there is ambiguity address it!
	Assuming VK did not do their homework, maybe they did to make sure they got it right, because of past experience. It’s up to editors to get it right if there is a possible problem with disambiguation.
	I would suggest that this guideline be address, as its interpretation is the cause of conflict. That the block be lifted, and VK agree to engage in the discussion, and they retract and strike through their statement to “put a hold on any changes until the issues if fully sorted out.”--] 09:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Vintagekits, you are wikilawyering, in a deeply unproductive and mistaken fashion. As above, ] is a ''guideline'', not a policy (as you keep on calling it).
	:It is intended to reflect a convention, not to be used as an edict to cause problems. Read the header: ''"it is not set in stone and should be treated with ] sense and the ]"''. It's common sense to try to avoid creating ambiguous links. It's not common sense to try to use a flexible guideline as a tool to justify turning carefully-researched precise links into ambiguous ones.
	:You did indeed do some moves of baronets which were correct, such as ] (where there is no ambiguity, and which I did not revert), tho you rather spoilt that one by then going around a stripping his title out of lots of links to him (see e.g. , and ])
	:However, there were others which you moved despite the existence of another article , e.g. ], which you moved to ] despite the existence of ]. When you go around stripping out titles without checking on the notability of other similarly-named title-holders, that's what happens.
	:What exactly are you trying to achieve by interpreting the guideline so narrowly and rigidly as to create the sort ambiguity I outlined above as a problem wrt to the ]?
	:Remember the naming conventions '''are not set in stone'''. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates avoidable ambiguity? --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::If as you point out the ] move was correct then why did you move it back?--] 10:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Why did I strip out the titles?? You bloody told me to thats why!!!! You said the main issue was that I didnt fix the redirect - so I was going back and fixing the redirect - then you blocked me - you are a bloody disgrace using your admin powers to silence those you oppose - I was editing in line with wiki policy (not guidelines - really sorry!) but you didnt like that this is the root of this abuse. All you have done is show yourself up - I have done nothing wrong here and you are proving that by relying on my previous poor history to justify your actions despite the fact I did nothing wrong - I am not wikilawyering you are, if we strip this arguement down to its basic facts it is obvious who is in the wrong.--] 10:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::If I made ONE mistake by moving ], then sorry for that but if that was raised as an issue the I would have gladly changed it back.--] 10:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::There is no ambiguity - you created disamb pages to create the ambiguity - you are the root cause of this problem not I - why was there no issue when PAdraig moved the articles that he did - based on the same principle and policy - but when I do the EXACT same thing citing the EXACT same policy then I get blocked for 3 weeks - you have shown your cards and your POV and it disgusts me.--] 10:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	Vintage, please be ]. I'm sorry, I made a mistake in reverting Gervase Beckett. We all make mistakes, as nicely illustratred here.
	However, If you look above, you'll see that I asked you to fix ''double-redirects'', not other redirects. Not necessarily any harm in fixing the single redirects, but you didn't content yourself with that: in repeated edits (e.g. , and ]) you not only bypassed a redirect but removed the title "Sir" from the ''displayed text''. What was that about?
	Padraig moved some articles, but I didn't notice those moves. When I noticed yours, and queried them you threaten to engage in a mass-renaming. That's why you got blocked.
	Again, remember the naming conventions '''are not set in stone'''. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates avoidable ambiguity? --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Oh so you admit we all make mistakes! I fixing the redirects was not to go and remove the "Sir" it has to fix the links to the correct articles. There is no ambiguty so thats not an issue. Please show me where I threatened ''"to engage in a mass-renaming"''. Lets see you justify yourself without the smoke screens - you breach wikipolicy and I dont = I get blocked for 3 weeks - this stinks of, shall we say, rotten fish!--] 10:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Vinatgekits, two points:
	::::* in which you threatened ''"to engage in a mass-renaming"''
	::::*the naming conventions are not a policy and '''are not set in stone'''. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates avoidable ambiguity? --] <small>] • (])</small> 11:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I would rather edit to policy rather than have it ambiguous - if nothing it set in stone lets just title articles what we want to suit us shall he - I see no special reason to ignore wiki policy to suit your POV. Also the edit you highlight as "mass naming" - actually proves my point in two way - I state that I would rename articles to their correct title - 1. I am saying that articles should be correctly titled for god sake - what the hell is wrong with that and 2. if you consider that that would consist of "mass renaming" shows that you consider that a mass amount of articles are incorrectly named - check and mate - I will happily sit out the three weeks block, infact I would be happy to, as it shows you for what you really are. This is a serious shame on wiki and your silencing of me wont make the problem go away no matter how much you try - your actions have brought disgrace on your adminship. Three week block for saying that articles should be correctly titled but an admin can ] and create numberous redlink disamb pages to avoid wiki policy and get away with it - thats a disgrace.--] 11:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	*The real issue here is the incorrect naming of articles to suit POV. These articles are named contrary to wikiguides and we should really be focused on those that create these over disambiguated titles rather than block those how actually would prefer if wikiguideliens are adhered to. Here is a taste of some more unnecessarily over disambiguated articles about Baronets are -
	*] - has a redirect of ] - why?
	*] - but nothing for ]
	*] but nothing for ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] but nothiong for ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] nothing for ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] has a redirect of ]
	*] and nothing for ]
	*] with nothing for ]
	*] with nothing for ]
	*] with nothing for ]
	*] with nothing for ]
	*] with nothing for ]
	*] which has a redirect from ]
	*] which has a redirect from ]
	*] which has a redirect from ]
	*] which has a redirect from ]
	*] which has a redirect from ]
	*] which has a redirect from ]
	*] which has a redirect from ]
	*] which has a redirect from ]
	*] which has a redirect from ]
	*] is a redirect of ]
	*] is a redirect of ]
	*] although it should be ]
	*] is a redirect of ]
	*] is a redirect of ]
	*] is a redirect of ]
	*] is a redirect of ]
	*] is a redirect of ]
	*] but nothing for ]
	*] but nothing for ]
	*] but nothing for ]
	*] but nothing for ]
	*] but nothing for ]
	Many created by BHG - I could go on and on - and on - but I think the above highlights the real issue here - articles are incorrectly titled - members of the Baronet project have a default policy of incorrectly naming their article - this is the issue here - but god forbide that you you try and rectify that issue our else "friendly admin" will silence you.--] 11:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Also its kind of funny to just see ] (a friend of BHG) go around in a ] manner on a number of the articles highlighted. Like I said I could provide another 40, 50, 60 or more if needed to prove the point that this issue has highlighted a long running issue which the Baronet project obviously wantto be kept quiet.--] 11:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	BHG, You are clearly in the wrong here and abusing your power as an admin, VK hasn't broke any WP policy or guideline so this block is totaly unjustified and should be lifted.--] 11:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Some admins are like football referees - they will never change their mind or change a decision even when it is plainly and grossly wrong. This is a master class is "deflect and dodge" - we should all learn from this - 1. I moved articles correctly 2. BHG moved them back and created bogus redlink disamb pages 3. BHG makes accusations against me 4. I refute them and ask her to withdraw them 5. BHG creates a smokescreen to block me and ignores the facts. However, will not make the issue go away - if I have to sit out an unjust block to highlight the issue then that is a small price to show BHG POV and shine a light on the issue.--] 11:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: I suspect you were only moving those articles to make a ] and you have no real interest in correct policy on Baronet titles. ] 11:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::It never takes the vultures long to circle does it - ''"Vk is weak at the moment, put the boot in"'' - your not the first. Please read ] - also you will have noted that I created one of the better and more interesting articles on Baronets recently so that scuppers that argument. --] 11:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	BHG, can you explain this where you moved ] to ] in Oct 2006 when there was no need any still isn't any, and which seems to contradict your early claim that you don't support the members of Wikiproject Baroncety doing this.--] 11:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:'''lets hear your answer to that please BHG'''--] 12:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	: VK, please stay out of my email inbox until such point as you can control yourself. That was just uncalled-for - ] ] 11:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::You are supposed to be my mentor - I cannot understand your stance here - I have done nothing whatsoever wrong yet you "endorse the block" - that baffles me - and you expect me to be happy with that!!! Follow wiki policy and get blocked - Breach wiki policy and have fellow admin slap you on the back. Its a total joke.--] 11:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: I don't need that kind of abuse from your or anyone else. I campaigned to have your indef block lifted where others wouldn't, offered to mediate and help out despite the fact that I clearly and repeatedly stressed that I don't like working in this area (ask Padraig). When this block went on, I strongly suggested that it was overly long and wouldn't be averse to having it reduced. In return, you send me abusive emails. Now, I know you're annoyed by what's gone down here but answer this; why on earth should I stick around here and put up with that? - ] ] 12:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Pádraig, based on the repetitions of the accusation of “threatening,” for you to suggest changing any of those, even before you do so is considered a threat. VK, based on the observations of those, based on the rational for the block, and not on BHG’s difficulties with those articles, you have a very strong case for having the block lifted. Weather an Admin, has the willingness to do so, is another matter. Do not be goaded by the repetition of nonsensical arguments, or deviate from the issue at hand. If the logic of your position is not endorsed, then it 1. Establishes the guidelines on these pages according to BHG interpretation, and 2. Sets a precedent that will be pointed to by others in a similar position. --] 11:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Domer, please can you clarify exactly why it is so important to you prevent the use a naming format which avoids he sort of tangles set out in my examples below? --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	==== Two examples of the effect of removing titles ====
	''section break added later'' --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Padraig, I am just in the middle of fixing the tangles created by your move of one of the Ansteuther abronets to ], even tho theev are three baronets aclled ] (and, as happens in othe cases, two people called Sir John Anstruther, 1st Baronet. That tangle illustrates very clearly why stripping off titles is not a good idea, ''unless'' thorough checks have been done to ensure that there is no room for ambiguity. That's precisely why I was concened about the disruptive ptential of VK's threatened mass renaming
	:Vintakekits list above is interesting: some of those article names are clearly wrong (Sir Firstname Middlename, Nth Baronet is not a format supported by the MoS)
	:However, I'll take one example from that list which ilustrates the problem very neatly: ] has a redirect of ]
	:If you look at ], you'll see that this is the only article so far on a person called William Gordon-Cumming, and there is no indication of the notability of the others. However, an an external source (Rayment's and his ) shows that the secnd baronet was MP for ], and therefore carries an automatic presumption of notatbility.
	:Please refer again to he guidelines, which support he use of the titke where needed for disambiguation. In both these cases it clearly ''is' needed.
	:And that brings me back again to the same qustion, which CK and padraig need to answer. The naming conventions are not a policy and '''are not set in stone'''. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates avoidable ambiguity? --] <small>] • (])</small> 11:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::STOP SAYING THAT I SAID I WOULD UNDERTAKE MASS RENAMING!!!!!!! I NEVER SAID THAT! I SAID I WOULD ENSURE ARTICLES ARE '''CORRECTLY TITLED'''!!!!!!!!!!!--] 12:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::You unambiguously threatened to do a mass renaming of articles, based on what you believe to be a correct interpretation of the guidelines, applied by you without the common sense and exceptions clearly set out in bold in the header of the guideline.
	::::Once again: The naming conventions are not a policy and '''are not set in stone'''. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:As pointed out above by VK ] clearly show that he is trying to cover BHG tracks here, but a look at some of these moves he was made are proof that many of these articles are wrongly titled,
	*] moved to ]
	*] moved to ]
	*] moved to ]
	All these move today, and all cleary mis-titled to cover BHG.--] 12:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Padraig, that's a red herring. Kittybrwster's moves are correct, and do not create ambiguity.
	::Once again: The naming conventions are not a policy and '''are not set in stone'''. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::No Kitty's moves - just like your creation of the disamb pages were the create ambiguity to enforce your POV.--] 12:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Kitty's moves were from a format which the guidelines never recommend to one whoch they do recommend in some circumstances.
	:::::Once again: The naming conventions are not a policy and '''are not set in stone'''. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above, one of which was created by you? --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::As BHG has blocked someone who she was in dispute with why hasnt she raised the issue at ANI?? The farce continues!--] 12:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Kittybrewsters moves are not correct, they where done specificly to cause a need for disambig, on the first name, the use of first & second names is correct to avoid disambig when necessary, you keep arguing that the naming conventions are not a policy and not set in stone, if thats the case why have members of the Baroncey project been argueing to have it altered to allow every baronet the right to have their full title used in WP as a right, they failed to achieve consenus for this change and are now trying to enforce the change regardless.--] 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Padraig, check ]: there is clear ambiguity, because there are five baronets called Charles Hamilton. Have you researched the notability of all of them before criicising the use of he article title ]?
	::Also I have not been party to the duscussion on changing the guidelines, tho if imlemented it woukd avoid all his trouble. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Once again: The naming conventions are not a policy and '''are not set in stone'''. Why are you treating them as if they were, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? --]
	::::Bury your head in the sand to suit your POV - but only when its suits you - the policies '''are not set in stone''' - fine, but I see no reason to ignore them - you are a disgrace to your adminship for blocking me over this - THREE WEEKS when you are in the wrong not I - you are a disgrace!!!!!! Bury your head in the sand!--] 12:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::VK, these are ''guidelines'' not policies. There is a difference.
	:::::And I am not ignoring them: I am pointing out that in some case, a rigid adherence to a narrow interpetation of them creates avoidable ambiguity. Why are you treating them as if they rigid and immutable, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? What are you really trying to achieve here? --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Deflect and dodge - you are not at all acting fair here at all - you have been shown up for what you are - sledgehammer to crack a nut - you know you are in the wrong and no matter how much wikilawyering you do can change that - you block was wrong - plain wrong, you know that, I know that, everyone reading this knows that - I am not trying to convience you my audience is those reading this.--] 12:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::No deflection, no dodge. Why are you treating guidelines as if they rigid and immutable, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? Again, what are you really trying to achieve here? --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::I could turn that question on you! "why are you ignoring guidelines"! Why are you trying to silence your critics? What are you trying to achieve by this block? Dont you want articles to be titled correctly?--] 13:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	I feel your quote ] on your user page "I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously" is a bit rich considering it is a dispute you are involved in would it not have been wise to ask another admin to look at this case as you are too involved and any decision you make will always be seen as bias by one side of this argument. ] 12:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Possibly, tho if you look at Vintagekits's history I'm afraid that you'll find that any instance of an admin not backing him is treated by him as evidence of deep bias and an occasional for more vitriol, so in practice I don't think it would have made much difference :(
	:This a complex situation: in the face of a clear threat from Vk to cause disruption, I acted promptly to stop further disruption, and I asked for it to be reviewed. As above, I wrote a lengthy explanation of the decision (which also took a long time to write), an explanation which has satisfied the admins who reviewed it this morning. . --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Again, BHG is giving us a run down on their problems, created by articles with so much disambiguation. That is not the issue, being discussed here. If BHG has a problem with the articles sort them out. Blocking VK is not a solution. I’m only interested in this block at the minute, and the justification for it. Lets stick to the subject shall we. --] 12:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::The problem is that VK instead of helping to sort out the articles, VK is busy undoing any disambiguation without proper checks. That's precisely what we are discussing: how to stop the damage being done. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::I did the checks - please stop stating facts which are infact Lies - also I didnt not threaten to breach wiki guides or policy - I said I would follow them - you have blocked me for saying I would follow wiki rules. Anyway that is a smokescreen to cover your bias and your attempt to silence opposition.--] 13:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Vk, I'll try again. Why are you treating guidelines as if they rigid and immutable, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? Again, what are you really trying to achieve here? --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Well BHG then sort out the cause of the problem, and don’t be issuing block based on the symptom. --] 13:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::The cause of the problem is simple: that Vk (who despises titles) is busy removing them from articles which need disambiguation, even when that creates ambuguity.
	::::It is also relevant to read the exchange above between Vk and his mentor, Alison, who also supports the block, and has now had abusive email from him. --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Deflect, dodge, avoid!!! Ssave yourself - I didnt not send her an abusive email I said that I was pissed off that she supported it without fully investigating the issue - I also sent her another email apologising for for my tone, no wonder my nerves are frayed with the way you have treated me - imagine if you were on the other end of this!!!!!!!!! - do those emails excuse you bias, conflict of interest and disgraceful actions? Silence that man! He is showing my true colours.--] 13:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Vk, I don't want to silence you. On the contrary, I want you to answer the simple question: Why are you treating guidelines as if they rigid and immutable, even when that creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? Again, what are you really trying to achieve here? --
	:::::I could turn that question on you! "why are you ignoring guidelines"! Why are you trying to silence your critics? What are you trying to achieve by this block? Dont you want articles to be titled correctly?--] 13:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::As explained countless times, what I am trying to achieve is disambiguation of closely-realted articles with ambigious names, to ensure that readers get to where they wnat to. The purpose of that block is stop a clearly threateneed effort to disrupt that by someone with a huge long history aof antagonism towards towards the subject area.
	::::::Now, how about you answer my question. Why are you treating guidelines as if they rigid and immutable, even when your a rigid adherence to a narrow interpetation creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? What are you really trying to achieve here? --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::There is no threat to disrupt WP, VK like any other editor has a right to move any article that is wrongly titled in WP, you are using VK as an example to warn off any other editors that if they move any of these Baronet articles they will be blocked your doing so is against WP policy and guidelines. Many of these articles are incorrectly titled, and we don't disamdig articles to create redlinks in the hope that in future these redlinks will be created, we only disambig when necessary for existing articles.
	::::I was accused of vandalism by a member of the Baroncey project because I moved a number of articles not long ago, which turned out some had been created by him, they then tried to have the guidelines changed to prevent any editors from moving any more of these incorrectly titled articles and failed, so this seems to be a backdoor attempt to push the change through, and it won't work, because I will follow the guidelines in any article I feel is incorrectly titled.--] 13:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::So now we are introducing material which has transpired as a result of your block. If VK is getting steamed I can well understand it, while not condoning it. But do not attempt to now use this as a reason for the block. Again, I’m not interested in the problems you have with disambiguation. You have interpreted VK’s comment as a threat, and I completely disagree. That is the issue, can we please stay on topic, I’m getting steamed, and not even the one blocked? --] 13:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Padraig, I have illustrated above an example of where you stripping of a title created ambiguity amongst articles which were not redlinked. I have not accused you of vandalism, but please can you explain what you were trying to achieve?
	::::::Again, stripping the titles makes it much much harder to create those new articles accurately, because the disambiguation has to be done afresh each time. What exactly are you trying to achieve by rigid adherence to a narrow interpetation which creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	Sorry this discussion is about BHG blocking VK for 3 weeks. You are not going to sort out that problem at VK’s expense are you. If you like, start a discussion on another page about the problems you have with the articles. The question is, are you going to remove the block, and if not, justify it, to the satisfaction of editors. I’m not convinced on the basis of the evidence produced so far. So please stop trying to address the collateral problems here. Thanks --] 13:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:No, I am not going to remove the block, which has already been endorsed by several admins, including Vk's own mentor. This isn't about doing anything at Vk's expense, it about preventing him from re-introducing a problem which is being resolved by other editors through a methodology permitted in the guidelines which Vk is trying to wikilawyer his way into disrupting. That is not a collateral problem: is the core of the issue, that Vk was blocked to stop him causibg the disruption he threatened to a series of articles on people whose names are very similar to others with similar career paths, and near-identical names. --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::All the articles I moved I checked by doing a search for the name without the title on WP I also checked the Baroncey Categories to ensure that there wasn't any others by the same name, so I fail to see how the problem arose. Also it is convention to only disambig for the secon or more instance of the name not from the first as in the first we create a link to the disambig page.--] 13:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Padraig, I want to assume that you acted in good faith here, but do you see now how the checks you made turned out not to be adequate with the Anstruthers, in the example above? (Maybe because he articles were not categorised as expected or indexed as expected). That's precisely why I am urging caution in these renamings, and why a mass-renaming as threatened by VK is disruptive. --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::They may not have been categorised correctly, that dosen't explain how they didn't show in a search on WP for the name, and the issue of categories is the problem of the creator of the articles and those thatmay have edited them afterwards if they failed to do it correctly. It is not a excuse to block an editor for following the guidelines in this case.--] 14:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	*Where is the report to ANI - dont you think that because you were at the core of the dispute that you had a COI and would be biased in any block you made? I never said I would make mass changes - you did! If I say I will not make mass changes then what is the reason for the block now! Blocks are preventative not punitive - now justify your stance.--] 13:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	==== Input from uninvolved admin ====
	(outdent) An uninvolved admin here...If VK threatened to disrupt the 'pedia (which diff I cannot at this moment locate), then a block surely is in order although three weeks seems a bit long to me as it does to others. But BHG should not have been the one to issue the block but should have asked another admin to take a look and make the decision. This would have avoided much of this discussion.
	Now, can anyone show me the diff where the threat was made? I'm sure I overlooked it.
	The questions of notability and naming should be settled via the dispute resolution processes. --]<sub>]</sub> 14:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:* which she is using to block me. She says that when I say I will ''"ensure ALL articles are named correctly!"'' that this is a threat to rename mass amount of articles. It was not, I have already said this - and if it was then she herself is admitted that a "mass amount" of articles are titled incorrectrly - either ways this is unjust.--] 14:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Thats the problem he didn't threaten to disrupt, he said he would continue to edit in accordance to WP guidelines on this, they fail to have the guidelines changes and are trying to enforce their wanted change against guidelines. BHG should not have blocked this user as she is involved in the dispute and also a member of the baroncey Wikiproject as well that was behind the proposed change to the guidelines.--] 14:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::REply to JodyB: Look, what Vk was doing was to take a rigid approach narrow interpretation of the guidelines and thereby to remove from many hundreds of articles the titles which distinguish them from other notable people who share he same name, and who frequently did exactly the same notable job (being MP for a a particular constituency). That's disruptive.
	::I have asked Vk over a dozen times what he was trying to achieve by this, and have not had an answer. It's the crucial question: where there is a clear dismabiguation reason for proceeding with caution in these renamings (see the examples above, including Padraig's mistake), what was Vk trying to achieve by his threat?
	::As I have told Padraig before, and which you can check for yourself, I have had no part in any effort to change the guidelines ... but after this brouhaha, it looks to me that a change in the direction of that proposed would be a good idea if removes the toehold which the current guidelines allow to a wikilawyering editor with a long history of efforts to disrupt work in this area. --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::1. ''"rigid approach narrow interpretation of the guidelines" - that is your interpretation, that is not a cause to block someone you disagree with! 2. ''"many hundreds of articles"'' - I moved scarily 20 - you then created redlink disamb pages to avoid the guide (I do not doubt if I had done that then you would have blocked me for that). 3. Again dragging up my past - since I have returned to wiki I have acted immaculately.--] 14:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I also categorically stated that it was not my intention to make "mass movals"--] 14:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::That is rubbish, I didn't make any mistake I carried out all necessary checks on WP before moving any articles, don't try and blame others for the failure of the creating editors to title articles or categorise them correctly. The guidelines as they stand allow for the moving of incorrectly titled articles, and I will continue to follow that guideline and the normal checks I have been doing in those cases where I come across wrongly titled articles. If there is a problem with the guidelines in your view that try and have them changed, but don't abuse your admin powers against editors following the current guidelines. The current proposal failed to achieve consensus. I this case you should lift this block and bring this to ANI to be sorted out.--] 14:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Padraig, so the article on ] was there when you made the move, and could have been checked at the time: it was linked from the article you moved. I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith, I'm just pointing out that a mistake ''was'' made which could have been avoided.
	::::You moved an article which was correctly named, even on the strictest interpretation of the guidelines, because you'd missed one of the places you could have looked. It's an oversight, it's a mistake, but illustrates my concern here: that when removing titles, very careful checks need to be made to avoid breaking links.
	::::AS I have stated repeatedly, my only concern here is that editors do not systematically make changes which will break links. That requires no change in guidelines. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::The ] article has been edited alot since I moved any of those articles and I am not sure without checking back on my own edits which one I moved at that time, so I would need to check that first, but as I recall at the time the I checked the category for these baronets articles and they weren't listed, nor did they show in a search on WP. But that is a different issue to this are you now prepared to lift this block and take this to ANI.--] 15:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::BHG the only issue, we are here to discuss, like I have said repeatedly, is weather A) did VK make a threat, and b) if they did, is the block appropriate and proportionate. Your constant raising of problems you have on baronets is not an issue here. --] 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Padraig: That's my point, you checked, in good faith, and missed the article which has since April listed and linked to all the John Anstruther baronet-MPs. Caution needed; category checks are clearly not enough, as that incident demonstrates. Best to check the on-line external sources too.
	::::::As to whether I will lift the block, the answer is no: it has been endorsed here by several other admins, including Vk's mentor Alison. But I will take the matter to ANI within the next hour, to seek a review.
	::::::Domer: yes, Vk did indeed make a threat to disrupt. The reason that the other issues keep on popping up is because Vk and one other keeps wikilawyering to claim that his threat was not disruption. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::I DID NOT say I was going to disrupte wiki. I have further clarified this on a number of occasions - you are a disgrace to your adminship and a bully.--] 15:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	If this now goes to ANI would VKs block prevent him from defending himself against this, if it does then the block should be lifted to allow him to do so.--] 15:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Exactly - how can I defend myself or put my side of the story across at ANI if I am block. BHG - you have had a number of admin now tell you that you have acted incorrectly. Lift the block and let ANI sort it out. I have already said I wont move further articles until it is sorted at ANI - so therefore your block is now redundant.--] 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Vk, I have had a number of admins support the block, and much fewer opposing it.
	::However, if you are not going to do the moves, there is nothing for ANI to consider, is there?
	::So I will lift the block, and we can all save time at ]. However, a block may be reimposed if you resume disruptive editing. --] <small>] • (])</small> 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	: Ok. Given the undertaking above, I endorse this unblock. However, I strongly recommend that VK steer clear of the baronetcy articles in the future and would like to see these going into the same category of contentious articles as the previous ones defined above in the original unblock criteria. Failing that, I predict we're all going to be back here again in a few days. - ] ] 18:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::The block should not have been imposed in the first, it was a content dispute in which the imposing admin was involved, this is prohibited ] it should have been taken to ] --] ] 18:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Think back to two weeks ago ==
	Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of this block - even if it was totally unwarranted - calling another editor "a disgrace to your adminship and a bully" and then sending an abusive email ''to your mentor'' for taking a position you do not agree with is not consistent with the terms of your recent unblocking. You agreed to demotrate the "utmost level of civility" and agreed that an "admin may ban you from these if they consider you to be disruptive." SirFozzie made it explicitly clear that "this means you're going to have to be on your best behavior no matter what". You told us that, if you were unblocked, you could prove that you could edit without getting into these sorts of conflicts, and if you did, you would remain civil in attempting to resolve it. Just '''8 days later''' we find ourselves in the same position, lashing out at all and sundry (even those that have gone out of their way to heelp you). And again, everyone is to blame but you, despite the fact that the biased admins change and you are the common denominator. Since you have failed to adhere to the most basic conditions of your ''last chance'', is there a reason we shouldn't just replace the indefinite block and be done with it? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Actually you will see that my mentor supported the unblock. BHG has a history and it seems I am the latest one.--] 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::I would also be highly interested in your reason for supporting the block in the first place, it was so obviously wrong yet you supported it! Highly unusual.--] 19:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::: If she supported the unblock, why did you send her, in her words, "abusive emails"? You did the same to me, you may recall. I, too, would be interested in my reasons for supporting the block, since I don't recall doing so. Perhaps you could provide me with a dif? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 19:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::: Because I initially supported the block, though I found the duration excessive. Blocks are meant to stop disruption and VK was clearly being disruptive, IMO. I now support the unblock ''given his undertaking above'' - ] ] 19:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::How was I being disruptive? Why is no one condemning BHG - is this a case of "all admins together".--] 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::How were you being disruptive? You could answer that question yourself, by answering the questions I asked you repeatedly above. Why are you treating guidelines as if they rigid and immutable, even when your a rigid adherence to a narrow interpetation creates the avoidable ambiguity illustrated in my two examples above? And what are you really trying to achieve here? --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Actually I would say that you were being far more disruptive than I - I was following wiki guide - I never said the were set in stone but I bet if they suited you then you wold use them as if they were - I was simply following the guides - you were avoiding them and abusing your admin powers. The was not on - just because someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to, firstly accuse them of things they havent done and then block them. If you cant see that you were more disruptive than I then I dispear.--] 19:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::You still haven't answered the question, and I'm not going to ask again. But it's revealing that you are so determined to duck it. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::What exactly is the question - I am not ducking anything, but have ducked your responsibility as an admin today with your behaviour. I will answer any question you have as long as you answer this - do you think you should have blocked me when you were the centre of the dispute?--] 20:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::On balance, yes. Close call, plenty of reservations from the outset, but yes. But no more answers from me unless you answer my simple questions to you. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Because we are not in the business of "condemning" editors for doing their best to take action to stop what they consider to be disruptive behaviour. There is a ] where you can request comments on BHG's actions - and I will happily offer my thoughts there. Instead of trying to deflect attention on to her, perhaps you could address the point here: why should you remain unblocked when you clearly have demonstrated you couldn't even last 10 days without resorting to gross incivility that led to the indef block in the first place? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 19:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::You seem more than happy to condemn me despite I the fact I have done nothing yet I have been subjected to this today.--] 19:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::: ... apart from sending abusive emails to your mentor and accusing others of be a bully. Ignoring it isn't going to help, Vk. You were unblocked on the condition this sort of behaviour ceased completely. You, yourself, advocated a zero tolerance policy towards it. No-one else has been name-calling here, and no-one else has been sending abusive emails. How many more last chances do you expect to receive? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	: VK, it's time to move on here. Either initiate a formal complaint against BHG or start article editing or something, because this constant sniping and lashing out at anyone who's within range isn't helping your case one whit - ] ] 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I am pretty dimayed with the stance that some admin have taken here - I have taken such an amount today, its really pissed me off. BHG blocked me on a whim just so she could stamp her power and none of ye and willing to come out and say that that was wrong. --] 20:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: I'm pretty dismayed with your behaviour today, quite frankly. BHG did not "block you on a whim", either and right now, you're listening to ''nobody''. That I'm mentor does not mean that I'm your supporter. I'm here to be neutral (believe it or not) and right now, I'm suggesting that you either file a complaint re. this issue or move on. Because all you're doing right now is generating a lot of heat. I'm not suggesting the matter be dropped or anything; just that you need to deal and move on with editing, which is why we're all here. Right now, all you're doing is making more enemies - ] ] 20:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::You are dismayed!! I was dismayed that you are even defending BHG and castigating me! Did you even look into the issue - I cant believe that you that is your opinion.--] 12:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:The fact that this whole situation even arose is astonishing. Its disgraceful that an admin with a ], has blocked a user for '''correctly''' renaming articles. Its disgusting that such an abuse of privlege can happen. If anything RHG should be held accountable for abusing the privleges she has as an admin. I won't hold my breath. ] 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: As usual, there is a lot of bluster about how disgraceful an admin's behaviour is, and how ''something must be done about it''. Yet, as usual, no-one is willing to go through the process to deal with it. If you think BHG needs to be held accountable, make your case at ]. Holding a kangaroo count on Vk's talkpage isn't going to get you very far, Derry Boi. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 22:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	==Biographical naming policy==
	] redirects to ]. I'm interested on your take on this, Vintagekits. Do you think a common-sense change on our naming policy is indicated for biographical articles on baronets?
	Our main policy, after all, is "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". &nbsp;]'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp; 21:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Citation ==
	Thanks for your help but is it necessary to stalk me? That said, I will do my best to tidy up my references. How I can prove a village is charming & remote I do not know. Maybe you should visit Witham Friary. --] 14:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:If you are asking a question like that I really think you need to read ] - as for stalking you I have asked you to read ], you my also want to read ] while you are at it. regards--] 14:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	::"Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress" It does not upset me, but you have deliberately targetted sites on my userpage to generate conflict. --] 14:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::If you think that articles should not be referenced, please tell me why that should be so. Also you now might want ot read ] if you think that putting a fact tag on an articles is personally targetting you. You have breach a number of policies in the past half hour - I would suggest that you read those policies before editing again because you are digging a whole for yourself. You have been provided with the policies - now please read them. regards--] 14:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Bobby Sands ==
	I am just trying to get some balance into the article. Besides, I think it is best that you keep away from these pages altogether or you're going to get yourself thrown off indefinately. Long time no see though! ] 14:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Getting some balance is fine, but editorialising and adding ] isnt, if you know what I mean. Its cool if I stay on the talk pages and remain polite, so I'll be adding my 2c. regards--] 14:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	==Should the community waste any more time with Vintagekits?==
	Although you have done some productive editing on boxing articles, since I and others are now being threatened by e-mail, should the community waste any more time with you, Vintagekits?
	If you look at the administrator time involvement (and the time of other productive editors being expended in argumentation) in the sections above and counteracting your minority point of view, which is the lesser evil for our project - escalating edit blocks and subsequent appeals and recriminations for you, Vintagekits, or an indefinite project wide ban?
	If this is you being on your "best behaviour" I'd hate to see your worst.
	It's clear you have no real genuine interest whatsoever in "Biographical naming policy" since you have not even bothered to answer my neutrally worded query in the relevant titled section.
	I'm afraid I don't share the tolerance (or prescience) exhibited by G here:
	I'd also like you to give a less cryptic response to the "Conflict of Interest" question I raised here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3A%C3%93gra_Shinn_F%C3%A9in&diff=152243318&oldid=152242061
	&nbsp;]'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp; 17:43, 19 August 2007 UTC
	: I too have just had a highly abusive email from Vintagekits, my second this weekend. To give others a flavour of what's being written, here are the three emails, in full:
	:From Vintagekits, 18/08/07:
	:::I hope you are ashamed of yourself today. You are a disgrace to your adminship. I cant believe you are still standing by that block. Surely you must see that it is wrong
	:From BrownHairedGirl, 19/08/07:
	::Vintagekits, any admin who disagrees with you gets called a disgrace, even if all they do is to decline to get stuck into another of the conflicts you generate.
	::Why do you do this? Why do you turn every disagreement into a fight in which you call people names?
	::I know full well that some members of the baronets project have behaved very badly wrt to Irish articles, but why do you respond by trying to damage the encyclopedia? (If you were actually trying to help, you'd have been able to answer the simple questions I asked you about what you were trying to achieve)
	::It's all very sad. You managed to haul yourself back from an indefinite block, with the help of a mentor who really truly did want to give you a second chance, and now you have gone back to all the tirades. This is an odd way to behave: you must know where it's all going to end up.
	:From Vintagekits, 19/08/07:
	::you are a disgrace, your actions were the lowest of the low - to be honest you will get whats coming to you - its wont be forgotten. Who the hell do you think you are. Three weeks because you didnt like it. All articles will be correctly titled - mark my words - and non notables will be deleted - its not just me that is pissed off with you know - the light has been shone on the farce that is the Baronet project and the articles they produce.. If you had approached this correctly instead of sneakily creating all those pointed disamb pages then something could have been sorted out - but instead of coming on my talk page and asking me why I moved them you came on and used my past against me and also made all sorts of unfounded accusation about me.
	::You have made a lot more enemies out of this than I have and its permanently blotted your copy - mines already blotted. All I had was the usual Scottish lackies come along and support you - if anything their appearence proved I was right (and also John's laughable switch in his position once he smelt that a block was on the cards. You've shown your hand now and your cards have been marked.
	::You are a disgrace. Enjoy your dessert.
	:Is this compatible with his ]? --] <small>] • (])</small>
	:::That's mild. My e-mails featured graphical threats of violence and arson.&nbsp;]'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp; 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::You are living in a fantasy world - please forward that email to an admin - I have never dfone that.--] 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::BHG considering your own behaviour in this issue I see nothing wrong with VKs email to you, you shouldn't have issued a block in the first place, and place the matter with ANI for a decision, you failed to do that as you knew there was nothing wrong with VK moving those articles under the guidelines on naming. I think that you and W. Frank should now leave VK alone, especially W. Frank who is spamming WP article talk pages to accuse anyone that disagrees with him of being part of a team, his post above is just another stage in that harassment from him.--] 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::BHG, your supposed to be an Admin, are you trying to provoke an argument. There is nothing in those emails that was not said on the talk page. You had to lift an unjustifiable block, and this appears just like sour grapes. Vintagekits just ignore these comments. The block was lifted because it was wrong. You have been vindicated by the block been lifted. Delete all these comments, as there purpose is to provoke a response. --] 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Domer, the block was lifted because Vk withdrew his threat. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	* The answer to this heading has to be '''no''', he continually throws all chances back in our faces. --] 18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Blocked ==
	VK I have indefinitely blocked your account for making clear threats regarding another editor's home address. It's was one of those "I know where you live" moments and you did it twice today. I cannot state exactly who you are referring to or where they live as only myself and ] know this, but it was unequivocal as to what you meant. Admins can email me on this one - you may not, as this relates to privacy and security of an individual. If you want to use the {{tl|unblock}} template, you may or you may email ''unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org''.
	I can't believe you just did that. I really can't. It's truly over, VK - ] ] 18:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	<div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> ] You have been '''indefinitely blocked''' from editing in accordance with ] for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{reason|}}}|'''{{{reason}}}'''|repeated ]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:] ] 18:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)|] ] 18:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3}} -->{{{category|]}}}
	:::::What the hell are you talking about??? I'm baffled!--] 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I endorse that for the mean-spirited and nasty statements in the emails reproduced above and elsewhere recently. This was your last chance and I'm afraid you have blown it. --] 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::How cute!--] 12:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Even if Vk was entirely justified in all his objections to the actions of other editors and admins, threats against another editor's home address are surely an absolute and irrevocable no-no per ]. No-one should have any reason to be concerned about their physical safety as a result of their work on wikipedia, and Alison was quite right to block Vintagekits indefinitely. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz! "threats against another editor's home address" - what the hell are you talking about?--] 12:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::As a disinterested party, who stumbled upon this, and has read all the comments relating to the last 2 blocks before this permanent one (tedious at times!), I fully support the permanent ban on VintageKits. This user was given more than enough 'last' chances and he blew every single one. I hope the Admins have the courage of their convictions and that the ban is indeed a permanent one, and that this horrible person is not given yet another last chance. ] 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	: I'm probably going to ask for ] on the two diffs concerned, but I'll keep a local copy of them here. They're still up at the moment - ] ] 19:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: It was over as soon as Vk started sending abusive email again, as far as I am concerned. He make similar personal threats by email against me when I last blocked him, but since he claimed he was so drunk he was no aware of their contents, I didn't make an issue of it at the time. Its now clear that his MO is to use threats of violence to attempt to intimidate other editors. Whether they are credible or not, I don't know. But his use of paramilitary rhetoric is sufficiently common for the threats to have genuine impact. This is entirely unacceptable behaviour. I endorse this block and suggest we all move on now. If anyone (and on past evidence there will be a few) feels Vk is the victim of an admin conspiracy, then I suggest the either open a RfC to sample the opinion of the community, or else go to ArbCom. However, I firmly believe any outside the poisonous atmosphere Vk moved in will be amazed his behaviour was tolerated this long. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: Thank goodness. I didn't object to the unblock in the first place primarily because I thought, naively, that he would stick to boxing-related articles. ] 07:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::"If anyone (and on past evidence there will be a few) feels Vk is the victim of an admin conspiracy...I firmly believe any outside the poisonous atmosphere Vk moved in." ]<font color="black">e</font>] care to explaine who, and what you are going on about? --] 12:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	*I think it is about time one of the aggrieved parties here decided that this mess is best sorted by the arbcom. It seems to me that most of those commenting here are too involved. BHG and co obviously feel they have been wronged and misunderstood and VK obviously feels he has been victimised and cornered. It seems strange to me that BHG has not felt the need to call in some more "professional help" before the problem reached the level it is at now. Now that things have reached this flashpoint level someone more detached and uninvolved needs to come in and sort the mess out. ] 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::He is not being victimised, but you are correct in that he has continually been given special treatment. I hope that ends now, this block is long-overdue. --] 13:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::I think CR that some of your comments could be inflaming the situation. After all we all make our mistakes and errors, don't we? I merely say that it would be a good idea if an admin or an arb more detatched from the situation were to evaluate it. ] 13:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Of course we all make errors, but when they are done continually and threaten "violence and arson" I feel something must be done. --] 13:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::*The perhaps the corcumstances leading to these "threats" (I have not seen them) need to be investigated - by someone a little more detatched. ] 13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	I only encountered VK yesterday and found him aggressive. That said, an indefinite block seems unfair. He is unpleasant but also clearly industrious and through. Can we consider a short suspension? --] 14:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:It's been tried. Look at his block log. --] 14:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::This should be taken to admins not involved in this dispute.--] 14:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: For the record, I had the opportunity to speak, in person, with Alison today. I put to her my suspicions based on both my experience of Vk's MO and on two edits made by Vk that appeared highly suspect to me. She confirmed exactly what I had suspected. Based on this, I reiterate me complete and fully support Alison's indef block and would strongly protest any move to unblock Vk, now or in the future. I am 100% sure ''any'' editor who was privy to the sensitive information Alison has would make the same call and she should be applauded for moving quickly to protect our editors, rather than vilified, as has happened here. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::And for the record, really this is not doing much good either. The editors can see Vintagekits edits, and nothing appears to be wrong them, so full marks to Vintagekits. Then we see an abusive process against Vintagekits, by some of the admins, and a whole clatter of editors, and Vintages appears to remain cool. You are telling us now that you have secret information from another admin that justifies all the abuses by the Admins, probably even before this secret evidence became existant. If Vintagekits blew his lid with all the abuse he received the other day, well I will not hold that against him. Nobody is coming out of this clean, and the ordinary editors, are sick to their teeth of this extended saga. ] 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::*'''''This following section removed from my talk page, it should be here'''''] 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::*''With all respect, Thepiper, you really have no clue what you are talking about. Vk's abusive behaviour has been ongoing for over a year, ranging across a number of articles, and by email, and and in conflict with a number of editors. Your account was created just 2 months ago, so I find it difficult to imagine that you are anywhere near familiar with his history. Moreover, if you have gone through Vk's edits from the previous few days and find nothing unusual, then you are clearly not familiar enough with what is going here to make the accusations of bias. There is a lot more going on here than you are aware of, and I assure you admin bias has nothing to do with it. All you are doing is muddying the water and Vk - who knows exactly what he has done - is taking full advantage of it. I wish I could tell you what exactly is going on, because you would be embarrassed with your allegations about Alison and other admins when her actions have been nothing but exemplary. If you have an accusation to make, I suggest you do so to ArbCom. I look forward to your apologies when ArbCom confirms Alison's actions are entirely justified.'' ]<font color="black">e</font>] 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::*'''And my response'''. _________ ''There you go assuming. I made no allegations against any named Admin, only what I wrote on BHG page, and I believe that that particular Admin was unjustified in much of what she wrote. Quite the contrary I do have a clue, and please don't try and read my thoughts, for you may be totally surprised with what you might glean. And please, with all due respect, I have made no allegations about Admin Alison, and for you to say so is totally unfounded and so creates other question marks over this sorry saga. The editors are not fools, they see the edits, please treat them with respect, and <s>"publish or be d---"</s>, if I'm allowed use that phrase. There are many other questions which I will not ask now, but will in the next couple of days if the opportunity pervails. Also I cannot understand why you came onto my page with your argument, surely this page is not the forum to be addressing the issue/s.'' ] 03:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:*Okay, I have reconsidered this, and will now defer to the judgement of '''Alison''', and supported by '''Rockpocket'''. It doesn't take away from the sorry saga leading up to this state of affairs. It has been very very badly managed indeed, and not least by yourself Rockpocket. You might owe an apology too. ] 05:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: Really? Quite what I have I done leading up to this "state of affairs" (difs would be helpful)? The BHG block, if that is what you are referring to, had nothing to do with me whatsoever. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Everyone knows you have been trying to block Vintagekits for quite a while, it's in your history edits, it sometimes seems to be your '''sole purpose as an admin'''. Well you got your wish, and at a price, and some price too. Vintagekits got a lot of abuse, and it's plain for anyone to see. Well, to use your own words, don't expect me to do your ''dirty work'' for you. If you want the diffs, you find them, they are all over the place. ] 10:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Kindly read ] and refrain from making personal attacks: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack." Your comments on Rockpocket are quite unjustified and unsubstantiated. ] 12:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::And kindly ], please ask Rockpocket not to make false allegations on my personal talk page, and he also made a personal attack on that page today. Please give warning if you get the chance. Thanks! ] 12:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I don't see it, but thanks for pointing me to this other edit of yours, which is also an attack. Please continue on your talk page. ] 13:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Thanks! I respect other people's opinions, and do listen, no bother. As I said to you earlier, I am rather busy today, so will get back later. Have a nice day! ] 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	==Other Misplaced Pages account names used by ]==
	(1) Is there an automatic procedure to block other Misplaced Pages account names used by ]?
	(2) Is there an automatic procedure of analysing the IP's historically used by ] to edit in order to pre-emptively prevent the creation of new account(s) by him - or is this latest block only another temporary remedy?
	(3) Does ] still have "full permission to remove, without replying, any comments" he doesn't like on this page?</br>
	&nbsp;]'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp; 14:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	* There's always ], though I don't think this is neccessary here as I don't see any immediate evidence of sockery here - ] ] 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: Vk's known socks have already been indef blocked (see ]). I think meatpuppetry is a possibility though, since he has done that in the past, and threatened it a few times since (see ]) ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	==ArbCom==
	For the record, VK made two clear and unequivocal references to the home address of another Wikipedian and it was done solely to intimidate that person. I am in absolutely no doubt about this. Any other admin can email me for details.
	I have no qualms whatsoever in this whole mess going before the Arbitration Committee at this stage, in fact I look forward to it and will be glad to provide as much evidence as I have to ArbCom. There is no "admin conspiracy" here, at least not on my part, and I'd certainly like to see that cleared up. If a "neutral" admin (whatever ''that'' means) wishes to get involved, that may work instead. - ] ] 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::No one for one second is claiming an admin conspiracy, although I see you are only offering "your evidence" to other admins. What perhaps need to be independently assessed is did VK jump to these actions or was he pushed. If threats of this nature have been made by him in earnest then some form of sanction needs to be taken against him. However, it should also be assessed to see if there are any mitigating factors, is everyone else concerned whiter than white. I have been quietly watching the "adventures of VK" for sometime and I don't believe he is all bad, at times he is misguided and a little single minded but often the root of his arguments do carry some weight. Others here I too have been watching and at times their actions and comments have in my view been questionable - so several things here need to be looked at. I also think you and BHG should not have made these lengthy and severe blocks yourself but called in someone less involved. At times VKs page has seemed more like a kangaroo court and lynch mob combined - and that cannot be the right course of action. So I suggest the blocking admins now unblock him pending a request for an arbcom case to allow VK a more open and fair hearing. If after hearing all facts and opinions the arbcom feel a perma-ban is required then so be it. ] 15:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::I'm not an admin, I've got no axe to grind with VK, and I agree with much of what you've said. There are *most definitely* elements of this that the arbcom should look into. But...I'm afraid I don't agree that VK should be unblocked. If these latest allegations (off-wiki threats etc.) are true (I am taking it on good faith that they are, but it would be useful to see more of the actual evidence) then that is just totally unacceptable. There cannot be '''any''' toleration of threats of violence or threats to kill. This is an encyclopaedia, not a battleground. ] 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: Giano, I wish you'd stop using ]s like that here. Are you in doubt as to any "evidence"? The reason I'm not plastering it about the place is that it "outs" personal information on an editor; one who already feels threatened by what's happened. I'm not going to excaberate the situation by posting it here for all to see but I will gladly provide it to any member of the ArbCom. Can you see the rationale for that here? Far as I'm concerned there are no "mitigating factors" in what happened here and actions like his are '''never''' justifiable nor excusable coming from '''anyone'''. I have long been an advocate for neutrality and balance when it comes to VK, already weighing in heavily on his last indefblock. But this - this is too much and I am disappointed that you are making insinuations of imbalance here. Nobody doubts that VK can be a "fine editor" he has shown that in the past and that's not what's at issue here.
	::: I 100% stand by my block here and refuse to lift it at this point. It's not in my nature to be like this - ask any other admin - but I'm doing it here, and with good reason. VK can quite readily provide evidence to ArbCom from his current position if required, and policy states this quite clearly. - ] ] 15:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::To my mind the issue revolves not around was he pushed but when he was in the last chance saloon, how did he behave. He continued to be didactic, mean-spirited, unpleasant and provocative.
	::::I think VK should be indefiitely blocked for being disruptive, malicious, spiteful and vindictive, for failure to WP:AGF, for threatening to use wikirules outwith common sense, for adding inappropriate fact tags, and because he has never shown willingness to take responsibility for his actions, and for being didactic. I have seen no evidence of messages threatening editors at their home addresses. Too much time has been wasted on him. I trust the decisions made at today’s date.- ]<small>]</small> 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Ah, the kangaroo prosecutor has arrived. Completely disinterested, of course. ] | ] 15:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC).
			==Lift the block==
	: I've sent an email request to a member of ArbCom to allow evidence to be submitted to the committee - ] ] 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I was going to suggest that the Arbitration Committee's attention be drawn to this ongoing situation. If a case is posted on-wiki, I (or if I am away another Arbitration Committee Clerk) will copy any response that Vintagekits may post on this page. Evidence unsuited for presentation on-wiki may be e-mailed to any active arbitrator or clerk for forwarding to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. ] 15:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: I've just sent a message to ] on this - ] ] 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	Alison, please do not accuse me of using scare quotes when I am merely trying to obtain a fair hearing for VK. I suggest that blocks by BHG and yourself were performed without sufficient consultation and thought. The fact that we now have Kittybrewster jumping up and down with glee merely confirm my earlier suspicions about goading and provocation. I have not noticed VK blanking his page in a fit of pique when unwelcome information is posted which is the case with both Kittybrewster and Counter revolution. The more I look at this case there more questions there seem to be to be answered. It is appalling that only now are you considering the arbcom. ] 15:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			Given the nature of the block and my suspicion, based on personal experience, that this is a ''tactic'' in a banning process I believe the ban should be lifted ''before'' any further proceedings. Here we have a trial in progress while the accused has already been locked away without bail - all the better to provoke him. Not the circumstances for a fair assessment of the many issues at play here. It's not as if Vk can abscond while out on bail. I think my proposal here will tease out the ''real agenda'' of the block and ban lobby. ] (]) 12:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
	:'''On a point of information:''' Vintagekits had full permission to remove any comments he did not like, and used that permission relatively sparingly and judiciously. Here are just 3 examples you may have missed: , , . It is perhaps ironic that the last example I give is of a comment removed by Vintagekits (an undisclosed IP contribution) that also suggested that an arbcom was the appropriate venue for adjudicating a lifetime ban for Vintagekits. &nbsp;]'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp; 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			::No, any debate about lifting the block will split any arguement in process and confuse things further, let one decision be made at a time. If he can't be mentored, and he can't have an Arbcom case then there is no point unblocking at any time. VK can post here and a hundred helpers can post where he wants things. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
	::*You are right I had missed those diffs - but they just further confirm my view that this will prove to be 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. VKs biggest enemy is himself that is obvious, the next question is who are his next biggest enemies. My view here is (I think this is what the English say:) "what is sauce for the goose is gravy for the gander" using obscenities and threats is not acceptable, no one disagrees on that, but pushing a person to such a point that they see no other option is also unaceptable. It needs to be investigated to see if that scenario has happened. ] 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::Well, I didn't ask for any "debate". I asked for the bad block to be lifted, given it's nature and context. I am still asking for the block to be lifted, first. ] (]) 13:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
	: Giano, you ''used'' scare quotes - they're up there for all to see. I'm sure your intentions are honourable but you still used them. I'm unimpressed with Kittybrewster doing the dance of victory also - it's uncalled for. It's high time this went to arbitration - ] ] 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			::::That's my advice, take it or leave it. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::Where exactly are the "scare quotes" - I'm begining to wonder if you are not seeing too many threats. Undoubtedly VK has behaved badly the question is how badly and why. I have only been an observer here but I can clearly see some others who too should be examining their consciences ] 16:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			== Mentorship ==
	For what it's worth, after BrownHairedGirl applied the 3-week block, but before it escalated to indefinite, I posted a rough outline for mediation to her talk page . I think this would be a sounder solution than an ArbCom case because, as she observed, an ArbCom case would involve compiling endless diffs of who did what and probably end with lengthy blocks for editors on both sides. There is, indeed, a lot to be answered for on both sides. However, many of the participants seem to have been decent and well-behaved editors before getting embroiled in the conflict, and I think it would be more productive to redeem than to block them. Indeed, this was my hope for Vintagekits as well — when editing in areas like the history of Ireland or boxing, his perspective has driven him to improve, expand, and source articles, an essentially constructive endeavor, albeit colored by a partisan viewpoint. It was when he became embroiled in articles about the baronetage and nobility, where he was largely attempting to remove or condense information he had a poor grasp of, that his actions became disruptive. I think the interests of the encyclopedia would be better served by setting some intermediary body between the parties, so that they no longer feel the need to push every point to the utmost of their advantage, than by a general collection of scalps. However, I'd be interested in the opinions of others on the feasibility and scope of such an effort. ] 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::*You are quite correct and I agree. The problem is in my experience some of those who edit the baronetcy pages (or whatever they are called) can be just as blinkered and single minded as VK, the only difference between some of them and VK is that they tend to hunt as a pack. Here is the root of VK's problems - he feels cornered and isoalated so lashes out. The charges against him now are very serious indeed. I'm not sure anything but an arb case can resolve it, they need all to have their say. The jubilation demonstrated by Kittybrewster above is repulsive to see. Perhaps now others cabn see just what pressure VK has been under. ] 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::I set down my reasons for thinking an indefinite block is justified. And I am perfectly certain that noone has been provoking or goading him into the actions he has taken. Also that he operated within a "pack" which actually did him a disservice by encouraging him to think he was behaving appropriately. He would probably still be unbanned if his original indefinite block had been replaced with a ban on editing '''any''' pages (including talk) which were not related to boxing. His edits there were entirely uncontroversial. At the moment I think he is best helped by being encouraged to stand well back. - ]<small>]</small> 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::*Giano, I'm sorry, but I don't believe Vintagekits has been isolated. In both the moving of baronets and in recent disputes over their naming, he's had the consistent support of Padraig, and during the AfD phase (wherein, as I recall, you fell out with Kittybrewster over his defense of his nn articles), he was generally seconded by OneNightinHackney, who has since left over, I think, a different Ireland-related dispute. Perhaps we differ a bit in perspective because I've been familiar with Kittybrewster's baronet-related editing before that point. What happened in the area of Northern Ireland, I do not know, but my recollection is that it took about a month of hammering by Vintagekits and others on Arbuthnot and baronet-related AfDs before I really started to see Kittybrewster's behavior decline. That's no excuse for what's been done since on the pro/Scots side; on the other hand, the fact that an editing dispute was occurring over Northern Ireland doesn't excuse the anti/Irish side from extending it to a general attack on Kittybrewster's opus, even if they were able to justify some of it in policy. (Indeed, the cleanup of excess Arbuthnot articles was later handled effectively by third parties.) Just as we've discussed above the impropriety of administrators blocking while involved in content disputes, I think Vintagekits' decision to involve himself with unrelated parts of Kittybrewster's work (and in a remarkably litigious manner, cross-examining all participants in the AfDs) was improper, and that much of the tension presently surrounding him can be traced to this extension of whatever was going on in articles on Northern Ireland. Now, maybe we won't be able to untangle these particular perspectives without arbitration. I would rather try to pry the sides apart — both seem to be fighting so hard because they fear that the others will get away with something if they don't, so what sureties can we provide that their concerns will be heard and acted on if they back down? But if people really want to sort out the whole history of it at ArbCom, so be it, although I think it will be a lot of editors' funerals. ] 17:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			Would you be willing to have me, and likely some others (which will need to include people you don't care for - so to be acceptable for those who do not appreciate the effort being expended to keep you editing this project), as mentor(s)? This would run concurrent to Jehochman's suggested limiting you to sport/boxing topics and ban from Ireland/Troubles related areas. I am asking the community the same thing at ANI, and will only accept supping from the poisoned chalice if there are two positive responses. ] (]) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
	I suggest that all of the e-mails in question be forwarded to one or more arbitrators. I also suggest that copies be provided to Vintagekits himself with the inquiry whether he in fact was the author of each of them, as above he appears to be possibly denying that he wrote some of them. ] 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			:There doesn't seem to be much likelihood of the community accepting you being mentored, so there is little point in you agreeing/committing. Perhaps the ArbCom option above is the only venue left to determine if there is a way for you to continue to contribute. ] (]) 11:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
			::I agree, but suggest leaving the mentoring option just a little longer - people do change their minds - occasionaly. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
			:The Mentorship option is acceptable. ] (]) 15:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::I would offer mentorship as part of any Arbitration decision, should a Request get to such a stage, in any event. I regret that those opposing mentorship currently appear to be too numerous for anything but a complete about face to bring about a consensus for it. I think 36 hours from my initial offer should be sufficient time to establish the communities position on it, so there is a little time yet. ] (]) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
	&nbsp;]'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp; 17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			== Completely unconnected question ==
	:] I have to say I admire your nerve. But coming from someone who “I firmly believe” not “outside the poisonous atmosphere Vk moved in.", will not count for much. All I can offer is my thoughts, because the backlash you are going to experience is more than even you are ready for. I must say, your opinions were like a bolt of lighting, and certainly woke me up. I have to say, that was some entrance. --] 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::*I think we can start off with an appology for that remark - I have never heard of you. I do not mix in any poisonous atmospheres. If these are the threats and comments which VK has been subject too, I am begining to understand where he was coming from. ] 18:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::: I think you misunderstand Giano. Domer is referring to himself with that comment, not you. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::*No wonder the Irish are always misunderstood if they will persist in speaking in double negatives. Whatever, any back lash will be as water off a duck's back to me - I care not one jot for people's opinion. I have no interest in climbing wikipedia's slippery pole of promotion. Or in writing about my own POV or relations. I merely write pages and air my views on talk pages when they are required and this is one of them. If there is any justice if VK goes down there are quite a few who should go with him. ] 18:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::So when are we going to see this going to Arbcom??--] 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			Is Manny Pacquiao's fight on Miguel Cotto British TV tonight, if so when ? I can't find it anywhere and the dog has eaten today's newspaper? someone watching this page is bound to know. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
	== The Bigger Picture ==
			: ]<span style="color:black">e</span>] 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
			::Than you Rockpocket, but I on a computer wired not to let me look at anything pleasurable (probably why it permits Misplaced Pages) could you have a quick look for me, I think I have a few hours yet. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
			::: Oh. Its being shown live at 2am on ]:
			:'' Live Big Fight Special in HD. Manny Pacquiao v Miguel Angel Cotto. All the action from the bout at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, as Pacquiao steps up a division to challenge for Cotto's WBO Welterweight title. Pacquiao's last fight was the second-round knockout of Ricky Hatton in a light-welterweight contest in May, and he can further add to his reputation as arguably the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world should he take the belt from Cotto.''
			::: As far as I can tell, it is not being shown on any free-to-air channel. So it depends whether Giano's household subsidizes Mr Murdoch or not ;) ]<span style="color:black">e</span>] 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::Well actually we do, purely for the children's educational purposes you understand. In fact, it's purely for the children's educational purposes that I fiddled with the parental controls of this computer and now can't reverse them, this is the problem with passwords when you seldom spell the same word twice two days running. Thank you for that. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
			==Block and associated discussion==
	: I think people are in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees here. Its all fine and well to accuse others of inciting Vk - and that certainly has happened on occasions - but Vk has spent a fair proportion of his time inciting those same people. He isn't some innocent editor caught up in a situation, he is among the principle actors that has created this dire state of affairs in the first place. Focusing on any particular single incident in isolation is missing the point. It is the weight of Vks ongoing disruption that has led to an indef block. Putting aside his history of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry and his nine or ten blocks already this year, just last month I blocked Vk for 31 hours for a number of attacks, culminating in (which is typical of his attitude towards other editors). The result? , , , , . So I indef blocked and immediately asked for an independent review at ANI. The consensus, even among Vk's mentors, was to maintain the indef block. In the meantime, the abuse continued by email, along the same lines, but with the added threat of personal violence against me and some hints that he indended to get revenge off wiki etc.
			I have closed the discussion at the ] regarding your block. At this time, there is a strong, albeit not unanimous, consensus that the block is to remain. You may, as normal, request that the ] review the matter. As I stated in my closing rationale, if you post a request for arbitration on this page, I will move it to ] for you.
			Whatever the outcome here is, I urge you to strongly consider why things have come to this point. I hope that you will do so. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
	::* ''whats the fuckin craic now ya secret dob bassa chunt? blockin me me for fuck all = ypur as much of a total wank as that orange bassa pick cumt as that orange prick cunt organge prick porgange nassa as John - ya lick arse traitor bassa traitor bassa wanker traitor bassa traitor two faced drumpellier chunt''
			:Came on to post a response now. Is it too late.--] (]) 16:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
			::It aint too late. ] (]) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::Well it looks like ] has now closed the discussion.--] (]) 16:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::Yep, it's closed. But ya got the option of requesting a review by ], per Sera's above instructions. ] (]) 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
			Take a peek at ], another option. ] (]) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
	::* ''yer a wanker! yer a lick arse hun luvin chunt and a wanker - if you ewver stepped foot inside a CP I'd break yer nose inta 40 places ya fuckin fanyny''
			:PS: The RFAR route, is much less risky (of course). ] (]) 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
			::VK, I strongly advise you to take this whole matter to Arbitration. I repeat, your value and worth to the project needs to be formally and quietly assessed by the Arbs. If you are concerned, and I think you should be, RLevse can be asked to recuse, banning you in an hour while Europe slept was totally wrong and biased all further debate on ANI. I am unsure if you should remain or not, but I truly beleive what I said here in the now famously oversighted edit <small>(outing indeed - no one was fooled by that excuse)</small>. You need and deserve a fair rational hearing, and that is probably the only way you will get one. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
			== Pacman, WBO welterweight champion ==
	::* ''UP YER ARSE YA WANKERS !! YOU WONT BE FORGOTTIN - YOU AND YER GEEK LIFE ARE ABOUT TO GET ASHOICK -WAIT 5 DAYS AND IT WILL START - YA TRAITOR HUN LOVIMG CHUNT''
			Pacman TKO's Cotto in 12th rd. I was close, eh? ] (]) 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
	: After much campaigning on his behalf by supporters, Vk was unblocked, given a very last chance, and agreed to a set of conditions aimed at avoiding conflict. These included avoiding articles that were a source of prior conflict. However, the agreement was not to form a precise list articles that he could and could not edit, because the onus was on him to avoid conflict, or if he found himself in it, to behave in an acceptable manner. The other condition was maintaining the utmost level of civility, or else the block would be re-instated. Vk waited barely a day before getting stuck into baronetcy articles (which have been a huge source of conflict in the past). Then, '''just 8 days later''' he makes personal threats to an editor that wasn't even directly involved in the "controversy" around BHG's block (in addition to sending abusive emails to a mentor of his).
	: So, while I also don't think the crowing about Vk's block is at all becoming behaviour, neither do I think there is any independent editor who would have any problem with Vk's indef block. The reason I say this is because each time he had been indef blocked in the past, the consensus has always been to support it. It is only the intense lobbying by a group of supporters that has given him so many chances. How many more chances to we propose giving an editor who has demonstrated time and again that even the most basic levels of civililty are beyond him? Does anyone really think unblocking will lead to anything but this same behaviour again?
	: That all said, if someone wishes to bring this to ArbCom, I am perfectly happy to co-operate and provide all the evidence of Vk's violations of policy in my possession. I just think we have wasted enough time on this, and I can't see ArbCom taking anything other than a dim view when its all laid out in front of them. Alternatively, an "neutral admin" (who, on past experience, is immedately labelled as non-neutral as soon as they disagree with one lobby's position) is welcome to review it. However, they should be willing and able to review a years worth of ongoing behaviour, rather than an isolated incident. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I have to support Rockpocket. As someone who has tried to work with Vk for the past year, I lost faith in his ability to edit according to our norms a while ago. His mixture of provocative POV-pushing and abusive and threatening behaviour is not compatible with our working practices. He has had enough last chances now. He has certainly made good additions to articles but that is far outweighed by the drain of others' energy and the poisoning of the atmosphere his involvement here brings about. I challenge anyone reading the history of Vintagekits' interactions with others to come up with a solution other than an indefinite block for him. We have all tried very hard to be flexible, and it's a great shame, but enough is enough. --] 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			== The Third Road ==
	::I sure this will all come out in the ArbCom, and everyone will get to talk about the poison and invective that is around. Or is this contrabution, suggesting we do not need ArbCom? --] 18:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			Hi Vintagekits, the two paths laid before you are both ] because both of those paths mean more unhappy work for me.
	::: Are you asking me? I don't believe we need ArbCom to rule on Vk's indef block. Irrespective of the behaviour of others, I don't see what possible justification there is for Vk's. Though, regarding his assertion below, that he is innocent of making the comments that Alison blocked him for. Due to the sensitive nature of the information, It would be helpful if an arbitar look over this and confirm (or not) Alison's take on the matter. If the arbiter found otherwise, then I may reconsider, though I see no reason to disbelieve Alison on this.
	:::I would not be adverse to contributing to an ArbCom on the wider issue. However, this dispute is so wide ranging that it would be a huge undertaking. In addition it would, I think, create a bit of a shitstorm for a number of editors. However, I keep hearing editors saying "take it to ArbCom" yet no-one is willing to do just that. Is anyone actually going to act this time? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::I would like to see all this go to arbcom. If I am indef blocked then so be it - as long as the law is laid down fairly and squarely for all instead of it just being me on the firing line.--] 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			Come over to ] for a while! Bring all your friends!! ;-)
	==Duplication==
	Note that your talk page for some reason has duplication of topics: Topic 67 duplicates Topic 1, etc. Best wishes. ] 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			Wikisource ''needs'' someone with your passion. ] doesn't mention boxing. Someone needs to create ] We have a few poor quality works in ].
	==My side of the story (for what its worth)==
	::*Lets make this clear since my return I have not threatened anyone. W.Frank's assertion that I threatened to burn his house down and attack him are false, but there seems to be some who are only too happy to believe him. Have I acted poorly in the past? - too right I have, very poor - the worst I have behaved was the night I came in pissed at 3am and had a pop at Rocketpocket and threw the toys out of the pram. However, after the terms of my return were agreed I was happy to return and I had a different take on my editing - I was polite, helpful, tried to engage with and compromise with editors who I have butted heads with before and even created an article about a ]. All I wanted to do was get on with editing, and I was getting on fine with that. However, it all went to pot when I dared to cross BHG. I was acting well within wiki rules when I moved a number (about 10 I'd say) of over disambiguated - this issue is an old one and the Baronet project have a policy of over disambiguating the title of their articles in an attempt to include their titles along with their name - ] on Kittybrewster page. Anyway BHG blocked me for three weeks for sauying that all articles on wiki should be correctly titled. This block was endorsed by my so called mentor - I do not mean ot be rude by saying so called but it is a fact that Alison has never made any attempt to ever mentor me, unlike Sir Fozzie (oh I wish you were around) - the block was wrong, very wrong - BHG had a content dispute with me and blocked me for following wiki policy so I emailed Alison asking if she was going to do something about it - I got no reply so I sent another email using some "industrial language" - I did not threaten her like some are making out I just point out that I was really pissed off at her lack of support for me when I was obviously in the right and BHG was very wrong to block me when she was in a dispute with me - I also within minutes sent her two more emails apologising for the language I used (the point behind the email still stood but I was sorry for the language I used). As for me emails to BHG yesterday - I see nothing wrong with them - there is no threats there either, I do say she will get her just desserts but that is referring to the RfC that is being produced off wiki which shows her bias and abuse of her admin powers. Now lets get to the crux of the issue - good old W.Frank - an interesting editor - I have had many people email me to say that he is a sockpuppet, I have no proof of that but I do have my suspicions about him. Lets get this clear - I never threatened him, I never said I would come to his house, I never said that I would burn his house down, I never said I would attack him - either explicitly or implicitly. If he has that email where I say I am going to down his house down then someone please make him forward it to me and a neutral admin. If I have said anything like that then I will volunterily leave wiki for good and never return (no cheering please!) if he cannot provide this then that is a serious lie to make about someone and I hope that this block will then be lifted and appropriate action taken against W.Frank.
			As an example, I have set up ] and ], where you can clean up and improve existing biographies written long ago. e.g. ]. Simply log in, click edit, and fix the ] errors. The Wikisource community will help you with the syntax voodoo; you'll get the hang of things pretty quickly.
	All I have ever wanted was to make wiki a better place and to improve the articles I am interested in - but I am never allowed to get on with it without harassment for a very small minority of editors and admins.--] 18:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			I'll be happy to set up projects for any old book that interests you; any topic, any language. I'd rather spend my time helping you settle into Wikisource rather than spend that same time in arbitration or investigating socks.
	: I don't recall anyone (least of all, me) mentioning that it was W. Frank who you threatened yesterday, which ultimately got you blocked. Please elaborate. You know what you said & all your diffs are still available to everyone - ] ] 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			After a few months, you can then appeal your Misplaced Pages ban either to Arbcom or to the community.
	: Furthermore, an ArbCom representative has replied and I'm currently drafting a message detailing the evidence that I have here - ] ] 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 13:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
	::::Are we all going to be able to see this or is this a secret discussion between you and the arbcom? ] 19:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::W.Frank said that I threatened arson and attacks - I never did this. Thank you for your hours and hours of mentoring and assitance.--] 18:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			:Please do come over. We are very friendly and only bite if you ask us very nicely. ;-) Gotta to be beat all that poetry stuff that some love! We need more sport, things of real consequence. More than happy to show you the ropes, and it is great for building up resources and links to be used here. ] (]) 11:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
	::: That's nothing to do with what happened yesterday, as well you know. I have no idea as to the contents of W.Frank's inbox. Now please answer the question - ] ] 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Well he has said I was going to burn his gaff - I thought that that is why you blocked me. What exactly is the question you are asking?--] 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::"That's mild. My e-mails featured graphical threats of violence and arson. W. Frank talk ✉ 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)" Is this true, is this the evidence! If VK did not do any of this, I think questions need to be asked! --] 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Exactly I thought that it was that quote that Alison blocked me for!--] 18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:*Are you saying VK you do not know why you have been blocked? ] 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Well I thought I did but obviously I was wrong!--] 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Well then someone is lying - who? ] 19:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			==Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions==
	::::I get this crap all the time, VK gets blocked for a dubious threat, and I get threatened with referenced information will be deleted, and having a pop at me and gloating at VK being blocked, and no one bats an eyelid. . Accusations left right and centre by W Frank about the “Team” and not a word. ArbCom is the only answer in my opinion? If VK is shown to have done this, well they will not mind me saying …. And the horse you rode in on, but all the facts should be presented. --] 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			As a party in '']'' arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted ''']'''.
	:::::(ec)Yep, if the events of the last few days have achieved anything it is that this case needs to go to arbcom, and that isnt just VK but the whole Irish/British current dispute. Perhaps VK could then be unblocked on the basis that he only edits the arbcom case pending a decision (like DPetersen), ] 19:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (copying from above)</br>
	I suggest that all of the e-mails in question (as referred to by Alison) be forwarded to one or more arbitrators. I also suggest that copies be provided to Vintagekits himself with the inquiry whether he in fact was the author of each of them, as above he appears to be possibly denying that he wrote some of them. ] 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			''For the Arbitration Committee''
	: This block has nothing to do with email, nothing to do with "threats of arson" or whatever. I know nothing of that. This relates to something else. And no, Giano, I won't be sharing it with the public for reasons of privacy and security. I've already made that clear. Unless the person in question wishes to reveal their home address here, which I doubt, there's not much I can do other than provide ArbCom with the evidence in confidence - ] ] 19:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::"''This block has nothing to do with email, nothing to do with "threats of arson" or whatever''" You have based your whole case on this. If this is not it - I would like to know what! I have been editing here for years, anyone who has an email that can shed light on this matter can forward them to me, and I will then give a public opinion without betraying any confidences. I just want to see a level playing field. ] 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: I do not have permission to do that, and you have no right to know. I'm sorry, but I just can't make that call - ] ] 19:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: I'll pmail you something non-outy in a minute here - ] ] 19:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Please don't worry - others will. ] 19:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			''']''' <sup>]</sup>|<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::Hang on here a minute, I thought this was about W Franks post, now this has nothing to do with it. Before I tell a fellow editor (VK) to “go … themselves,” for doing something bang out of order, I want to know what for. This is starting to go a little down hill, so I will pull up short, and simply say this dose not seem altogether right. --] 19:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			== VK is blocked indefinitely, not retired ==
	:::: With all due respect, we are under not obligation to provide sensitive information to any editor that requests it simply so they can satisfy their own curiosity. No one is asking you to tell Vk anything, Domer, so there is no reason you have to justify that by knowing what is going on. If this was done on wiki, and the suggestion is that it was, then the information is there in the logs (unless, of course, they have already been deleted). I don't know exactly whats going on here either (though I have my suspicions about certain edits yesterday), but Alison does, and we have no reason to distrust her. She has requested oversight from an ArbCom member, so I suggest we all wait to see what he or she has to say. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			Why is the tagging of his user page with ] even up for debate? Why are certain people so absolutely desparate to make themselves look like tag teaming edit warriors that are utterly blind to reality? Considering there are already descriptions of this nature of these exact editors before arbcom right now, you would think they might take the hint and actually stop acting like tag teaming edit warriors. It is precisely this sort of lack of ] about reality that got VK indeffed in the first place. ] (]) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	::::: They're not deleted, as it happens. However, the quandary is that if I reveal any more, it puts an editor at risk as I will have revealed details of their home address so I can't do that. I guess this will be my final word on the matter. I'm taking this, plus the evidence to ArbCom. I will '''not''' be unblocking VK at this time. If he needs to parttake in the arb case, he can do so via email or under something like the ] case did. - ] ] 20:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			:If the blocking admin did not put the tag up, other editors should not. It is unnecessary ]. This user has contributed a lot of content to Misplaced Pages; he may be blocked indefinitely but we have not shut the door behind them, and adding a tag that queues their userpage for deletion like we do to mere vandals is insensitive at best. –]] 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			::This is the same kind of logic that allowed him to be 'retired' for the past 6 months when he wasn't, allowing him to flip off the countless people who rightly pointed that fact out, hilariously, even Giano. VK's feelings are paramount I guess, plain common sense and consideration for other users has no place here, as usual. If the template serves no purpose, then delete it. How it is in anyway usefull to Misplaced Pages as a whole to suggest to all visitors to this page that VK is not indef blocked, but has merely wandered off into the wilderness and could return at any time, is utterly beyond me. ] (]) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	The impression given was that VK had threatened another editor by e-mail, we are now being told that was not the case, so how are these threats supposed to have been made, that lead to an indef block.--] 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			::And not that it even matters, but Beeblebrox was the admin who originally revoked VK's talk page privelages on 12 November, and he was the one who then placed the indef blocked tag here one hour after VK was indef blocked the same day , which Rlevse the final blocker has never seemingly objected to. It was only in the subsequent intervention hours later by you Xeno that suddenly this tag is apparently not appropriate. If none of you admins can agree as to how the template should be used, that's fine, but don't pretend like this convention of 'must be placed by the blocker' has any legitimacy at all. ] (]) 19:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	: If you read Alison's justification you will note she mentions, a number of times, that the diffs of Vk's comments are/were still available. I don't know why people are thinking they were made by email (perhaps you are getting confused with Frank's comments about the emails he has received from Vk previously). ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::This is all now far too cryptic. I am beginning to smell something, something very unplesant and more than a little dead! I think we need some answers here. How about you W.Frank? Anything you would like to tell us? ] 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Please stop with the insinuation of impropriety, Giano. There is nothing unusual about an admin dealing with sensitive information in this manner. Unless you think ArbCom are in on the conspiracy, your concerns should be addressed fully. In the meantime, a little good faith wouldn't go amiss. If you are that desperate to know, you can trawl through Vk's edits over the last few days. As Alison says, the diffs are still there and, at least one stands out to me as being extremely unusual. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::"''ArbCom are in on the conspiracy''" - Oh no, they are not in on anything! I know all I need to know, and I'm begining to think it "aint" pleasant. So the Arbcom needs to know sooner rather than later. ] 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::Yes, this issue perhaps needs to be clarified at the appropriate venue to try and get folks on the same page. –]] 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	:This whole thing is turing into a farce. We were told VK was blocked for making personal threats against another editor via email, but now we're told that they were never made, so the reasons for VK's block seem to have been changed...AFTER HE WAS BLOCKED. We're also being told to look at his diffs...what exactly has he done wrong in his diffs? The goal posts have been shifted and my confidence in admins as neutral objective editors has all but disappeared. ] 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: ''"We were told VK was blocked for making personal threats against another editor via email"'' - you were never told that by the blocking admin. Not once, so nothing's been changed. In fact, I've restated it a number of times now - ] ] 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::This is becoming more like an ] by the moment. We have the simple Irish peasant boy (sorry VK no offense) is he the criminal? or is it the wicked baronet, or one of his aristocratic side kicks from Toad Hall? Who wrote the poson pen? and who put the body in the library, and was the body dead when it went there or did it write the poison pen. Miss Marple needs to arrive PDQ. ] 21:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			:It's just VK's best buddies trying to be as disruptive as him, I bet that within a few months they will all be going down the same line as he is. Being sensitive to VK is a laugh, since when was he ever sensitive? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">]</span> <sup>(])</sup> 19:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Did you actually read any of the thread about Vk being blocked, Derry Boi, before wading in with your opinion? Just after issuing the block, Alison said, ''"I'm probably going to ask for oversight on the two diffs concerned, but I'll keep a local copy of them here. They're still up at the moment".'' How exactly does that equate with you being told "VK was blocked for making personal threats against another editor via email"? My confidence that certain individuals are interested in anything other than offering partisan support along ideological lines has all but disappeared. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Ah "Rockpocket of the Yard" and where were you when the shot was fired? ] 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: I was chillin' at the ], where were you? Look, there is a great deal of confusion here, as people are getting confused over why Vk was blocked this time, as opposed to why he was blocked last time, not to mention all the other abusive emails that didn't lead to blocks. Notwithstanding the fact that this should tell you something about the persuasiveness of Vk's poor behaviour, all its doing is generating accusations of conspiracies that simply don't exist. Alison has already said she is passing this all over to ArbCom, so why doesn't everyone just take a step back and wait for their response, rather than make ill-founded allegations based on misunderstandings. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Have no fear I'm so chilled I could be in the morgue, what though are the "ill-founded allegations" you think I am making? ] 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::: I was thinking about the allegation from a number of editors that "we" were originally told Vk was blocked for comments made by email. If you didn't make any such allegations, I wasn't referring to you. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 22:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	It seems that no-one, including VK, is quite sure why he was blocked, but an awful lot are celebrating the event. So who has been manipulated to where? - and why? I shall continue to hunt for the body, because without one we have no crime. ] 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			:: I am not VK's best buddy; in fact I barely know him. However, I do not think treating a long-time contributor like a garden-variety troll or vandal is appropriate - no matter who that contributor may be. Adding the "indef blocked" template serves no constructive purpose and if the blocking admin wanted it there, they would have added it themself. –]] 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	== Please watch yourself ==
			::*jeni, it is just that sort of negative and uninformed comment that has caused most of the problems which surround VK and irritated him so. If you read some of the diffs surrounding this case, you will know that far from being one of VK's best buddies, I am merely one of many that want to see things brought to a satisfactory and happy conclusion for all. This may be a happy conclusion for you, but it is not happy or even satifactory for many others. I am not re-hashing the debate that has been had, but if you think this will be the conclusion and the end of Vintagekits then you are indeed uninformed. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			::* Xeno is right. Regardless of the correctness of the indef block (I am in two minds about it myself), dancing on someone's grave is looked on dimly both IRL ''and'' on Misplaced Pages. Stop it, please. <b>]</b> 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			::* Ditto. I was just about to say the same thing. Grave dancing is not welcomed. Our goal is to help contributors, not push them over the edge and celebrate when they fail. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::*I'm guessing none of you then give a monkeys about the people who are utterly confused when they arrive here and are greeted with the impression VK has just wandered off, or were similarly concerned about the treatment of the dozens of people who were greeted with such sensitity here when they arrived because of one or other of VK's edits to find a 'retired' editor was more than active, and duly commented as such. None of these people seem to be in your considerations at all. This is supposed to be a community, where basic things like notifications of status have a pretty obvious and logical purpose. Pandering to the sensitivites of people blocked after one of the largest shows of community displeasure I have ever seen for an established contributor, is utterly secondary to plain and simple common sense tbh. ] (]) 19:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::*The first thing I do to check an editors activity level is look at their contributions page. And the first thing you are presented with at ] is the fact that they are indefinitely blocked. –]] 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::::*I'm guessing that's what most experienced editors do (although its a bit of a fiddle to do even for experienced users for the likes of Giano with his multiple redirected user pages), but Misplaced Pages is not made up of just experienced users as you well know. ] (]) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			:Let the administrators decide. ] (]) 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			::Which ones? The ones who placed the tag, or the ones who removed it? ] (]) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::If necessary, contact the ]. If one wishs Vk exiled, one shouldn't be risking a block, over Vk's userpage. ] (]) 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::::Considering Jimbo once said that if he weren't American, he would have loved to be born British, I think that's an <s>excellent</s> crazy suggestion. ] (]) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::Oh, for crying out loud, somebody who cares should just ask Beeblebrox if he wants restored or not. And regardless of the response, move along afterwards. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			The next person who edit wars over the tag earns themselves an indefinite block of their own, and I will press for a formal ban. In the face of any objection, we should err on the side of decency, compassion, and polite behavior, and ''not'' screw around with the user and usertalk space associated with others.--] (]) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	Vintage, irrelevent edits like are out just to cause trouble. I genuinely don't want to see you thrown off Wiki, so for your own sake, stay clear of Irish Republican related articles completely. Try getting into something else - a recent look down your edits shows that you are still pushing this agenda. Glad to see that you're stalking me again though! ] 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
			:An indef block or ban, is a little heavy. A 1-hour block would likely do the trick, IMHO. ] (]) 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	:Was VK not supposed to contribute to talk pages? As to pushing an agenda, I think one should look at their own edits, as VK suggests. --] 12:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			:For crying out loud, it is just a silly little tag. Just let it be people. The presence or lack of tag doesn't do anything to change the status quo.
	::Now, if Vintagekits had said the above, '''"Please watch yourself"''', he would have got an indefinate block! Same rules should apply to all editors, regardless. -] 14:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			:Why so many want to edit war over a tag is beyond me, but to suggest edit warring should result in an indefinite block and formal ban is beyond ridiculous. It isn't even remotely that important. There are a thousand ways people could better spend their time 1) arguing over the tag and 2) worrying what other people think about it. --] (]) 20:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::Yep fair point Thepiper. ] 19:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Thepiper, in a 2-tier system like the one we have that isnt realistic. When did you ever hear of an admin being indefinitely blocked? ] 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)		::Actually, Thaddeus, it's not just a tag -- it's a tag that says "Hey, everybody, come delete me!"--] (]) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			::: And frankly, anyone who even thinks about deleting it will get a ] followed by an ]. Just ... don't. <b>]</b> 20:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Please ]. Me and Vintage go way back. ] 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			''"All we are saying.... is give peace a chance"''. ] (]) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			The best solution I've found in these situations is often to delete the userpage altogether. ] (]) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	==Vintagekits, why are you blocked?==
	Why are you blocked, I can't understand the page! Can someone please point to the transgressions. ] 23:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Since you (and others) seem to have missed it, see ], ''"VK I have indefinitely blocked your account for making clear threats regarding another editor's home address. It's was one of those "I know where you live" moments and you did it twice today."'' - Alison. VK's supporters seem to be making a concerted effort to muddy the waters but let's all sit back and relax and let ArbCom deal with it. ] 12:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			:I would rather it stayed as is, if reality and common sense isn't going to win the day. The sooner that uninformed readers learn about the various idiosyncrasies of Misplaced Pages, like the running joke non-status of tags, the better for them. Coming here and finding a red-link won't help them on this learning path one bit. ] (]) 21:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	::I have read through the discussion, and this block must be just as criptic as the last one, because I can not find the threats? ] who are VK's supporters? Hopefully ArbCom "deal with it," including comments like yours. Now ], where is the "clear threats regarding another editor's home address." W Frank, made some claims also, are they related? Talk about "muddy the waters." --] 12:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			:Plus deletion removes some of the evidence from those users seeking answers to the question as to why VK is blocked indefinitely from editing the site (presuming that is that they get that far in their knowledge quest, and have passed the first hurdle in knowing not to trust any tag they see on a random users page and to instead delve behind the scenes, WP:CSI style) ] (]) 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			My reasoning for threatening an indefinite block are simple. This kind of edit warring is disruptive, and is all about ] ]. Quite frankly, its often grave-dancing behavior, which should be strictly discouraged. I have no tolerance for such displays, and neither should any of you.--] (]) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::I repeat, Alison wrote on 19 August, 2007: ''"VK I have indefinitely blocked your account for making clear threats regarding another editor's home address"''. She later wrote she would not divulge this evidence to anyone other than ArbCom because to do so would reveal personal information on an editor. Of W Frank, I know nought, ask him, ask Alison, except she ain't talkin', only to ArbCom, which we ain't. The debate since then has gone off on several divergent tangents. As I said before, let's wait for the judgement of our benevolent overlords, the mighty ArbCom! ;-) ] 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I would love to see these ''"clear threats regarding another editor's home address"'' - nothing like innocent until proven guilty eh. Nothing to do with disagreeing with a couple of biased admins though yeah!--] 20:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Shut UP! ] 20:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Sometimes I am too stupid to shut up when I should really do so. I'm just a thick Paddy wit no schooling or edumacation. I'll be quiet until this abrcom.--] 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			==Why is this editor's talk page being vandalized?==
	"''I'm just a thick Paddy wit no schooling or edumacation''" Yep, and you need to learn how to spell a certain word beginning with "C" or better still stop using it. It is not an acceptable word in print, or outside of a stag party or a rugby club changing room. VK! You do have your moments, and this is not one of them. Your boxing pages are great, that is how I first saw you. I too have written a few pages on the subject but my sort of boxing is far more rough. You are a good and valuable editor but for now just put a sock in it, we all understand that you have been tormented and pushed to a very far point but now is the time for you to realise that too.
			An indefinite block is not a ban. If Vk chooses to retire that's their decision. Their block was unseemly enough and pushed by the worst kind of partisans, but now to have this abusive antagonistic and disruptive display is outrageous. Anyone who alters this editor's talk page from <s>their</s> Vintagekits' desired state should be indefinitely blocked. Simple as that. This kind of bullying is unacceptable and makes clear the kind of abuse this editor was suffering. ] (]) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			:Just one question, why are some of ya describing Vk as ''they''? Vk is a ''him''. ] (]) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			:: See ]. ]<span style="color:black">e</span>] 01:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::Phew, I thought ya'll were describing Vk as having 'multiple personalities'. ] (]) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			== Not appropriate. ==
	You are in for a ban, there is no disputing or avoiding it. The only question in doubt is for how long? However, there are many mitigating factors. Others, in their way, have been as bad as you, if less openly vociferous. In my book they are worse - they have been cunning and devious - with your mouth the size of a stable door no one can accuse you of that. Just realise that at the moment every time you open your mouth and swallow your foot, they are all laughing gleefully. So for the time being shut up. ] 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Very wise words ] lets hope your good advice is taken.] 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	::To be honest, I have given up hope of having any chance of being allowed to stay. I came back and edited fine but was hounded out. No matter whats happens I am out of here.--] 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			This back and forth bickering is not appropriate on a banned users talk page. The hint should have been taken when the user page was protected. If it continues I will protect this page and take a trout to those who led me to do so. Take it to ANI(or even better just drop it), arguing here is nothing more than a drama magnet. ] 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
	==Irish articles assessments==
			::Ah Chillum, you are in error; VK is not banned but blocked, a subtle difference I agree, but a nevertheless a difference. The problem is that all debate that lead to the blocking, before and after, is null and void. The reason for this is that the Arbitrator and those few that quickly arrived in the night and pushed the block through in an hour were in error by their unnecessary haste. Therefore all debate that followed was biased, poisoned and influenced by the fact that an Arbitator has already declared him guilty. This is the reason I want VK to take the matter to Arbcom (RLevse if he is still around, recused). Then, at least we will have a fair and impartial result, otherwise the bickering here is unlikely to cease. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
	Assuming you get back online!
			:::Agreed. --<span style="font-family:Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></span> 10:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
	It seems that the ] has fallen off the radar but recently ], ] and I have been doing a little work on this as well as actually classifying articles (actually Sarah has done the most work). Anyway, you are listed as a ] hence this post.
			:I've currently 'no clues' as to Vk's status. Is he retired, banned, indef-blocked, a victim of abduction, re-programed, etc? ] (]) 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			::He added the retired tag some months ago, and resumed editing with the tag in place. He is currently blocked indefinitely. Personally, at this point, unless the editor files a request for lifting the block with the ArbCom soon, I would favor turning the user page into a redirect to the talk page, and then full protecting the redirect. It would allow someone who really wanted to see the user page history to still do so, but it would take a bit of pointed effort to do so. ] (]) 17:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::Okie Dokie. ] (]) 17:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::The talk page history is viewable. If this editor chooses to retire and to post something on their page accordingly that's within their discretion. The vandalism and campaign of attacks against this editor, who's already been blocked indefinitely, need to stop. ] (]) 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::::Which edits were ]? — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::::Have ''you'' read the history CoM? His (latest) 'retirement' was 3 months, 800 edits, 5 blocks and 30 edit wars ago. Giano is just playing his usual role, VK is indef blocked, defacto banned, and will remain so barring a miracle. Still, new arbcom, new direction and all that. ] (]) 17:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::::So let him go quietly as he chooses. There's no need to rub salt in his wounds or to stick unsightly templates on his usertalk page. It looks like a vendetta in a dispute that you and those siding with you already won. There's no policy restricting people from retiring or unretiring. Just leave him be as you would want to be treated had you been the one to receive such a harsh sanction. ] (]) 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			::Why is this such a problem for you Mick? <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::You can't get that from the numerous statements above? ] (]) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			::::Alright. New idea, everyone out, this is a dead horse argued on the page of a non-present editor, but if you insist on continuing to discuss it, do it on ] or I can sacrifice my own ] to the task.--] (]) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			:::::I agree that it should be discussed elsewhere. Vintagekits' page should be restored to the state he put it until there is a consensus directing otherwise. The standard policy seems clear in favoring respect for other editors even when they've been sanctioned and to allow editors to retire and unretire at their discretion. This looks like a disruptive campaign of antagonism by partisans who aren't satisfied with the indefinite block they already won. ] (]) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
			Trouts all around. Take a hint, this should be discussed in a neutral venue or not at all. VK is not participating in this discussion and that is the only reason to have a discussion here. I am protecting this page for 24 hours, hopefully by tomorrow more sense will be shown. ] 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
	* The first thing that needs doing is to work on the WikiProject template. Actually there are two templates both of which get recorded by the assessment statistics bot that collects the ratings and creates the listings in the category ]. The two project templates are {{tl|Irelandproj}} ] and {{tl|WikiProject Ireland}} ]&mdash;the first allows both quality and importance rating as well as nesting but no reviewer comments, while the second allows quality rating and comments but the importance does not seem to work and comments are not included. This needs to be fixed, so we use one that works fully&mdash;can you help?
			== ] nomination of ] ==
	* The next thing is to decide if we just let editors assess as they wish or to create some criteria or guidelines for rating the quality and importance of the Irish articles. Personally I am in favour of some guidelines&mdash;some will be easy to decide while others are a little more complex. What do you think?
			]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]").
			Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).
	* Some projects make lists of articles for assessment while other go after groups of articles by category. What should we do? A mixture of both by using a "To do list"?
			You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
	* As of the last assessment statistics bot run on Sunday, August 20, only 1462 articles have been tagged, of which 1156 have been assessed for quality but 660 of these have no importance value.
			'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
	* Besides these 1462 there must be hundreds more untagged articles that should be tagged when we get the template issue mentioned above fixed.
			==RfD nomination of ]==
	We are not bad in our assessments but some projects have all their articles assessed while others are lacking more than we are. We can really use a few active editors to bring assessments to the fore. Please reply on the ] as to what you can do. Please help out. ] 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			I have nominated {{la|'The Great White Hope'.}} for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ]. Thank you. — <span style="font-family:gill sans">]</span> ] 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
			== Request for feedback ==
	==Vintage arbcom case proposal==
	I am happy to bring the case to ] but I need to know who are the other involved parties and other relevant information. I started and perhaps others could help me before we take it to arbcom, I just dont have the knowledge but I do think a formal request for arbitration is appropriate at this time given VK remains blocked. As VK can only edit here this is a good place to start and he may well wish to change the <nowiki>===]===</nowiki> to include other users, eg User:Vintagekits and User:xxxxx, thjere is plenty of precedent for the case to be about more than one editor. Hope this si helpful, if not just ignore it, ] 20:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			Alright VK, Kattis from the HB here. Myself and the Da finally finished out wiki page and was wondering what the next step is re; feedback. Type this into the wiki search bar...
	===Users whom I havent added===
			Free State Intelligence Department - Oriel House
	*{{userlinks|Brixton Busters}}
	*{{userlinks|Thepiper}}
	*{{userlinks|Badgerpatrol}}
	*{{userlinks|MrDarcy}}
	*{{userlinks|Bastun}}
	*{{userlinks|Ginggangsgoolies}}
	*{{userlinks|Biofoundationsoflanguage}}
	*{{userlinks|Gibnews}}
			I'm not sure if the page is properly live yet as its not coming up when I google search it. Could you make the other members of the 'The Irish Republicanism WikiProject' group aware as I couldn't see a 'talk' tab to share this.
			Thanks again. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			==Unreferenced BLPs==
	===]===
			] Hello Vintagekits! Thank you for your contributions. I am a ] alerting you that '''4''' of the articles that you created are tagged as]. The ] policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure ], all biographies should be based on ]. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current '']'' article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{tl|unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
			# ] - <small>{{findsources|Robenílson Vieira de Jesus}}</small>
	==Comments on proposal==
			# ] - <small>{{findsources|Georgian Popescu}}</small>
	:On a point of interst, how long do these things usually take? ] 20:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			# ] - <small>{{findsources|Asylbek Talasbaev}}</small>
	:: Perhaps a month or so on average, though this one could be monstrous. I was planning to speak to Alison about an ArbCom proposal this afternoon, one would need to be very clear on exactly what ArbCom are being asked to rule on (and remember that, even at ArbCom, sensitive information will not be publically revealed). ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			# ] - <small>{{findsources|Cathal Boylan}}</small>
	:: If the arbcom case is too broad, it'll drag on for months, and that's in nobody's interest, least of all VK's. I suspect given the list above, quite a number of other editors/admins will also end up being the subject of remedies. Not entirely a bad thing, mind.
			Thanks!--] (]) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
	::: I'm fowarding on confidential info to a member of ArbCom today & should have some answers back soon - ] ] 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	*There is more than that that I want in Arbcom - what about Alison for her abject failure to mentor. Also W.Frank can come along for the ride.--] 21:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	::*That biased admin John, also.--] 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	::: Feel free to draft whatever case you please, Vk, and I will happily post it to Arbcom for you. However, don't expect others to do your dirty work for you. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			==] of ]==
	::::Peremptory tone is uncalled-for. ] 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			]
			The article ] has been ]&#32; because of the following concern:
	:::::: Far from being "peremptory", I'm encoraging people to contribute. Everybody wants to see their favorite "biased admin" in front of ArbCom, but no-one wants to put in the (tedious) work of drafting a case and collecting the mountains of evidence with diffs. Its much easier to , it seems, than put your money where you mouth is. If someone - anyone - has something to say to ArbCom on this subject or any other, draft your case and put it to ArbCom, but don't just claim "I would like to see X looked at for Y" and then expect someone else to do it for you. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 22:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			:<b>Non-notable footballer who fails ] as the Irish leagues are not fully professional. Also fails notability and verifiability due to lack of sources.</b>
			While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].
	:::::VK I brought this to your user page precisely so you could comment and make your statement. Make a statement on Alsion, add John to the list of involved editors etc and when you are done I'll take it to RfA, well that is my idea, ] 22:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::There is a separate report about BHG being created of wiki - I will leave that to the side for the moment but add the others. More to follow so dont feel left out guys!--] 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: ''"There is more than that that I want in Arbcom - what about Alison for her abject failure to mentor"'' - go for it. I absolutely want that in there - ] ] 22:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::You will be wqelcomed with open arms - you were great as a mentor and went out of your way to see me blocked - I mean avoid conflict!--] 22:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Could you all stop bickering, and just go quietly off and write out your various problems with some diffs and then post them. Spatting here now is pointless. ] 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::: (ec) I campaigned strongly for your last indef '''un'''block. Had I not, you'd still be blocked. I also endorsed the unblock by BHG (it's written above). But whatever. I have work to do ... - ] ] 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	:::::Whist, all!!! Leave it to later. ] 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
			Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> will stop the ], but other ]es exist. The ] can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> -- ]] 12:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:BTW I am not going to include myself as an involved party even though it is my intention to actually bring this to the arbcom within 48 hours but if anyone else wants to include my name they should do so, ] 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: I have made my statement describing my role in this sorry mess. I don't intend to comment further unless ArbCom, or another editor, requests further information from me. If, based on my response to Vk's disruptive behaviour described above, anyone believes I abused my tools in this matter, please feel free to make a statement of your own. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 07:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	*All of the above "arbitration mumbo jumbo" is rather pointless as it is in the wrong place this is actually VK's talk page and nothing to do with the arbcom, who are probably unaware of its very existence. Is this matter being taken to the arbcom or not? If not then VK may as well be unblocked and the matter forgotten - until the next time these factions meet head on. we have admins here who have been ready to block on all sides, they have failed to solve the problem. They need to do so now. Keeping VK blocked is not a remedy it is a badly fitting and very temporary lid. ] 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	: The template is posted here so Vk can make his statement, after which it can be proposed to ArbCom at any time. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
			== ] nomination of ] ==
	There are at least four ways in which this can be handled:
	(1) Someone unblocks Vintagekits based on his agreement that he will edit only ] and related pages until the case is resolved or the block is otherwise released;</br>
	(2) Vintagekits copies the requests for arbitration template here, prepares the request, and then I or another ] arbitration clerk or anyone else copies the request to the arbitration page on his behalf; or </br>
	(3) Somebody else files the request for arbitration and Vintagekits makes a statement here as a party and someone then copies it to WP:RfAr for him; or </br>
	(4) Vintagekits submits the request for a review of his block to the arbitrators via e-mail (this is the procedure usually required of banned users, but I believe Vintagekits is only blocked and not banned as of this time).
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>I have nominated ], an article that you created, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
	Of the above, (1) sounds like the easiest. If any admin would object to my unblocking Vintagekits for the purpose described, please let me know right away. Of course, any inappropriate edits would result in reinstatement of the block as well as prejudice Vintagekits before the arbitrators, so he would have every incentive to avoid them. ] 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
			==Orphaned non-free image File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg==
			<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).
	:: Nyb, my concern over this is that Vk has shown previously he is willing to engage in sockpuppetry. I do not have checkuser access, so I could not know whether he has a static IP or not. But in unblocking Vk, there is the possibility we could be enabling him to create further socks to carry on his disruptive editing, while maintaining his agreement to only edit the ArbCom with this account. Of course, with a non static IP this ''could'' already be happening (though I should make it very clear I have no evidence whatsoever that recent SPAs that have appeared here and elsewhere since his block have anything to do with Vk) and unblocking would have little effect. I defer to your judgement in this matter, but felt that should be pointed out. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
			'''PLEASE NOTE:'''
	:::Not unblocking wont aqvoid socks as it both assumes a static single IP address and that wont be blocked for long anyway, may be unblocked already, ] 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
			* I am a ], and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
	*What's going on, are administrators considering unblocking Vintagekits yet again, once more making a mockery of due process! Why bother in the first place?! It seems this user is clearly above the "law", especially when his (obviously unproven) drunkenness is an excuse for all his poor form. For once why can't wikipedia stand by a decision; either allow him to edit and never block him again (thus saving us all a lot of time and bother), or block him and let that be it! --] 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
			* I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
	::I'm not an admin but this should only happen if VK gives his solemn word to only edit according to your conditions untill the arbcom make a resolution. This includes no socks or anon editing. If he is found to have broken his word then ban him for good, and that is the provoso he agrees to. ] 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
			* If you receive this notice ''after'' the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
	:::Counter - you are far from perfect , now try and find a little Christian and very British charity in yourself. ] 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
			* To opt out of these bot messages, add <code><nowiki>{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}</nowiki></code> to your talk page.
	::::I hardly think the two are comparable. I received a block of several hours and accepted it. --] 19:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
			*If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off ] and leave a message on ].
	:::::::Are you claiming to know the full exyent of the allegations made? ] 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::(e/c)The alternative to allowing him to edit for purposes of the arbitration (whether on this page or via a limited unblocking) is for him to e-mail his appeal to the arbitrators and for them to discuss it on their mailing list and publish a bare result. My impression was that this procedure would be less satisfactory to many wikipedians, even though it is used out of necessity when confidential information is involved that should not be published on-wiki or to avoid potential abuse by banned editors. However, I was just pointing out procedural alternatives, and do not have a view on what the best thing to do would be, other than that we ought to select one of the alternatives and move ahead rather than continue to argue what the procedure should be. ] 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I think the email approach would be unsatisfactory because this isnt just about VK, ] 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::* I know of no "civilization" which does not allow a man to speak openly in his own defence. ] 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: As the (current) blocking admin, I completely and absolutely '''object''' to his unblocking for whatever reasons, even arbitration. I know it worked for ] but it won't work in this case. Please do not do that - ] ] 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
			Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
	Given the impasse here the parties will have to take procedural instructions from the arbitrators. Can I take it that they are aware of the general situation here or should someone e-mail their mailing list to advise them? ] 19:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	: I've already discussed the matter with Mackensen, and briefly with Cary. I'm actually in the middle of writing a detailed submission to Fred Bauder as he's the 'trusted' arbitrator on this one. Fred will have full details regarding the block, including all private comms, addresses and identities, etc - ] ] 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Well I certainly wont do anything till tomorrow but if the arbcom would like me to not file the request they need to let me know (here, on my talk page or via email) as I am more than happy to follow any arbcom procedure request, ] 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::This is mind-boggling. ] above outlines some of a long history of outrageous behaviour, and even Vintagekits seems to accept that he will be banned; any question of him being unblocked seems absurd, and quite unnecessary for any arbitration. However, I am astonished at the proposed widespread Arbcom case: it appears to include just about everyone who has disagreed with Vintagekits, and it's hard to view it as anything other than muckraking. There is a need to address some of the issues which have become so contentious, but it would be much more effective to try to find solutions to the differences, and look for ways forward, rather than hae a dozen or more editors tied into a backward-looking process of collcting diffs to make a long who-said-what-when case. Without Vk's threats and disruption, most of the issues should be readily soluble. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::*You are the admin most involved with this, is it not about time you stopped this pretentious, and extremely irritating bewildered pontificating and got on and made an arbcom case? ] 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::I hope I am not banned but I fear because of the malice of some editors and admin that I will - some admins, who will go unamed, it is obvious to everyone who they are, has gone out of their way to target me and to create problems where there were none in an attempt to rise me and then to block me after I had risen to the bait - you ma'am are one of those - that is evidence in the past week. An arbcom is the only place to sort this out. I have been portrayed as the root of all evil with regards the issues raised above - I am not spotless, I admit that, however, others have acted as bad if not worse yet biased admin have protected them and hung me out ot dry. It will all come out in Arbcom.--] 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Well it won't if it doesn't ever get there. ] 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Vintagekits, according to your account, just about every admin who has interacted with you is part of a vendetta against you which you seem to believe is so widespread that it amounts to a ginormous conspiracy; and having abused, threatened, harassed and disrupted for months on end, you are now trying to turn the spotlight on those who found themselves in the position of trying to fend off your destructive vendetta against the work of other editors, or were called upon as admins to intervene.<br />I have no doubt that if a reasonable review is made of the long history I have had of dealing with Vk over the last five or six months, including repeated admin intervebtions at the request og him or of other editors, that my repeated efforts to try to stop misbehaviour on both sides will stand up to scrutiny. I just query the utility of creating a situation where an editor who has been so deeply destructive is allowed the benefit of more procedures, in order to tie up yet more more of the time of the editors and admins who he has harassed and abused for months. Somewhere, somehow, efforts end to be made to bring this battle to an end and to stop so many people being caught in the unecessary crossfire. --] ] • (])</small> 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::BrownHairedGirl, are you an Irish administrator? I see you do a lot of edits on Lordships etc and the British stuff. Someone told me that you were an Irish Admin. Not sure about this, but why don't you edit Irish articles. Just curious. ] 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::: Her ] says she is a "citizen of Ireland". ]<font color="black">e</font>] 00:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::: Oh, well if she's not editing her quota of approved "Irish articles", she should be immediately disqualified from having that userbox on her page and should straight away report to the nearest Irish Consulate, renounce her citizenship and get a good, stern talking-to ''as Gaeilge''. Shame upon her!! - ] ] 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::This is really funny, I had veal and wine with a group of Italian industrialists, in a top hotel this evening, food was really great, and I'm certainly sure they were italian! No doubts. ] 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::: I don't believe you. I want to see their WP accounts so's I can check their userboxes. If they don't have accounts on it.wikipedia, then all bets are off - ] ] 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC) ( :-) )
	::::::::::Should have said the wine was really great, these youngsters are sooooooo persistant. I would have loved that I had met Vintagekits, but alas that was not the case. Away again, won't be back to-nite. Rock, if you trip here,"'''well, have a nice night'''". No hard feelings! . ] 01:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			== Clothing store listed at ] ==
	::::::Incorrect, only those who seek to use their admin powers to silence those who oppose them or disagree with them.--] 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
			An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Clothing store'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, ] and a clue-bat • <sup>(])</sup> 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
	As someone who is not involved in any way in any of this I have to say I am deeply impressed by ] breaking of every major rule on wikipedia several times over ('''especially the threats of violence to other users''') and is still avoiding a final ban by this reference to Arbcom. I think he must be related to ] in some way. ] 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::"''especially the threats of violence to other users''" Where are they? ] 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::You have read this page ]? ] 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::From what I gather they occurred in private e-mails. --] 22:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::: I notice the editor who said he was threatened is very quiet on this. ] 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Vintagekits has not denied sending the e-mails ]. ] 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::But no one has seen them or am I wrong on that, if they contain threats VK has not said they do only an editor he has a bit of history with. ] 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::: I have reproduced the text emailed to me by Vk in my statement, there is a clear threat of violence there. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::: ''"if you ewver stepped foot inside a CP I'd break yer nose inta 40 places ya fuckin fanyny"'' - definitely no threats of violence in there. Nonono! - ] ] 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::To me, given Vk's history here, that threat is plenty to let his indefinite block stand. He knew he was on a last chance. --] 00:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I am uncomfortable with anyone with a good track record of editing being indefinitely blocked. Which is why I think it should be taken to the arbcom. I also think we shouldnt side-step arbcom authority as it makes for a more chaotic, less structured encyclopedia. We are almost all of us here from either Great Britain or Ireland so there is also the thought that Americans might be more impartial as regards the dispute that has caused these unfortunate turn of events, ] 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:But you're not uncomfortable with a person who has threatened other users with violence then ]? ] 02:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Yes I am uncomfortable though it is hard to see how genuinely threatening the threats were based on my current state of knowledge (the Alison comment re entering a CP isnt, IMO, a credible threat but perhaps other threats are that I have seen hinted at) and given VK's edit record this is absolutely the kind of thing that needs to go to arbcom, and possibly set wikipedia precedent about threats and responses. There have been far more inferior and more SPA editors than VK in front of the arbcom. Having been myself threatened by a number of editors including when I felt much more physically vulnerable than I do now (living somewhere else in the same city) I dont underestimate the graveness etc of threats but this is no reason to not bring the case in front of arbcom. I would finally say (as I have said elsewhere before) that wikipedia cannot be responsible for the physical security of its editors and that if a credible threat were made against me I would take whatever steps necessary off wikipedia to deal with that (for instance I told my father about one threat and who had made it as a precautionary measure). In a case involving possible criminal behaviour the foundation have a policy of full co-operation with the police (IP addresses etc) and the Chris Benoit case has shown that the police will absolutely look at wikipedia edits and editors if a serious crime occurs that may be connected to wikipedia), ] 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			== Possibly unfree File:Kieran Nugent.jpg ==
	:::Have you seen these alleged threats I havent VK as far as I am aware denies making threats.] 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the ]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at ] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> --]&nbsp;(]) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
			==Unblock request==
	:*Back! A ] coming via broadband. Get it, this is cyberspace. Duck! LOL. Actually, not sure if broadband will take it, I guess it all depends on broadband-width. Anyone know? Sleep well, good-nite all. -] 02:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			{{unblock reviewed | 1=time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway. | decline=I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
			*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, <u>or</u>
			*the block is no longer necessary because you
			*#understand what you have been blocked for,
			*#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
			*#will make useful contributions instead.
			Please read the ] for more information. In particular, you should see ] and would have to address the fact that stringent terms have already been attempted before (]). See also comments at the . ] <sup>]</sup> 11:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)}}
	This guy makes some good edits, then totally flies off the handle, and afterwards (occasionally) seems genuinely remorseful aboout it. It sounds like he has classic anger management issues. It seems such a shame to lose someone with the capacity for constructive editing. His traditional Irish Republican antipathy to the British Establishment also, more than occasionally, seems to boil over into real paranoia. Is there any way we could agree with him to go away, get some counselling or something, and to come back when he is less keen to see Misplaced Pages as part of a continuing war against Anglocentrism. Anglocentrism is, of course, a bad thing and he is right to oppose it but the way whis chap wants to oppose POV attitudes on Misplaced Pages is unacceptable and that won't change until he is helped to see the world in less confrontational, and never threatening, manner. ] 08:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			See discussion at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
	::You have a valid point. However I am not so sure that he also suffers from paranoia. I suspect that some of the editors who have goaded him into these actions and have deliberately presented themselves as "establishment figures" are not devoid of their own POV either. We may not like the IRA, its aims and actions but ] and ] are welcome guests at ]. We must also remember that many American citizens legally and freely funded ] - only very late in the game, and for other political reasons, was that investigated. slowly but surely a different viewpoint of the troubles seems to be emerging and the British and the Irish are just going to have to get used to it. VK needs to stay of the bottle before and during editing, and others need to stay away from him. Preferably all of them (VK included) need to stay away from Ireland related pages until they can lose their emotional attachments to the issue. ] 09:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:So far the few who have participated are unanimous in opposing an unblock. Doing this on Christmas is probably not going to win any sympathy. ] (]) 21:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Giano is quite right that there has been some thoroughly inappropriate POV-pushing by a few establishment-oriented British editors, who have repeatedly opposed some very basic principles in Northern-Irish-related articles, such as the use of neutral language, and also set about a targeted series of deletion attempts on articles related to Republicans. That could and should have been dealt with through the proper channels, but unfortunately Vintagekit's response was escalate and broaden the dispute. The original misconduct by the British editors could have been dealt with quite effectively if it hadn't been for Vk's highly aggressive strategy of retaliatory attacks.
			: Can I just point out for the record that VK is '''not''' currently socking, nor has he been - to my knowledge - since his indef block - ] <sup>]</sup> 23:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Instead of seeking a resolution, he pursued a similar (but much broader, and much more aggressive) attack of disruption on some British-related articles, by selecting those apparently edited or maintained by the people who who had been POV-pushing in Northern Ireland. To complicate things further, Vk didn't content himself with revenge attacks on the editors who had offended him on Northern Irish topics, but pursued a guilt-by-association policy. So because some of the editors who had crossed him were part of the baronetcies project, he drew the spurious conclusion that the baronetcies project per see must be supporting the disruption in Northern Ireland ... which in turn led him on to believing that anyone who was involved in that project was also a party to it..
			::In that case, I've no probs with unblocking. ] (]) 18:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::::For months now, we have been in the absurd situation where Vk has regarded anyone opposing his disruption of articles on baronets as self-evidently anti-Irish, when the two issues can and should be separated. Giano is partly right to say that all of those involved should stay away from Ireland-related articles, though I think that should be much more narrowly-defined as articles related to the conflict in Northern Ireland; but also, that Vintagekits and the other Republican editors need to say away the topics relating to the British nobility.
	:::::The way to deal with the Anglocentrism which Vk sees on wikipedia (and I'm inclined to think there is quite a bit of it about) is to expand and improve the Irish articles, not to set about disrupting other areas of wikipedia. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	*I actually meant to say Irish republican pages, VK can write as many pages as he likes on the architecture of Dublin or the ]. I would go a step further and ban the whole lot of them from the baronet pages too, many of them have been elevated way past their real station in life in order to make them more glorious. ] 12:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::I note the SPI on ] being suspected as a sock, has been closed per lack of 'diff's for evidence. ] (]) 18:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::It's more his attacks on people like ]who (a) have supported him in the past and (b) (by a simple reading of her profile page) no-one could suggest as being particularly ensconsed in an "Establishment" tradition that suggest paranoia to me. There are undoubtedly people who try and goad him but then he attacks people like ALison who try and help. That's what suggests paranoia to me. The guy has problems. ] 09:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::If by mentioning socking you intend to imply that the ] applies, I wish you would just say so. The conversation at ANI is not about socking, and he was not blocked for socking. The SPI case did not find evidence of socking. Fine. I'm willing to believe that, it doesn't change my position one bit as I wasn't previously aware of it anyway. The offer is just a suggested course of action, it does not apply in every case. I am a big fan of it myself but I don't believe this is a situation where it should be invoked. Even if it was VK continues to blame others for his own blocking, showing no signs of intending to change his behavior. ] (]) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::Agreed. This has nothing to do with anyone's personal or political opinion. It's to do with keeping to the principles of Misplaced Pages. ] 11:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			VK, I recommend you admit responsibility for your own indef block. If you don't? well you see the trend at ANI. ] (]) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
	::Unfortunately, it has been left to the Irish admins to discipline him, who he clearly does not trust. BHG and Alison should have brought this matter to the attention of a higher authority before it ever reached anything approaching this state. Having put him in this state I don't think wikipedia can now say "Paranoid - get rid of him". ] 10:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:And the few users who do support unblocking you have indicated a rather elaborate set of restrictions, including a topic ban from all articles related to Irish or British politics and all articles related to The Troubles, and supervision by a mentor that will not be chosen by you. In the interest of moving the conversation forward it seems appropriate to ask if you would even agree to such restrictions as a condition of being unblocked. ] (]) 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::Nobody except himself "put him in this state". - ]<small>]</small> 11:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::Indeed, stick with the Boxing articles. Leave the political stuff to others. ] (]) 03:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
	::::Kitty, you will have every oportunity to say your piece at the arbcom investigation into this matter. In the meantime you know very well that you just goad him. Is that your intention? - No don't answer that - just give the man some space. ] 11:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Vk is dead in the water and knows it. On the positive side, it may be possible to get him to take responsibility for his own suicide. - ]<small>]</small> 11:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Oh I think one or more people have been less than helpful along the way Kitty, you may remember this I'm glad to see your typing has improved. ] 12:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			This editor need to be unblocked. his opponoents, who have behaved in far worse fashion, have been unblocked. What is the difference with VK? Please explain that to me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
	===Kittybrewster warned===
			:]. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
	], I'm crossposting this to your own page. Would you like to urgently explain if you're merely using the notion of "suicide" in some sort of taste-challenged metaphorical sense immediately above, and apologize for all other possible interpretations, before I block you for referring to the suicide of a user as being something "on the positive side"? Please? This page would be the right venue for an explanation and apology. ] | ] 13:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC).
			::Don't quote stupid, ridiculous essays and links to me! Explain why this is acceptable and an unblock of Vk is not? Are you even aware of the facts? I very nuch doubt it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
			:If "opponents" have "behaved in far worse fashion" then that is an argument to block or chastise them, not to unblock VK. I will support appropriate measures against "opposing" editors to minimize disruption when those are proven with diffs. Let's address that on ANI as an independent issue. This is an encyclopedia, not a boxing match. We don't need to find sparring partners. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 11:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
	VK has said that he was provoked on numerous occasions maybe this is the attitude from editors that he was talking about an appology should be posted. ] 14:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::*Get hold of Alison then, and ask her for some explanations of her behaviour here, I am enjoying a pleasant and relaxed holiday, to which I am hurriedly returning, and leaving the sleezy mire of hypocrisy which I have found here while looking in briefly. Disgraceful and disgusting exhibition of double standards. I have never seen such gross hyppocrisy from so called admins here before. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
	::This is just the tip of the iceberg of the gloating and goading that he has had to put up from these people. VK has his fault but God so do they. ] 14:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::Um, is "hypocrisy" aimed at me? You realise I had no involvement with the unblock of Counter-revolutionary? Also, I think this is another instance where supporters of an editor vocally and even aggressively trying to defend them in their absence is, if anything, counter-productive. If VK makes a serious unblock request (which you're welcome to help him formulate), ''that'' would merit lengthy discussion. Discussing the now-declined request this much merely prejudices any future request. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
			::::Eh, it's Giacomo. Everything he disagrees with is proof of Misplaced Pages's moral decline & hypocrisy. Best to just ignore him. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::::You know what would be totally awesome? If we used Vintagekits' talk page to talk to and about Vintagekits, and not each other! Vintagekits, there are three audiences that will be reviewing your block request. People who know you and are inclined to help you out, people who know you and are disinclined to help you out, and people who don't know you at all. If you even appear to place any of the blame for your block on someone else's shoulders, that last group will not help you. Its just the way it is around here.--] (]) 18:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
			:With unblock requests worded like the one under discussion here, standard procedure is to decline the request. If he's serious about being unblocked, he is free to submit a properly-worded unblock request. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
			*Far from ignoring the multitude of reason for my various blocks I am fully aware of them and hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. My indefinate block was ushered through on the back of a bandwagon whilst half the world slept. When the remainder of the world awoke they were basically told it was too late.
			*Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that.
			*Do I understand what I have been blocked for, yes. But I also understand that there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished and many have shown their faces here already. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with those editors in futures - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either.
			*will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion is enough to prove what I have said above is true.
			*will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them.
			p.s. apologies for the shoddy original unblock request, one would think that with all my experience that I would know what the correct procedure was, however I am obviously out of practice.--] (]) 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
			:Well that sounds a little more like an unblock request, though you should probably address the old ] specifically since that came up in the recent ANI discussion. When you're ready, use the appropriate unblock request template, and someone should then start a new thread on ]. Unfortunately the starting of an ANI discussion in relation to your recent request may have poisoned the well a bit, so you may have to work extra hard to convince people to have you back. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
			:A friendly word of advice: In such an unblock request, don't say ''anything'' about other editors. It will, ''for sure'', result in an "unblock declined". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
			:I think what's being sought, is an apology for being un-civil (the colour languages on talkpages) & prior to your indef-block, the usage of socks. Plus a promise to do neither again. ] (]) 19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::Agree per last. Good call Bishonen, was wondering if it would be spotted. ] 14:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::The second time VK was blocked for incivility, back in February 2007, he solemnly promised to "avoid comments that even could come close to being perceived as attacks or incivility". He's been blocked 20 times for personal attacks since then, not to mention the edit warring blocks. Following many of those blocks he's promised to reform. But he is who he is, and at this point it'd be foolish to assume he's capable of change, no matter how sincere his promises may be. See ]. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 08:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
	::::Bishonen is overreacting in this particular instance, the use of the word "suicide" was obviously meant as a metaphor (and a commonly used one at that). By the same token, the goading coming from Kittybrewster and some others is obviously not appropriate. I agree with Giano that there is inappropriate behaviour on both sides of this issue (although I disagree with some of his more specific points). ] 14:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	: I certainly agree with this. Kittybrewster's gloating behaviour on this page of late has been sickening. If he's not going to be constructive, he'd be much better of staying away right now - ] ] 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::Why the fuck should VK apologise for the "usage of socks"? When was the last time he socked? It certainly wasn't anything to do with his last block was it? VK has certainly got it half right though, you only have to look at the history of the now disgraced admin who blocked him last time, who clearly had it in for VK to such an extent that he was busy gathering villagers with pitchforks to ban VK while ignoring that the article that caused the problems had a BLP violation in that his death was completely unsourced! And isn't it funny how two things I've taken to ANI recently have had little to no input, the no input being an IP editor who violates BLP with virtually every single edit they make. But VK posts an unblock on what should be a quiet day of the year and people are there in the blink of an eye, it would seem keeping VK off Misplaced Pages is far more important than upholing BLP round here... <span style="font-family:Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></span> 13:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
	::Obviously I am not encouraging VK or anybody else to kill themselves. Such an interpretation of my words would be bizarre indeed. What I am saying (and have said before) is that it seems to me that VK’s career as a wikipedia editor is over (which he knows) – and that he has brought this entirely upon himself. I also think he has been encouraged in his behaviour by other people who have assisted him in his pre-existing disposition to blame other people for his plight. Other people, such as (but not only) Giano_II have implied that he (VK) is not the only one who is responsible for where he (VK) now finds himself. I disagree with that perspective. I think if positive things can be achieved as a result of this mess, one of them would be if VK learns something from it – particularly that he himself is responsible for his own tirades, tempers, drinking, reactions, edits, etc. The alternative is that he sees himself as some sort of unwitting, helpless puppet of other people, which is an abrogation I would wish on nobody. I think the apologists for VK have done him no favours by letting him back to edit again when the spirit in which he returned was very much “and I hope the other side pick up their socks too”. I thought he was doomed and hoped I was wrong. If he changes that approach then I think he will be happier and less angry. That would give me pleasure. I wish him nothing but well. - ]<small>]</small> 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::::Why should he? Well, how badly does he want to edit? Editing here is a privilege, not a right. And blaming others for getting blocked will accomplish nothing, so I'm trying to imagine how your comments are likely to help the blockee in this case. As to the other items you mention, I'll take a look, but IP's can't be given lengthy blocks except in limited circumstances. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::::Oh just grovel to them VK, crawl on your hands and knees shouting "''I'm nout but a thick bog peasant, please kind sirs let me edit, I'll be ever so good and brown my nose''" I rather think that is what is required. Were you pretending to be a fine upstanding English gentleman, then of course you would be aplauded and welcomed back, even if you had been "abusing multiple accounts and using threatening behaviour" all behaviour seemingly taught on the playing fields of Eton. It looks to me like you are perceived to be the wrong nationality and type. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			::::::How badly does he want to edit? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			:*About as badly as ], one of his old prime-agressors, who has just been welomed back after a two year block for all forms of deporable behaviour. It seems there is one rule for the Brits and one for the Irish. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			::*Yeh, a lot of us Yanks have it in for the Irish while we love the British (guess which one we fought two wars against). ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::::Oh I had no idea, that decisions solely up to you "Yanks." I thought this was an internationally collaborative project. Silly me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			::::::And how does a baseless accusation of anti-Irish bias aid in that collaboration? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			::*The unblock of the other user looks questionable, and you're free to follow the guy's edits and see if he misbehaves, and then take it to the admins. None of that has anything to do with O'Vintagekits, though. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			:*I support Vintagekits return to productive contributing. Under some restrictions perhaps for a couple of months to help him settle back in and on a short rope as regards rudeness to other contributors, all he has to do is to be polite or be blocked again. ] (]) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			::*That seems fair, provided he stops playing the "look what you made me do" game. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			To focus on socking is a red herring. Yes, Vk has socked before—persistently—but there is nothing to suggest he has done so during the length on this block, despite ample time and opportunity to do so. Expecting (or demanding) an apology for socking is both pointless and punitive. Giano has a point beneath the nationalist spin: every block should be reviewed in the context of the reasons for the block, not other sundry past crimes.
			Vk seems to have addressed the reasons for his block on the second attempt. But, in my opinion, a major concern remains: denial of responsibility ("''The actually block was malicious in the first place''", "''there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished''"). If you don't demonstrate that you appreciate ''why'' your actions led to a block (and instead blame the actions of others) its unlikely you can make the judgments required to avoid making the same comments in future. My reading of both requests is that Vk believes he was blocked unfairly by a conspiracy of others. Only if the community accepts this should he be unblocked. ]<span style="color:black">e</span>] 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
	So that is your apology.] 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::::*I dont really want to focus on this as it is exactly the type of negativity that I want to avoid but do you agree that there are a band (orcastrated or not) who would not wish to see my return to wiki no matter what I said. Lets not kid ourselves here eh!--] (]) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::::: I expect there are editors that consider your bridges well and truly burnt, and no matter what you say now will be unlikely to support your unblocking. But you might consider ''why'' some people feel that way (hint: the 31 prior blocks may have something to do with it) and instead try to convince those who are willing to give you another chance that you know how to avoid reaching 32. ]<span style="color:black">e</span>] 21:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::*Thank you Rockpocket, I think we will both agree that VK was a thorn in many sides and I will conceed that when in drink he could be objectionable. However, as he says "''Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with those editors in futures.''" I know that his RL responsibilities have increased and with them his sense of responsibility. Does one punish the adult for the sins of the child? returning to that punishment, the reasons many were unhapy with his block was becase it was most defiitely as VK says hurriedly "ushered through on the back of a bandwagon whilst half the world slept." I have never before or since seen such a hurried indeff, in one time zone. Regardless of if you like it or not, VK was indeffed while Ireland was asleep. Now that his old adversaris are all unblocked, '''My view is that comon justice demands the lifting of this block'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
	:It's not an apology, nor is it a withdrawl. ] 15:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::: But irrespective of whether the indef was hurried through or not, the fact remains that there was a good reason the initial block was placed. Few, if any, of the editors who argued against the nature of the indef took issue with that. Vk-with-added-responsibilities said he would be happy to answer queries. So I have four before offering an opinion on the merits of his request.
	::Just so much justification! Apologists! Team! Its all there! --] 15:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::::#Do you think it is acceptable to refer to another editor, completely unprovoked, as a "fucking arsehole" or an "ego maniac"?
			::::#Should editors who repeatedly or persistently use bilious language in personal attacks or in reference to other editors be welcome in our community?
			::::#Pursuant to your answer above, why?
			::::#If you were unblocked and used such language again in reference to another editor, should this block be immediately reinstated?
			:::: Thanks, ]<span style="color:black">e</span>] 17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
	I see the suicide comment as meaning his Wiki suicide, in otherwords his screwing himself off wiki so to speak. And on apologies i've still never seen VintageKits apologies for the time he called the admins ''Scottish orange chunts'' amongst other things. Such language shouldn't be tolerated and should also be taken into consideration for any length of block. If he did specifically say sorry for his sectarian vulgarity please point out and i'll accept my error.
			Just to be clear: I support having Vk's indef block lifted, therefore I aint requesting anything from VK in his unblock request. I merely observed about the kind of unblock request he'll need, to get the community to support his unblock. ] (]) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
	Also i think it is time more neutral Wikipedians where involved on VintageKits rather than the same ones. Near enough everyone here is already set for or against VintageKits whenever his name arises. It just seems everytime its the same Irish Republican Wikigroup members that come to defend him whilst the same allegedly anti-VK brigade come to derile him. The next problem VK causes i hope is highlighted by someone neutral, and that other neutral Wikipedians involved in that dispute can debate whether he was in the wrong or not - without the interence of the usual pro and anti lobby's.
			You're doing fine Vk. Remaining patient, no foul language usage, no socking. Such an approach helps & I believe at some point in 2011, you'll be unblocked. ] (]) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	However having said that, some neutral's who might do so may be put off by the existing enormity of the VK thing and might not want to get involved, leaving it to the same old crowd to do so again.
	] 17:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I have no interest in Irish of British politics but I have been trying to sort these problems out. I came across this dispute only by trying to properly reference the edits of some of his opponents editing in other fields, his name kept appearing on talk pages. Previously I had though of VK as an editor only involved in boxing. I remembered him only because his spelling was almost as bad as mine. Since trying to help sort this mess out I have been accused of being a republican and various other terms. So naive was I, at first, I thought of "republican" in the American/European sense only later did I realise this meant terrorists to these people.
			{{unblock reviewed|I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock.
	::What has been happening here has been going on since the time Oliver Cromwell probably before, for all I know and they all need to detach themselves, loose the emotion of give up editing these pages. It is my view a band of editors with an English POV found the weakest link and targeted him. he may well have done all of that of which he has been accused (what ever that is) . I am only trying to establish was he pushed to these actions or would he have made them anyway. Was he baited? Did he rise to the bait? of did he happily throw himself into the firing line - in which case was it fair of them to pull the trigger. His opponents want the high moral ground, is it reasonable that they should occupy it. I just want to see VK have a fair hearing - if he has a fair hearing and is banned for life, I shall be just as happy as if he is acquitted. This is all about fairness nothing else. ] 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that.
			Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editor in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either.
			Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say.
			Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them.|decline=At this point, there's no way for you to be unblocked without a community consensus at AN or ANI (or appeal to BASC). Trouble is that starting such a thread so soon after the last one is unlikely to accomplish much. Consensus can change, but rarely does it overnight. My best advice would be to either wait a few months and try for return per ] or to email BASC. ] &#124; ] 03:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)}}
			:*Here's the problem: At the recent ANI discussion, most users were opposed to you being unblocked. The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor. I asked above if you would be willing to agree to these conditions and I don't see an answer anywhere. You have a few more supporters here now, but another discussion will be warranted if we are to seriously consider unblocking you. I don't see any point to initiating said discussion until you indicate whether or not you would be willing to accept such restrictions. ] (]) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			::It's quite apparent (at the moment) that if/when Vk is unblocked, another ANI community review will occur. ] (]) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			{{hat|side conversation}}
	::::Well from what i've read it appears to be mostly Irish and Scottish admins that VintageKits runs into bother with not English ones. ] 19:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::the problem with that is, were similar restrictions imposed on his adversaries who behaved in far worse fashion and who are now unblocked after similar blocks - are you seeking to bias the Troubles debates and pages? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
	::::: Except, in believing that, you are taking Vk (and others') assumptions at face value. He is very happy to attribute characteristics to editors based on his own prejudices. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 19:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:You are missing the point. Those most concerned with this are not admins. ] 19:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::Giano, your backhanded accusation of bad faith is really not going to help the situation. I'm sure you are aware of ]. I'm not saying VK has to agree to these terms, I'm saying he should answer the querstion of whether he would be willing to agree to them or not. If the answer is no, then we know before re-starting the discussion that that particular option is off the table. That's all, there is no conspiracy, just a simple request for clarification of a point that has already come up in these discussions. ] (]) 21:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
	==Canvassing==
			:::*Please don't quote these ridiculous ] to me because I never read them as they are usually written by Admins atemptimg to justify their own bad behaviour. I can assure you I meant nothing "backhanded," in fact, my meaning was quite obvious. You have allowed back his adversaries (who committed worse "crimes") without a murmer of dissent; now, just get on and unblock VK who has, unlike them, promised to mend his ways. It's begining to look like a huge bias. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
	I have notified ] about his canvassing efforts. See here . He did the same on my page, as per ]. ----] 17:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::::I haven't personally allowed anyone back in. I don't even know who you are talking about and I don't care to find out either. We are discussing VKs possible unblock. Some other user being unblocked by some other admin is a separate matter, and has abcolutely nothing to do with the simple question I am asking for an answer to. This bias you speak of, as it applies to me anyway, is purely a product of your imagination. ] (]) 21:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::::If you have not bothered to avail yourself of the facts pertenent to this case perhaps you sould not be commenting here at all. Such ignorance is worryingly common amongst Admins keen to have their names seen here, there and everywhere. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::::I have to wonder, at this point, if Giaco is actually trying to sabotage VK's attempt to get unblocked. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
	==Report him to the British authorities==
			::::::Your wonderings are of very little value. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::::::{{small|My comments are every bit as valuable as yours. But thanks for the non-denial denial :) ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)}}
			::::::This entire conversation is of little value at this point, all I wanted was a simple yes or no answer to a question, and you have decided to drag imaginary nationalist conspiracies into it. I don't care one bit if VK is Irish, English, Iranian, Australian, Navajo, Greek, Albanian, etc. I'll have you know I'm half Irish Catholic myself, so if anything I would be more inclined to be biased in his favor. Now, if we could just let this non-issue alone and give VK a chance to answer the question with either a yes or a no that would be ''super''. ] (]) 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			: Giano - who are these ''"adversaries who behaved in far worse fashion and who are now unblocked after similar blocks"'' because I'm really not seeing them? I hope that's not a reference to Counter-rev, as he was 1) neither Sussexman nor David Lauder, both of whom are still well and truly blocked and 2) was never as abusive as VintageKits was in his prime. See my talk page where I went over that already during the week - ] <sup>]</sup> 10:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
			::*I see, so WJBscribe was lying/grossly exagerating here: "''19:26, 1 July 2008 WJBscribe (talk | contribs) blocked Counter-revolutionary (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (abusing multiple accounts, threatening behaviour)''" and that well known upstanding paragon of Wiki virtue Rlevse (renamed as Vanquished on VK's block log) was mreley upholding the sacred Wiki after the disgraceful night of dirty knives when North America hurriedly sent VK packing while Ireland slept - I hope you are proud of that in North America! One only has to look at the names on his block log to see what was happenng a combination of monumantal and engineered ignorance. You Alison, released Counter-revolutionary from his cage in time for the 2010 election after asking for few if any reasurrances of futire behaviour. Yet, when VK wants similarly releasing all hell breaks loose as the drones march out to comment, clearly (as Beeblebrox admits) with mot a clue about that which they are comenting on. I find this all very odd indeed. I am delighted that VK states he is a reformed charactor and hope he has the chance to prove that - a great pity you did not require similar assurances from CR. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::Please cease posting comments to this thread in the recent nationalist-battleground and what-about-that-guy vein. You clearly support VK's unblock, but your efforts are counterproductive to that aim and you seem unable to recognise that (as I said before, if you have current issues with other editors, then pursue ] as appropriate). My expectation is that VK will address the issue of whether he would accept the previous unblock terms and why they would work this time (with the hope that successfully respecting them would later give some chance of them being lifted) or else make the best case he can why he should be given the chance to show that such terms aren't necessary now. Then we can have another AN thread, where I don't rate his chances in the near future, but with a good enough effort, who knows. At any rate, there's no other way back, and you're not helping - quite the opposite. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	]
			::::*I'm sure you all hate haveing the nationalistic overtones of this debate brought out into the open, but there are no other conclusions one can draw? Bad behaviour hapened on both sides, yet only one side continues to be punished - or have you just unblocked VK? Oh and will you all please stop quoting these stupid ] at me, all written by yourselves. Either behave fairly or be quite yourself. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
			::::::Any more of this nonsense and I'll page ban you from here, mostly for VK's benefit but also for your own. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::::*{{small|Well, he's still blocked. Your reverse-psychology strategy worked. :) ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)}}
			{{hab}}
	Assuming this editor is indeed located in Northern Ireland, and he has made threats of violence against other editors based in the European Union, I suggest reporting him to the British police. Such activities are clearly illegal, and threats of violence and arson should be dealt with severly. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) {{{Time|19:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC)}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			* - the question to Vintagekits ....
	:A) VK is not located in Northern Ireland (whatever made you think he was? It's said about 15 times in the course of this page alone that he's in Sligo);
			The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor...Would you be willing to accept such a condition? I am unsure but I imagine such a condition would not be indefinite but perhaps for say six months or until the community could see you moving forward in a collaborative manner and a measure of trust and support was there to lift the restriction.] (]) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	:B) Any alleged threats of violence (I'm not judging that one) are clearly ''conditional'' ("If you don't... then I'll...") and conditional threats are specifically not illegal in either UK or Irish law. You could try calling the police if you feel the urge, but since the conversation will be along the lines of "I want to report a crime" "What's the suspect's name?" "Vintagekits", I guarantee Metcall and/or the Garda will put the phone down on you.
			:Agree - address that, VK, or else make the best case you can why you should be given the chance to show that such terms aren't necessary now. Then we can have another AN thread and see where we stand. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	:C) You may want to have a quick read of ]<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::::*that conditionality wouldnt annoy me to be honest. I think people will be surprised with how I handle my self from now on so I would have no objection to a restriction like that.--] (]) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	::: Where does it say "that he's in Sligo"? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::IMHO, an AN or ANI report/thread shouldn't be opened until Vk's unblocked. ] (]) 15:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	::::Oops, my bad - that was on ] and not on this page at all. Since (aside from the boxing and provo articles) is about places in/people from Sligo, I don't think it's unfair to assume that's where he is<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::VK shouldn't be unblocked until the community has agreed to removal of the effective community ban. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	::::: I think its fair to surmise Vk is ''from'' Sligo. I think it would be a mistake to automatically assume that is where he ''is''. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Why does Rockpocket want to know where he lives? ] 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)		::::Oops, I forgot, it was a community ban. ] (]) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::::Bringing it up again at ANI could result in disappointment for VK, but could also be the fair thing to do, as the worst the group is likely to do is say "No" again. Just make sure you-know-who doesn't put his oar in and gum up the works for VK. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Because the original thrust of this thread was that "he should be reported to the police". If he's in one country and whoever he's threatening is in another, I imagine there might be a spot of bother extraditing him. (Surely WP comes under Florida law, anyway?)<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:*I find it fairly hard to take this process serious, especially considering the CR episode. My first unblock request was largely rejeced out oof hand because I didnt explain myself and then I did in the second and it was rejected because it was "too soon". Whats a guy gotta do?--] (]) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::*That can be done in Dublin, no need to go to Sligo. ] 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::Be patienet. Remember, there's alot of editors out there, who still don't trust you & aren't quick to forgive your past behaviour. ] (]) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::: '''''Can we all stop speculating about VK's whereabouts, please?''''' He has a right to privacy, just like anyone else - ] ] 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::Make a third one. You've explained yourself better, and as it seems you're willing to accept the terms, it seems reasonable to now discuss an unblock at AN. I think the "too soon" issue may have been because at that point you hadn't addressed the terms, and now you have I wouldn't expect it to happen again. (And if it does, I'm happy to start an AN thread anyway.) ] <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::: I agree. My question was not to establish where Vk resides (I expect some of us may already have that information and some of us don't), but to point out that there are a lot of assumptions being made here, about people's location, their nationality, their motivations and what they are "supposed" to have done. Too many people are making throwaway comments (such as the suggestion that it has been claimed Vk made "threats of arson, murder, death"), leading to others taking them as fact. None of this is helping Vk one iota. Vk is taking time out from commenting here, presumably to consider his position, it would be in his interest if the rest of us followed suit. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::As per the above, you have explained your position and alluded to your understanding of why you were restricted and you have offered and accepted the possible restrictions such as mentor and topic restriction, so moving forward and with this in mind your offer and request is worth presenting to the community, although I am sure you know there is no guarantee, if you are serious I suggest you present the new situation in an unblock template for community consideration. ] (]) 19:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::As an admin you should know better than to be discussing peoples private details on Misplaced Pages. I found it most disturbing, and I certainly hope that you refrain in the future from discussing such in public, on internet. ] 21:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::Disclosure; I'm half Irish, so maybe I empathize a bit too much, but I suggest you try again right away(apppears to me you have a bit of positive momentum right now) and if anybody who might be Christian throws up the "31 blocks" objection, just remind them, especially at this time of year, that 31 is not ]. ] (]) 16:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
	::::::::::::The original conversation was between me and an anon — no admins involved — and "possibly lives in a large town; I don't know his name, age, address or even (for certain) gender" is hopefully not specific enough for any stalker to go on<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			==Unblock Request - Take III==
	::Irish police are duty-bound to investigate all serious matters. ] 19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			{{unblock reviewed | 1=I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editors in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project? Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am here for. Will I disagree with people? I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues which is the main thing. That is about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. | decline=Enough si enough. I have revoked your access to this talk page, please direct any further appeals to the Arbitration Committee via their Ban Appeals Subcommittee, the community is not receptive to unblocking you. Any unblock at this point will have to come from the Committee. ] 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)}}
	:: (ec) As I understand it, ] only applies to on-wiki threats of legal action. There is every possibilty that the person who's been threatened here may have ''already'' reported the incident to the police, given that their home address is involved and they may feel sufficiently concerned for their safety. However, as Wikipedians, our remit is on-wiki activities and as an admin, I need to ensure that this is a safe place for ''all'' to edit without being concerned for their safety and well-being. That's pretty fundamental, ergo, intimidation, threats of violence, etc ''on-wiki'' will generally be met with blocking the perpetrator's account. That's the extent of our obligations. This whole affair is turning into a WikiFarce of epic proportions and the sooner it's concluded, the better - for all - ] ] 19:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			*You might want to fix the spelling errors and also clarify the "not...not" statement. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::*Then bring the case to the arbcom Alison. In the meantime, I would just love to see these threats (my email's plugged in). However if "anon above" wishes to report to the British authorities, the British police have occasionally been known to respond to "999" - this has not been my finding in an emergency, but I'm sure your local police station is listed in "yellow pages" (or some other similar trade directory) and they will be just thrilled to here from you. I expect though if these threats are as grave as we are told, the authorities are already informed - perhaps ] could confirm that. Then we can all sleep easy in our beds, safe from the evil Wikipedian Vintagekits. ] 19:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::: Who mentioned anything about W. Frank, Giano?? BTW - all evidence is now with Fred Bauder, so on with the case, I say. I'm preparing my statment and will publish it later today - ] ] 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Neither the Irish nor British police would likely be particularly impressed by a report of this nature, and the situation certainly does not demand such an action. Plus ] does indeed come into play. Yes this is a farce. ] 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Oh surely not, we have been lead to belive we have threats of arson, murder, death, despair, and despondency here - which? ] 20:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Please stop stirring, Giano, it is ridiculous statements like that that are turning this into a farce. If you genuinely wish to see "justice", as you claim, then you should keep the hyperbole in check. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Rockpocket, did you contact the police. It is very important for the editors to know this. ] 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	Rockpocket, I hate to disillusion you but this is a farce. All we need now is Kittybrewster stumbling across the stage in spotty boxers with his trousers around his ankles announcing "I've been shot! - who left the French windows open?" ] 20:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::: Well then. If it is a farce, there is little to be gained by perpetuating it. I have an idea: how about everyone (who is permitted to) gets back to contributing to the encyclopaedia? I find it telling that no-one among those that are oh-so-keen to see Vk "get his day in court" have actually joined myself and Squeak in moving towards that, by making a statement for ArbCom. Is there some reason for this I am not aware of? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	*Because we are all waiting for it to go to ] before making a statement, which is the normal procedure? ] 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	: Fair enough. So the only obstacle to that is Vk's statement himself (since he can't make it at ]). So perhaps we should all leave Vk's page along for a while. Afterall, until Vk is interested in moving this forward, why should the rest of us care? Its in his hands, not ours. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::This is becoming like a sketch from ] ] 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::What was the name of that man who played the piano stark naked with a big smile on his face? ] 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::]. Bit isn't this getting off the point? ] 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Don't think so;) -] 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::No, I'm sure he had curly hair (on his head!) ] 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::This thread has a point?<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	*Rockpocket, I asked you quite a serious question, maybe you missed it. Here it is again -] 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			*Chuck in a bit about your agreement to being sanctioned from the British & Irish political areas of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
	==Arbcom case==
	I have filed ] and you are a mentioned party, ] 21:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			*Bit disappointing, VK - you just copied and pasted Take II without even reading carefully enough to find obvious spelling mistakes, never mind address the points discussed after Take II. This might easily look a bit cavalier to some, which seems silly when you're trying to convince people. Try and fix the issues mentioned before anything else happens. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
	:If you post a statement here I will happily repost it on the arbcom page, ] 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::'Cavalier' - do you agree with the rationale behind the closing of 'Take II'. By the way, my spelling is always terrible. It always has been, it always will be. If you find that offensive then I can only apologies. --] (]) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			::::Well, that response robs me of any remaining desire to help you. I wash my hands of this. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			:I almost closed this one out of hand, thinking it a duplicate of the previous one. Which it is... ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			::What more would you like to see in this request?--] (]) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			:::What do you think are the reasons you got into trouble here? ] ] 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			::::Many because I was reeled in by dishonest people. What about you?--] (]) 19:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			:::::What were you blocked for? ] ] 19:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			::::::It's all set about in my block log and the above discussions.--] (]) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			:::::::Do YOU understand what you were blocked for? ] ] 19:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			::::::::Now now KB, have a bit of manners when you are on my talkpage. Its not like you have showered yourself in glory when you have been here before. I'll answer your question with a question. Have you read my unblock request?--] (]) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			:::::::::I have. And I don't believe your reasons for requesting an unblock. You were on a final final chance and you blew it out of the water. ] ] 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			*I don't think you realise Kittybrewster, that it is your friends who have largley caused the problem which VK has had. However, I'm sure all concerned are noticing, that VK is behaving with maturity and gravitas and not rising to your bait, so perhaps a little introspection would be beneficial for you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			::Indeed you are right; I don't realise that my friends (whatever that means) have largely caused VK's problem. Nor do I think VK has begun to make clear that he is responsible. ] ] 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			:::Whatever makes you happy Kittybrewster can only be applauded. However, I don't think you will find than VK or indeed anyone other eager to respond to yout trolling here. Good evening. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
			:I was about ready to read yet another attempt by Giaco to sabotage VK's comeback attempt, but VK seems to have done a good job sabotaging ''himself'' this time. I can only conclude that he really, really does ''not'' want to edit on wikipedia. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→
			Folks, this bickering is pointless. Whatever anyone's view of the unblock request, it's going to need an ANI discussion to consider it, and a finger-pointing exercise here does not nothing to assist anyone. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
	==Temporarily Protected==
			:I was ready to log a "support unblock", but it's clear he's not serious, so forget it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
	Ok, now that the ArbCom has been created, I'm gonna let this insanity settle for a bit. VK can email his ArbCom statement to myself or Squeakbox in the meantime.. meanwhile, this page has been full protected for 72 hours, and hopefully once it expires, all parties will be better-behaved. Well.. at least I can hope so, can't I? ] 01:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
			*Just a courtesy notice that I have asked at ] for a previously uninvolved admin to come deal with this, it has obviously dragged on far too long. ] (]) 03:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
	:So now that its unprotected, can I ask whats next?--] 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
	:: Four members of ArbCom have indicated they are willing to hear a case relating you these issues. Its not entirely clear yet what the scope of the case will be, and whether they are willing to reconsider your block as part of it. As the primary named party (and if you wish them to reconsider your block), it is probably in your interest to make a statement to ArbCom. I would suggest that is what you do next. You can make it here and someone will transfer it across for you, or you could do it by email. If you choose not to make a statement (which is your choice), then I guess you simply wait to see how the case pans out. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::It is now "5" so it appears that it may well be accepted. It is in your interest to write a statement explaining how you see things - it can certainly not worsen your situation. The Arbcom wil explore what has been going on throughout this whole issue and its background. So your perception and explanation is very important. ] 18:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
			== Userpage ==
	==Fair use rationale for ]==
	]
	Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found ].
			The userpage should be changed to ''indef block'', as that's what VK's status currently is. He's certainly not retired. ] (]) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
	Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
			:True though that may be, is it ''really'' that big of a deal? Anyone can see from this page that the "retirement" was not voluntary. In short you are correct but it is hardly the most pressing issue here. ] (]) 02:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
			::It's just illogical to keep thate ''retirement'' tag, when that's not the situation. ] (]) 02:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::I agree completely. I just don't see it as a pressing problem. There has already been a slo-mo edit war over this for over a year, and it's still there. There are things that are worth fighting for and things that are not. I suggest this falls into the "not" category. ] (]) 03:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::: I changed it to indefblocked yesterday, especially since consensus was formed at AN/I that he's blocked indefinitely, but I was reverted out of hand by his friend. As usual, on Misplaced Pages, it's not about what you do but who you know. - ] ] 14:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::::It's not worth edit-warring over. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
			:::::: Nothing ever is.--] (]) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}
			*I'm sorry you feel you have been treated unfairly, there have been several community discussions wherein a clear consensus was established that you should remain blocked. Emailing me as if this was all my doing isn't going to change that one bit. You may contact ] if you want to appeal this any further, I'd appreciate it if you did not email me any further regarding this as I couldn't override the community's decision even if I wanted to. ] (]) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
			== Replaceable fair use File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg ==
	If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale -->] 23:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
			]
			Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of ], but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our ] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
			# Go to ] and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, '''without deleting the original replaceable fair use template'''.
	== Request for mediation ==
			# On ], write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
			Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, ], or by taking a picture of it yourself.
	A ] has been filed with the ] that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at ], and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to ]. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.
	:''For the Mediation Committee'', ''']''' 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
			If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> ] (]) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
	==Never Rains But It Pours==
	See the ArbCom, better have a look at Alison's statement. I pointed problems out to her, and she wasn't very happy with my "interest", but was only trying to help out, some thanks! There is inference of you being connected with petrol-bombing, and another "thing". I know that in civil law there would be big problems with that, especially in Ireland and the UK. Don't know what USA law is. You better check it out, for your own safety. ] 23:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
			==Orphaned non-free image File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg==
	: *sigh* - please read my statement carefully, as well as checking out my talk page dialogue. Gold, why are you trying to stir trouble here? VK can address all this in his ArbCom submission. Quite frankly, it sounds like you are promoting legal action here. Please tell me you're not - ] ] 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
			<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).
			If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
	: Furthermore, and I didn't mention this, ''""'' - remind me again ] that ] got? - ] ] 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::That was a 2.00am and I was pissed outta my skull - I apologised the next day and Rockpocket and it was before the slate was supposedly wiped clean. Some mentor you turned out to be eh!--] 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
			== File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg listed for deletion ==
	::I am only thinking of the editors safety. Vk might be known to some of the public. Have you considered that. You can do all the quoting you wish, but it doesn't change the substantive issue. ] 00:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
			A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
			== File:Toi tim.jpg listed for deletion ==
	::: Which is? Go on - spell it out - ] ] 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
			A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
			== File:O'hanlon.jpg listed for deletion ==
	::::It's clear, it's all there. ] 00:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
			A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 05:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
			* Moved to Commons and now used on ] - ] <sup>]</sup> 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
			==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Poster50r.jpg==
	:::::Right. Under ], not only is this latest IP blocked, Gold, but I'm reprotecting this page. You can take your insinuations and conspiracy theories elsewhere. ] 00:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
			]
	::::::All very interesting I am sure you will agree. I must say I am not impressed with Alisons maths - strange that she makes 2+2 = 1,345 when I make it 4 (or 5 at a push).--] 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
			Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from ] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
			If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair --> ] (]) 05:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
	===] opened===
	Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.
			== File:Irhm sign.jpg listed for deletion ==
	For the Arbitration clerk committee,<br>
			A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
	- ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 11:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
			== Possibly unfree File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg ==
	==This supposed threat==
			A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the ]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at ] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> --] (]) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
	*What threat did I make on the said editors address - its all in Alisons mind - 2 + 2 = 361!!!!!
			== File:Grave of emmet.jpg listed for deletion ==
	*W.Frank said I sent him emails that said I was going to burn his house down! Has Alison asked him to forward this email??
			A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
			: Moved to Commons. We'll have it for ga.wikipedia - ] <sup>]</sup> 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
			== File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg listed for deletion ==
	*The was no threat, there is no threat - its just a con made up by a couple of admin to get me blocked.--] 18:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
			A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 06:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
			==Orphaned non-free image File:Bresli an phob.jpg==
	:Well you need to tell the arbcom on the Trobles rfa page, they wont be readint his page i would imagine and this case is now in their hands. This issue clearly needs resolving given the strong dispute about these alleged threats and the fact that most of us simply have no idea what hap] 18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
			<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).
	::Well after reading Alison bullshit I dont think there is any point - what chance have I got against a load of admin - zip, no one is going to listen to my side of the story, its just a chance to rubber stamp by indefinate block - its not about wanting to sort an issue out its about silencing opposing views.--] 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
			If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::While you may be right I guess I still have enough faith in the arbcom to hoppe not (not sure why as I wasnt well treated in my case of last year), but if you dont say anything it makes it much less likely they will unblock you even if it just that you dispute that you made what are very serious threats (so whether you did or didnt make them the fact that the accusation has been made is very serious), ] 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::*VK - you are wrong! It is about getting to the bottom of what has been going on. If you don't like Alison's version then you can respond to it. That is the point of the exercise. Just post your comments here and someone will carry them to the appropriate place. If it was about silencing opposing views it would not be happening at all. I understand you are angry but this is your chance to help yourself here. Regards ] 18:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I know what Alison is saying I was implying - if she wants to assume there was a threat then she can - but there wasnt a threat, but how can you say to someone that there is no threat if they already are assuming there was one, Alison is saying that by slipping the street name of an editor into a post (which I did) that that was a threat to throw a petrol bomb through there window - if thats want she wants to believe she can but thats bullshit - she has to take ten leaps of bad faith, and in a couple of assumptions and stir whilst liberally adding shots of paranoia and overactive imagination. Alison blocked me cos I said she was a shit mentor - she was, thats the truth of that but she has too many admin on her side and I am just a "wee filthbag fenian".
			== File:All 350.jpg listed for deletion ==
	::::::Also what W.Frank said about me attacking his house is bullshit - Alison is the blocking admin she should ask him to provide that email to prove his claim - if he cant (which I know he cant) then this whole "obvious threats" thing is bullshit - and action needs to be taken against W.Frank and not me.--] 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
			A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 06:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
	::::::: Honestly, VK, the ArbCom won't listen to any of this ... unless you get a statement written down and sent to them. That's the next move. You can either do that here or via email, but your definitely should have your voice heard. I know there are a few people watching this page that can probably help get all your points properly tidied up and put down in writing. Seriously - I don't care what you say about me, but you '''do''' need to get a statement in to those guys - ] ] 19:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
			== File:JimBreen.jpg listed for deletion ==
	: (outdent) Before "slipping the street name of an editor into a post" you should probably have read ], Vk, specifically:
			A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
			== Clarification motion ==
	:''Posting another person's personal information (legal name, '''home or workplace address''', telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment... This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media.''
			A case (]) in which you were involved has been modified by {{oldid2|631252824|Motion|motion}} which changed the wording of the ] to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --]] 21:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	: What purpose would you have us believe you had in mind, when you revealed to the individual that you were aware of his information? And while you are at it, perhaps you could eludicate on what the purpose of your reference to me "getting what ] did"? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Never take you long to pipe up and twist the knife does it? I didnt publish his address in a manner that anyone except him would have recognised - know one spotted it until he raised it with Alison himself. I wasnt aware of the ] policy - if someone (him, an admin or someonelse) have at any time pointed me in the direction of that or asked me to discreetly remove it then I would and wouldnt have done it again. I was only having the craic with him, we here having a perfectly polite discussion - why would I threaten him - there was no threat - the only threat is in Alisons head. Plain and simple, there was no threat, Alison might have taken six chess moves in one go to get to saying it was a threat but it wasnt. I was only having a bit of crack with him and was seeing if he had spotted it. He didnt, then I added it the second time - I thought he would think it was funny - obviously Alison didnt - but thats not a reason to indef block someone. I had been throughly rounded on by yourself, BHG, Alison and John in that 24 hours and I am sure you guys will get your wish and that is to see the back of me (OK I am feeling sorry for myself but you know you set me up and that is what you wanted).--] 20:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Seeing as this is out in public now and VK has admitted he did this to W. Frank, I can comment on it. You may say that you were ''"only having the craic with him"'', but, you did it twice and in a way that W. Frank felt seriously intimidated by it to the point where he felt his safety was threatened - ] ] 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I have explained why I left it and why I did it twice - it wasnt meant to be serious and it defo wasnt meant to be a threat - you would have to be off your rocker to think it was - it doesnt say it was a threat and it wasnt meant as a threat. As for W.Frank saying he was intimidated - I am sure you would want ot believe that and are more than willing to accept that as fact rather than a figment of his imagination, however, only a couple of hours later stated that I sent him an email in which an email I sent him was ''"mild. My e-mails featured graphical threats of violence and arson. W. Frank talk ✉ 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)"''--] 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
	::*This is the problem when so much is held in camera - without compromise can Alison - or in fact anyone - coment on VK's remark ''"..what W.Frank said about me attacking his house is bullshit - Alison is the blocking admin she should ask him to provide that email to prove his claim - if he cant (which I know he cant).."'' Has anyone seen this email, if so who? ] 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::* I can state here that I've never seen an email where VK stated that he would ''"attack W. Frank's house"''. I've no opinion on whether one exists or not - ] ] 20:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
			==Happy New Year==
	*VK, you are starting to wallow in self pity here, never a pretty sight in anyone. You need to, and have as much right as anyone else to make a statement here . Just tell the truth as you see it, and trust the Arbcom to see the wood for the trees. ] 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
			Hi VK, I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. That’s assuming, of course, I’m not already seeing you and am too stupid to realise it. Be happy! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 22:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 12:52, 19 September 2023

Extended content

Since you continue to be disruptive.. Take 48 hours off, VK. Your attacks on Elonka are outside the lines, and you should know that by now. SirFozzie (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Yawn! exact reason?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Personal attacks and disruptive editing. I've brought it up here. SirFozzie (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC) I am quite astounded by your retarded logic! Not sure why because I shold come to expect it to be honest. So who am I attacking and what is the attack because I cant figure it out.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Well?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC) So why is vvvkts....zzzz....ACCUSED (sorry) of not observing good manners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.233 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I dont know why anyone ever does one of these because they are never overturned and fellow admins always see things from the other admins perspective. Sir Fozz says that I have been disruptive and made a personal attack yet refuses to clarify the block, which is poor form. I wasnt being disruptive at all - I hadnt been involved in the revert war that was being discussed and I never suggested that Domer should ignore the probation only that putting him on probation was wrong - I wasnt alone on that. So there can only be the personal attack issue - I made no personal attack, I asked Fozz what was the attack and who was it made towards? Sir Fozz certainly does have a COI with regards me so maybe that clouded his judgement. Decline reason: You clearly don't want to understand the meaning of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Look right above this unblock request for a perfect example of why you shall remain blocked. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. Vintagekits (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Decline reason: No one appears to have objected to your first edit to that thread, but the second one constituted a personal attack. Per your block log, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. I suggest that you consider modifying your behaviour to reflect Misplaced Pages standards, rather than implying that you are being singled out due to cultural differences. Dekimasuよ! 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. What "second bit" - throw me a fecking bone here and explain exactly why I am actually blocked instead of having me chase my tail.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC) This edit. Dekimasuよ! 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC) You dont like making it easy do you. What EXACTLY is the personal attack that warrants a 48 hour block.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) What a load. You just refactored this page to remove the links to the ANI thread and previous attempts to explain it to you. I'm revoking your talk page access for the duration of your block to avoid you're wasting any more of other's time with this foolishness. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC) The fact that, considering you have a block list that is literally as long as my forearm you still don't get what you're doing wrong here makes me a sad panda. Which, in itself is odd, since I'm not a panda. It does still make me sad, though. Have you ever considered maybe going somewhere else on the internet? HalfShadow (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC) (EC x2) I have not always been Elonka's biggest fan, and for all I know she may not have made the correct decision as far as Domer48 is concerned. There is nothing wrong with questioning the probation itself. To that end, however, it is unnecessary to disparage Elonka herself; a review can take place without such comments, which are not conducive to a productive editing environment. As a corrollary of what you can see at the top of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, comment on the action, not on the administrator. If you really feel it is necessary to review an administrator's action on a wider scale, there are other venues for that which are more productive. Likewise, note that WP:NPA says that "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruption." Much as in the case of the probation mentioned here, your history of being blocked for personal attacks was likely considered as a contributing factor when deciding to block your account. Dekimasuよ! 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Ban As you already know, you have been indef'd and banned per this ANI thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) FYI to all the summary in the block log was the result a wrong pasting job. It should have been this — Rlevse • Talk • 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I have restored your email and talkpage rights. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you, Rlevse. Vintagekits, please set a good example with your communications. I've vouched for you to a certain degree. Jehochman 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Jehoch, which is in effect, SirFozzie's 48 hours block or Rlevse's indefinate ban?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC) For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this..... The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar Glad to see some one has had the ability and tenacity to defend NPOV against the imposition of POV-by-numbers Sarah777 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Jeez Vk; you break my heart! Why keep effin' and blinding at people when you know what will happen????? Still, hope you get back. Maybe look up "apology" in the dictionary and practice in front of a mirror - without head-butting the glass :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Hmmmm.....Maybe I should be apologising: it seems you were merely explaining the phrase "cop yourself on" when an Admin interpreted that as a personal attack. Bad call. Sarah777 (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Is the Barnstar something I should NOT wish to have on my name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.233 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Not banned yet The debate about blocking or banning is still ongoing at ANI, as such VK should be permitted to edit his talk page. Everyone has a right to defend themselves before a sentence is passed. There seems to be a lot of unssemly and undue haste on this matter - why?  Giano  10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I have to say this looks like a witch hunt. As I look at it, it is beginning to stink. A discussion about a possible ban was opened... a dozen or so people voted straight away to say ban... and then people tried to close the discusion AFTER AN HOUR and impose a ban. Sounds like some canvassing was going on there and some people letting their hurt feelings over rule their reasonable side. Having had a look into this yes VK has some WP:Civil issues but really... complete ban after an hour's discussion? I have to say I think a number of editors should step away from this issue completely. --LiamE (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point: "To RLevse: The discussion about my block is ongoing and as half of Europe has just woken up I think you should allow them the chance the have there say. Can you a. please restored by block to the original 48hr b. unbar me from sending emails and c. unblock me from using my talk page. You have left me utterly armless and legless in being able to defend myself against the allegations put.! From Vintagekits Posted here by  Giano  12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I'd support that. I'm of the view that Vk was by no means the only person sending emails last night. And the initial block was so bad it merited a severe reaction. IMHO. Sarah777 (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Show me the diff that justifies preventing this user from any sort of communication. I don't see it. When people get blocked we expect them to get heated and do a little cussing on their own talk page. Escalating at that point is harmful to Misplaced Pages. Just let them blow of steam and if they are still in the mood to cause trouble after 48 hours, reblock them. If you think the user has warn out community patience, you need to give the community a chance to comment. One hour of discussion is not enough. Jehochman 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) If you do adjust the block, and consensus seems to be against the idea, please do not re-enable e-mails. I don't appreciate e-mails of the type I was sent last night, I don't need to hear how disgusted VK is with me or any of his other opinions on me. There is always the unblock mailing list, or arbcom to e-mail. E-mailing other Wikipedians has already been abused. 15:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Have we had a chance to look at this infamous email yet or do we have to just take you word on it that it was as bad as you have been making out? --LiamE (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Chillum, you have email enabled so you can receive emails - was the email abusive or was it not, perhaps you are "confused" - again? In fact, I think I will seek VK's permission to post it here, then we all may judge.  Giano  15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Wow, the choke hold is off! I would like to know why I was banned from my talkpage in the first place. If my talk page wasnt banned then no one would have received any emails - as it was my only outlet of communication at a time that editors were discussing my very "wiki-life" what was I supposed to do. Even though it was late and I was tired and should have been in my nest, I dont think I sent anything untoward, I may have expressed my disgust and disappointment the way some experienced appeared to be screwing the facts in what I considered a "witch hunt". I am happy for any editor to disclose the content of any email I sent last night to allow others deem if it was offending or not. --Vintagekits (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) SarekOfVulcan, asks if Elonka considered my comment a personal attack. Shouldnt the more pertaintant question be to Domer - i.e. if my interpretation of what he meant by "cop yourself on" was a more polite version of what I said.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I have little desire to continue explaining my actions here over and over. My removal of talk page access had nothing to do with the discussion at ANI, and pre-dated any serious discussion of a ban/indef block. I was simply trying to prevent VK from posting any more unblock requests during what was at that time only a 48 hour block. Next thing I know this is in my email inbox: You obviously have never experienced bashing your head against a brick wall for months on end. I am hounded by British sympathising editors on every page I venture onto because of my support for physical forces Irish republicanism - what you Americans would now call "terrorism". I never expect a fair shot so was not suprised by your decline - admins look at my block log and say "fuck me this guy is a monster" - however the vast majority of the blocks were bad blocks and most of the time an admin with enough balls to spot it unblocks me. Its simple just come to an end now - I've had enough. and another: its utterly contemptable and inflamatory to block someones talkpage - a talk page should not be blocked unless it is being used to abuse wikipedia, cause further breaches of policy or to out another editor. NONE OF THESE WERE BEING DONE!!! YOU ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO PUSH ME INTO MAKING A REAL PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU WHICH I AM ON THE VERGE OF! you are a disgrace! I'm not particularly offended or appalled by these, but they are not exactly helpful or logical either. VK seems to believe he is the target of some vast British Wikipedian conspiracy. I can only speak for myself of course, but I can assure you my actions were not based in any way on his nationality or political views. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) you are not offended because there is nothing to be offended by - he is merely explaining to you how he feels. If he feels ganged up upon and victimised, can you really be surprised after the events of last night, when while all of Europe was fast asleep a group of mostly American acted as they did in a seemingly co-ordinated fashion and at such speed.  Giano  17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Get real, the idea that this disruptive user feels ganged up on and victimized is a joke. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) (ec) You need to stop beating that drum. Perhaps the closing of the discussion and imposing of a ban was a bit hasty, I must say I was surprised to see things progressing so quickly, but the idea that it was some deliberate "anti-European cabal conspiracy" has little to no merit. If anything it was VK who was doing the canvassing with all of his email activity. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I'm very much afraid you people should have considered your actions and words more carefully during the night - then things may not appear as they do.  Giano  17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) "Perhaps the closing of the discussion and imposing of a ban was a bit hasty" - when you can say something like that I really just shake my head and wonder how you were ever allowed be an admin. Rlvese acted acted as judge, jury and executioner last night - and all down in the record time of an hour - whilst all of other had slept, they would have awoken to find me beheaded. I find it strange that until Alsion turned up this was unanimous to ban me - but since then it is even with regards bans and opposes. I find that very strange. Either there is a mailing list or there are a lot of lemmings - maybe both. I dont know, all I know if that I have had the shitty end of the stick here. You personally havent even taken one moment to consider this from my perspective and it shows.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Howdy Vk. It's your usage of foul language, that's getting ya into these block problems. Personally, I don't mind the colorful words, but it appears an increasing numbers of editors do. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I know i have a potty mouth - it doesnt bother me to be honest its not turned on to insult people its just the way I talk. I supposes it could be a cultural thing.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) If the community chooses 'not' to ban you, I'd recommend no more foul words. Afterall, once the Wiki community tells an editor he/she is out? he/she is out. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Perhaps somebody could write a Javascript filter that would clean up your posts. Watch out for the seven dirty words. Jehochman 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I hear you GD, and thank you for all your support and advice in the past. It is genuinely much appriciated.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC) No prob, Vk. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) PS: I've voted oppose on the Wiki ban proposal, as you haven't vandalized any articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC) My personal motto at Misplaced Pages is "go with the flow". Right, GoodDay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) PS, I also voted oppose.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Yep. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Howdy Vk. I decided to delete my 'vote' from your Ban case. I shall have to take a neutral stand on it. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I saw! I have to say that I am a little disspointed that you did that. Answer me this what made you change it? When in the last year have I vandalised a page or caused so much disruption that it woul dwarrant an indefinate ban?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I had to revert to 'neutral', when I was reminded of your past sock-puppetry. Which (I'm glad) you haven't committed for over a year, since your last Banning case. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I have to say that certain people have been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over VK's emails. They frankly look like reasonable responses given his limitations on communication at the time. I have taken some time to look over some of the troubles articles and there does seem to be a systematic Britsh POV bias going on. No wow I will lay my cards on the table here... I am a Brit... but being from an Irish family I am probably more aware of and attuned to the issues at hand than most editors. Most editors seem to take the Britsh POV and are backed by what would seem to be a a number of admins all with either a British POV or American ones with a strong anti terrorism POV. Take the "British Isles" as an example. Geographically and geologically speaking the term seems fine to me - simply meaning the group of Islands the biggest of which happens to be called Great Britain. That is pretty standard terminology for any group of Islands to be refered to by the biggest. Now the term is also used in political and economic sense where its use is not so clear cut and can have overtones that are not welcome that most British editors are simply unaware of, and the term is used in this way, which can be considered an inflamatory way, throughout wikipedia. There are alternatives to the British Isles which can and should be used outside of purely geographic or geological articles yet the weight of editors on the British side surpresses this. It is no wonder to me that editors who try and redress this balance problem feel like they are beating their head against a wall sometimes because frankly they are, though I would say it is not a wall of anti Irish sentiment but one of ignorance to the issue. --LiamE (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I've changed my mind (yet again). I'm once again, opposing the indef-ban, as I've no evidence of sock-puppetry (since the last Banning case). GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Official statement requested Jehochman has asked for you to write up and post an official statement to be contributed to the ANI discussion before it's closed. Can you create one here and indicate when you are done editing and want it copied over? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC) George, I wasnt on line much yesterday and will be away from my computer for most of today as well as I have family visiting. That issues would you like me to address.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Vintagekits, my advice is to request a full and thorough Arbcom case, so much has happened in your career here that is does need cold and calculated scrutiny - a laying bear of facts if you like. Then a few people can assess if you are of any value to the project rather than a braying bob. The strange behaviour of some very important Wikipedians yesterday in the threads concerning you has convinced me, you need to be examined only by the Arbcom. It will be unplesant for you - you have many wiki-faults, but are not alone in that - as I see it you are standing on the trapdoor with a noose around your neck, and the mob have their hands on the lever - the lever needs to he in the hands of a responsible few. That's my advice take it or leave it.  Giano  10:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I think the issues which I would hope you would address are the comments and issues raised in the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block Vintagekits indefinitely thread. A number of editors have commented, there and in the various alternatives which flowed out of that in the major heading. Any specific ideas, comments, opinions that were raised there and statements you'd like to make. Someone's going to have to make a determination and close the various proposed community actions threads, and it's only fair if you have a chance to be heard and respond to the issues. I see Giano's comment above requesting an Arbcom case. That's probably premature at the moment - nobody has closed the community remedies threads, so for right now you're just indef blocked, not banned or otherwise restricted. I recommend that the community discussion be allowed to come to an end and then if you disagree then appeal any decision to Arbcom. That's purely procedural - I think Arbcom will want to wait until the community decides, so it wouldn't make sense to appeal to them before. Once there is a community decision of some sort then you should feel free to file an Arbcom appeal or ask for a case to be opened. If waiting 24 more hours while you have family over and are unavailable to comment here will help, I will post a request to the thread asking for no admins to close during that period, until you have a chance to respond. I believe there's no harm done to anyone by a decent wait - a week would be hard to justify, but another day (or even two) won't hurt the community or you in any way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) George, if you could that would be great. There is a big game tonight and they will want to be brought out for that as well. I hope to put an hour aside tomorrow to get my thoughts down. Thanks. Yep agree a full and thorough Arbcom case. To cut out the BS insist on Diff's for any and every accusation. --Domer48'fenian' 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Lift the block Given the nature of the block and my suspicion, based on personal experience, that this is a tactic in a banning process I believe the ban should be lifted before any further proceedings. Here we have a trial in progress while the accused has already been locked away without bail - all the better to provoke him. Not the circumstances for a fair assessment of the many issues at play here. It's not as if Vk can abscond while out on bail. I think my proposal here will tease out the real agenda of the block and ban lobby. Sarah777 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC) No, any debate about lifting the block will split any arguement in process and confuse things further, let one decision be made at a time. If he can't be mentored, and he can't have an Arbcom case then there is no point unblocking at any time. VK can post here and a hundred helpers can post where he wants things.  Giano  12:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Well, I didn't ask for any "debate". I asked for the bad block to be lifted, given it's nature and context. I am still asking for the block to be lifted, first. Sarah777 (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) That's my advice, take it or leave it.  Giano  13:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Mentorship Would you be willing to have me, and likely some others (which will need to include people you don't care for - so to be acceptable for those who do not appreciate the effort being expended to keep you editing this project), as mentor(s)? This would run concurrent to Jehochman's suggested limiting you to sport/boxing topics and ban from Ireland/Troubles related areas. I am asking the community the same thing at ANI, and will only accept supping from the poisoned chalice if there are two positive responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC) There doesn't seem to be much likelihood of the community accepting you being mentored, so there is little point in you agreeing/committing. Perhaps the ArbCom option above is the only venue left to determine if there is a way for you to continue to contribute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I agree, but suggest leaving the mentoring option just a little longer - people do change their minds - occasionaly.  Giano  11:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC) The Mentorship option is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I would offer mentorship as part of any Arbitration decision, should a Request get to such a stage, in any event. I regret that those opposing mentorship currently appear to be too numerous for anything but a complete about face to bring about a consensus for it. I think 36 hours from my initial offer should be sufficient time to establish the communities position on it, so there is a little time yet. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Completely unconnected question Is Manny Pacquiao's fight on Miguel Cotto British TV tonight, if so when ? I can't find it anywhere and the dog has eaten today's newspaper? someone watching this page is bound to know.  Giano  22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Sky Sports 1. Rockpocket 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Than you Rockpocket, but I on a computer wired not to let me look at anything pleasurable (probably why it permits Misplaced Pages) could you have a quick look for me, I think I have a few hours yet.  Giano  22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Oh. Its being shown live at 2am on Sky Sports 1: Live Big Fight Special in HD. Manny Pacquiao v Miguel Angel Cotto. All the action from the bout at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, as Pacquiao steps up a division to challenge for Cotto's WBO Welterweight title. Pacquiao's last fight was the second-round knockout of Ricky Hatton in a light-welterweight contest in May, and he can further add to his reputation as arguably the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world should he take the belt from Cotto. As far as I can tell, it is not being shown on any free-to-air channel. So it depends whether Giano's household subsidizes Mr Murdoch or not ;) Rockpocket 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Well actually we do, purely for the children's educational purposes you understand. In fact, it's purely for the children's educational purposes that I fiddled with the parental controls of this computer and now can't reverse them, this is the problem with passwords when you seldom spell the same word twice two days running. Thank you for that.  Giano  23:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Block and associated discussion I have closed the discussion at the incident noticeboard regarding your block. At this time, there is a strong, albeit not unanimous, consensus that the block is to remain. You may, as normal, request that the arbitration committee review the matter. As I stated in my closing rationale, if you post a request for arbitration on this page, I will move it to requests for arbitration for you. Whatever the outcome here is, I urge you to strongly consider why things have come to this point. I hope that you will do so. Seraphimblade 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Came on to post a response now. Is it too late.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC) It aint too late. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Well it looks like Seraphimblade has now closed the discussion.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Yep, it's closed. But ya got the option of requesting a review by WP:RFAR, per Sera's above instructions. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Take a peek at here, another option. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC) PS: The RFAR route, is much less risky (of course). GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC) VK, I strongly advise you to take this whole matter to Arbitration. I repeat, your value and worth to the project needs to be formally and quietly assessed by the Arbs. If you are concerned, and I think you should be, RLevse can be asked to recuse, banning you in an hour while Europe slept was totally wrong and biased all further debate on ANI. I am unsure if you should remain or not, but I truly beleive what I said here in the now famously oversighted edit (outing indeed - no one was fooled by that excuse). You need and deserve a fair rational hearing, and that is probably the only way you will get one.  Giano  11:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Pacman, WBO welterweight champion Pacman TKO's Cotto in 12th rd. I was close, eh? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) The Third Road Hi Vintagekits, the two paths laid before you are both shithouse because both of those paths mean more unhappy work for me. Come over to Wikisource for a while! Bring all your friends!! ;-) Wikisource needs someone with your passion. s:Wikisource:Sports doesn't mention boxing. Someone needs to create s:Wikisource:Boxing We have a few poor quality works in s:Category:Boxing. As an example, I have set up s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 1.djvu and s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 2.djvu, where you can clean up and improve existing biographies written long ago. e.g. Thomas Smallwood. Simply log in, click edit, and fix the OCR errors. The Wikisource community will help you with the syntax voodoo; you'll get the hang of things pretty quickly. I'll be happy to set up projects for any old book that interests you; any topic, any language. I'd rather spend my time helping you settle into Wikisource rather than spend that same time in arbitration or investigating socks. After a few months, you can then appeal your Misplaced Pages ban either to Arbcom or to the community. John Vandenberg 13:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Please do come over. We are very friendly and only bite if you ask us very nicely. ;-) Gotta to be beat all that poetry stuff that some love! We need more sport, things of real consequence. More than happy to show you the ropes, and it is great for building up resources and links to be used here. billinghurst (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here. For the Arbitration Committee Seddon | 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) VK is blocked indefinitely, not retired Why is the tagging of his user page with {indefblocked} even up for debate? Why are certain people so absolutely desparate to make themselves look like tag teaming edit warriors that are utterly blind to reality? Considering there are already descriptions of this nature of these exact editors before arbcom right now, you would think they might take the hint and actually stop acting like tag teaming edit warriors. It is precisely this sort of lack of clue about reality that got VK indeffed in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) If the blocking admin did not put the tag up, other editors should not. It is unnecessary bear poking. This user has contributed a lot of content to Misplaced Pages; he may be blocked indefinitely but we have not shut the door behind them, and adding a tag that queues their userpage for deletion like we do to mere vandals is insensitive at best. –xeno 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC) This is the same kind of logic that allowed him to be 'retired' for the past 6 months when he wasn't, allowing him to flip off the countless people who rightly pointed that fact out, hilariously, even Giano. VK's feelings are paramount I guess, plain common sense and consideration for other users has no place here, as usual. If the template serves no purpose, then delete it. How it is in anyway usefull to Misplaced Pages as a whole to suggest to all visitors to this page that VK is not indef blocked, but has merely wandered off into the wilderness and could return at any time, is utterly beyond me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) And not that it even matters, but Beeblebrox was the admin who originally revoked VK's talk page privelages on 12 November, and he was the one who then placed the indef blocked tag here one hour after VK was indef blocked the same day , which Rlevse the final blocker has never seemingly objected to. It was only in the subsequent intervention hours later by you Xeno that suddenly this tag is apparently not appropriate. If none of you admins can agree as to how the template should be used, that's fine, but don't pretend like this convention of 'must be placed by the blocker' has any legitimacy at all. MickMacNee (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Yes, this issue perhaps needs to be clarified at the appropriate venue to try and get folks on the same page. –xeno 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC) It's just VK's best buddies trying to be as disruptive as him, I bet that within a few months they will all be going down the same line as he is. Being sensitive to VK is a laugh, since when was he ever sensitive? Jeni 19:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I am not VK's best buddy; in fact I barely know him. However, I do not think treating a long-time contributor like a garden-variety troll or vandal is appropriate - no matter who that contributor may be. Adding the "indef blocked" template serves no constructive purpose and if the blocking admin wanted it there, they would have added it themself. –xeno 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC) jeni, it is just that sort of negative and uninformed comment that has caused most of the problems which surround VK and irritated him so. If you read some of the diffs surrounding this case, you will know that far from being one of VK's best buddies, I am merely one of many that want to see things brought to a satisfactory and happy conclusion for all. This may be a happy conclusion for you, but it is not happy or even satifactory for many others. I am not re-hashing the debate that has been had, but if you think this will be the conclusion and the end of Vintagekits then you are indeed uninformed.  Giano  19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Xeno is right. Regardless of the correctness of the indef block (I am in two minds about it myself), dancing on someone's grave is looked on dimly both IRL and on Misplaced Pages. Stop it, please. Black Kite 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Ditto. I was just about to say the same thing. Grave dancing is not welcomed. Our goal is to help contributors, not push them over the edge and celebrate when they fail. Jehochman 19:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I'm guessing none of you then give a monkeys about the people who are utterly confused when they arrive here and are greeted with the impression VK has just wandered off, or were similarly concerned about the treatment of the dozens of people who were greeted with such sensitity here when they arrived because of one or other of VK's edits to find a 'retired' editor was more than active, and duly commented as such. None of these people seem to be in your considerations at all. This is supposed to be a community, where basic things like notifications of status have a pretty obvious and logical purpose. Pandering to the sensitivites of people blocked after one of the largest shows of community displeasure I have ever seen for an established contributor, is utterly secondary to plain and simple common sense tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC) The first thing I do to check an editors activity level is look at their contributions page. And the first thing you are presented with at Special:Contributions/Vintagekits is the fact that they are indefinitely blocked. –xeno 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I'm guessing that's what most experienced editors do (although its a bit of a fiddle to do even for experienced users for the likes of Giano with his multiple redirected user pages), but Misplaced Pages is not made up of just experienced users as you well know. MickMacNee (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Let the administrators decide. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Which ones? The ones who placed the tag, or the ones who removed it? MickMacNee (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC) If necessary, contact the administrator-in-chief. If one wishs Vk exiled, one shouldn't be risking a block, over Vk's userpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Considering Jimbo once said that if he weren't American, he would have loved to be born British, I think that's an excellent crazy suggestion. MickMacNee (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, for crying out loud, somebody who cares should just ask Beeblebrox if he wants his original placement of the tag restored or not. And regardless of the response, move along afterwards. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC) The next person who edit wars over the tag earns themselves an indefinite block of their own, and I will press for a formal ban. In the face of any objection, we should err on the side of decency, compassion, and polite behavior, and not screw around with the user and usertalk space associated with others.--Tznkai (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC) An indef block or ban, is a little heavy. A 1-hour block would likely do the trick, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC) For crying out loud, it is just a silly little tag. Just let it be people. The presence or lack of tag doesn't do anything to change the status quo. Why so many want to edit war over a tag is beyond me, but to suggest edit warring should result in an indefinite block and formal ban is beyond ridiculous. It isn't even remotely that important. There are a thousand ways people could better spend their time 1) arguing over the tag and 2) worrying what other people think about it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Actually, Thaddeus, it's not just a tag -- it's a tag that says "Hey, everybody, come delete me!"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) And frankly, anyone who even thinks about deleting it will get a trout followed by an even bigger trout. Just ... don't. Black Kite 20:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC) "All we are saying.... is give peace a chance". GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC) The best solution I've found in these situations is often to delete the userpage altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I would rather it stayed as is, if reality and common sense isn't going to win the day. The sooner that uninformed readers learn about the various idiosyncrasies of Misplaced Pages, like the running joke non-status of tags, the better for them. Coming here and finding a red-link won't help them on this learning path one bit. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Plus deletion removes some of the evidence from those users seeking answers to the question as to why VK is blocked indefinitely from editing the site (presuming that is that they get that far in their knowledge quest, and have passed the first hurdle in knowing not to trust any tag they see on a random users page and to instead delve behind the scenes, WP:CSI style) MickMacNee (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC) My reasoning for threatening an indefinite block are simple. This kind of edit warring is disruptive, and is all about making silly points in a conflict that has nothing to do with improving an encyclopedia. Quite frankly, its often grave-dancing behavior, which should be strictly discouraged. I have no tolerance for such displays, and neither should any of you.--Tznkai (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Why is this editor's talk page being vandalized? An indefinite block is not a ban. If Vk chooses to retire that's their decision. Their block was unseemly enough and pushed by the worst kind of partisans, but now to have this abusive antagonistic and disruptive display is outrageous. Anyone who alters this editor's talk page from their Vintagekits' desired state should be indefinitely blocked. Simple as that. This kind of bullying is unacceptable and makes clear the kind of abuse this editor was suffering. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Just one question, why are some of ya describing Vk as they? Vk is a him. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) See Singular they. Rockpocket 01:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Phew, I thought ya'll were describing Vk as having 'multiple personalities'. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Not appropriate. This back and forth bickering is not appropriate on a banned users talk page. The hint should have been taken when the user page was protected. If it continues I will protect this page and take a trout to those who led me to do so. Take it to ANI(or even better just drop it), arguing here is nothing more than a drama magnet. 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Ah Chillum, you are in error; VK is not banned but blocked, a subtle difference I agree, but a nevertheless a difference. The problem is that all debate that lead to the blocking, before and after, is null and void. The reason for this is that the Arbitrator and those few that quickly arrived in the night and pushed the block through in an hour were in error by their unnecessary haste. Therefore all debate that followed was biased, poisoned and influenced by the fact that an Arbitator has already declared him guilty. This is the reason I want VK to take the matter to Arbcom (RLevse if he is still around, recused). Then, at least we will have a fair and impartial result, otherwise the bickering here is unlikely to cease.  Giano  07:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Agreed. --Domer48'fenian' 10:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I've currently 'no clues' as to Vk's status. Is he retired, banned, indef-blocked, a victim of abduction, re-programed, etc? GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC) He added the retired tag some months ago, and resumed editing with the tag in place. He is currently blocked indefinitely. Personally, at this point, unless the editor files a request for lifting the block with the ArbCom soon, I would favor turning the user page into a redirect to the talk page, and then full protecting the redirect. It would allow someone who really wanted to see the user page history to still do so, but it would take a bit of pointed effort to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC) The talk page history is viewable. If this editor chooses to retire and to post something on their page accordingly that's within their discretion. The vandalism and campaign of attacks against this editor, who's already been blocked indefinitely, need to stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Which edits were WP:Vandalism? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Have you read the history CoM? His (latest) 'retirement' was 3 months, 800 edits, 5 blocks and 30 edit wars ago. Giano is just playing his usual role, VK is indef blocked, defacto banned, and will remain so barring a miracle. Still, new arbcom, new direction and all that. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) So let him go quietly as he chooses. There's no need to rub salt in his wounds or to stick unsightly templates on his usertalk page. It looks like a vendetta in a dispute that you and those siding with you already won. There's no policy restricting people from retiring or unretiring. Just leave him be as you would want to be treated had you been the one to receive such a harsh sanction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Why is this such a problem for you Mick?  Giano  17:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC) You can't get that from the numerous statements above? MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Alright. New idea, everyone out, this is a dead horse argued on the page of a non-present editor, but if you insist on continuing to discuss it, do it on WP:ANI or I can sacrifice my own talk page to the task.--Tznkai (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I agree that it should be discussed elsewhere. Vintagekits' page should be restored to the state he put it until there is a consensus directing otherwise. The standard policy seems clear in favoring respect for other editors even when they've been sanctioned and to allow editors to retire and unretire at their discretion. This looks like a disruptive campaign of antagonism by partisans who aren't satisfied with the indefinite block they already won. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Trouts all around. Take a hint, this should be discussed in a neutral venue or not at all. VK is not participating in this discussion and that is the only reason to have a discussion here. I am protecting this page for 24 hours, hopefully by tomorrow more sense will be shown. 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) AfD nomination of Edward O'Brien (Irish republican) An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Edward O'Brien (Irish republican). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Edward O'Brien (Irish republican). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC) RfD nomination of 'The Great White Hope'. I have nominated 'The Great White Hope'. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Request for feedback Alright VK, Kattis from the HB here. Myself and the Da finally finished out wiki page and was wondering what the next step is re; feedback. Type this into the wiki search bar... Free State Intelligence Department - Oriel House I'm not sure if the page is properly live yet as its not coming up when I google search it. Could you make the other members of the 'The Irish Republicanism WikiProject' group aware as I couldn't see a 'talk' tab to share this. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.209.68 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Unreferenced BLPs Hello Vintagekits! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 13 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list: Robenílson Vieira de Jesus - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Georgian Popescu - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Asylbek Talasbaev - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Cathal Boylan - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Mark McAllister The article Mark McAllister has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: Non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as the Irish leagues are not fully professional. Also fails notability and verifiability due to lack of sources. While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- BigDom 12:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Articles for deletion nomination of The Lying Down Game I have nominated The Lying Down Game, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Lying Down Game. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg Thanks for uploading File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media). PLEASE NOTE: I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again. If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page. If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page. Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Clothing store listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clothing store. Since you had some involvement with the Clothing store redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Kieran Nugent.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kieran Nugent.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Saibo (Δ) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Unblock request This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway. Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. In particular, you should see WP:NOTTHEM and would have to address the fact that stringent terms have already been attempted before (User talk:Vintagekits/terms). See also comments at the ANI discussion about this request. Rd232 11:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. See discussion at WP:ANI#Vintagekits seeks unblock.  Sandstein  17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) So far the few who have participated are unanimous in opposing an unblock. Doing this on Christmas is probably not going to win any sympathy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Can I just point out for the record that VK is not currently socking, nor has he been - to my knowledge - since his indef block - Alison 23:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC) In that case, I've no probs with unblocking. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I note the SPI on MFIreland being suspected as a sock, has been closed per lack of 'diff's for evidence. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC) If by mentioning socking you intend to imply that the standard offer applies, I wish you would just say so. The conversation at ANI is not about socking, and he was not blocked for socking. The SPI case did not find evidence of socking. Fine. I'm willing to believe that, it doesn't change my position one bit as I wasn't previously aware of it anyway. The offer is just a suggested course of action, it does not apply in every case. I am a big fan of it myself but I don't believe this is a situation where it should be invoked. Even if it was VK continues to blame others for his own blocking, showing no signs of intending to change his behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC) VK, I recommend you admit responsibility for your own indef block. If you don't? well you see the trend at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC) And the few users who do support unblocking you have indicated a rather elaborate set of restrictions, including a topic ban from all articles related to Irish or British politics and all articles related to The Troubles, and supervision by a mentor that will not be chosen by you. In the interest of moving the conversation forward it seems appropriate to ask if you would even agree to such restrictions as a condition of being unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Indeed, stick with the Boxing articles. Leave the political stuff to others. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC) This editor need to be unblocked. his opponoents, who have behaved in far worse fashion, have been unblocked. What is the difference with VK? Please explain that to me.  Giacomo  11:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC) WP:NOTTHEM. Rd232 11:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Don't quote stupid, ridiculous essays and links to me! Explain why this is acceptable and an unblock of Vk is not? Are you even aware of the facts? I very nuch doubt it.  Giacomo  11:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC) If "opponents" have "behaved in far worse fashion" then that is an argument to block or chastise them, not to unblock VK. I will support appropriate measures against "opposing" editors to minimize disruption when those are proven with diffs. Let's address that on ANI as an independent issue. This is an encyclopedia, not a boxing match. We don't need to find sparring partners.   Will Beback  talk  11:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Get hold of Alison then, and ask her for some explanations of her behaviour here, I am enjoying a pleasant and relaxed holiday, to which I am hurriedly returning, and leaving the sleezy mire of hypocrisy which I have found here while looking in briefly. Disgraceful and disgusting exhibition of double standards. I have never seen such gross hyppocrisy from so called admins here before.  Giacomo  11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Um, is "hypocrisy" aimed at me? You realise I had no involvement with the unblock of Counter-revolutionary? Also, I think this is another instance where supporters of an editor vocally and even aggressively trying to defend them in their absence is, if anything, counter-productive. If VK makes a serious unblock request (which you're welcome to help him formulate), that would merit lengthy discussion. Discussing the now-declined request this much merely prejudices any future request. Rd232 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Eh, it's Giacomo. Everything he disagrees with is proof of Misplaced Pages's moral decline & hypocrisy. Best to just ignore him. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC) You know what would be totally awesome? If we used Vintagekits' talk page to talk to and about Vintagekits, and not each other! Vintagekits, there are three audiences that will be reviewing your block request. People who know you and are inclined to help you out, people who know you and are disinclined to help you out, and people who don't know you at all. If you even appear to place any of the blame for your block on someone else's shoulders, that last group will not help you. Its just the way it is around here.--Tznkai (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC) With unblock requests worded like the one under discussion here, standard procedure is to decline the request. If he's serious about being unblocked, he is free to submit a properly-worded unblock request. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Far from ignoring the multitude of reason for my various blocks I am fully aware of them and hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. My indefinate block was ushered through on the back of a bandwagon whilst half the world slept. When the remainder of the world awoke they were basically told it was too late. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for, yes. But I also understand that there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished and many have shown their faces here already. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with those editors in futures - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion is enough to prove what I have said above is true. will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. p.s. apologies for the shoddy original unblock request, one would think that with all my experience that I would know what the correct procedure was, however I am obviously out of practice.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Well that sounds a little more like an unblock request, though you should probably address the old User talk:Vintagekits/terms specifically since that came up in the recent ANI discussion. When you're ready, use the appropriate unblock request template, and someone should then start a new thread on WP:AN. Unfortunately the starting of an ANI discussion in relation to your recent request may have poisoned the well a bit, so you may have to work extra hard to convince people to have you back. Rd232 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC) A friendly word of advice: In such an unblock request, don't say anything about other editors. It will, for sure, result in an "unblock declined". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC) I think what's being sought, is an apology for being un-civil (the colour languages on talkpages) & prior to your indef-block, the usage of socks. Plus a promise to do neither again. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC) The second time VK was blocked for incivility, back in February 2007, he solemnly promised to "avoid comments that even could come close to being perceived as attacks or incivility". He's been blocked 20 times for personal attacks since then, not to mention the edit warring blocks. Following many of those blocks he's promised to reform. But he is who he is, and at this point it'd be foolish to assume he's capable of change, no matter how sincere his promises may be. See The Scorpion and the Frog.   Will Beback  talk  08:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Why the fuck should VK apologise for the "usage of socks"? When was the last time he socked? It certainly wasn't anything to do with his last block was it? VK has certainly got it half right though, you only have to look at the history of the now disgraced admin who blocked him last time, who clearly had it in for VK to such an extent that he was busy gathering villagers with pitchforks to ban VK while ignoring that the article that caused the problems had a BLP violation in that his death was completely unsourced! And isn't it funny how two things I've taken to ANI recently have had little to no input, the no input being an IP editor who violates BLP with virtually every single edit they make. But VK posts an unblock on what should be a quiet day of the year and people are there in the blink of an eye, it would seem keeping VK off Misplaced Pages is far more important than upholing BLP round here... 2 lines of K303 13:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Why should he? Well, how badly does he want to edit? Editing here is a privilege, not a right. And blaming others for getting blocked will accomplish nothing, so I'm trying to imagine how your comments are likely to help the blockee in this case. As to the other items you mention, I'll take a look, but IP's can't be given lengthy blocks except in limited circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Oh just grovel to them VK, crawl on your hands and knees shouting "I'm nout but a thick bog peasant, please kind sirs let me edit, I'll be ever so good and brown my nose" I rather think that is what is required. Were you pretending to be a fine upstanding English gentleman, then of course you would be aplauded and welcomed back, even if you had been "abusing multiple accounts and using threatening behaviour" all behaviour seemingly taught on the playing fields of Eton. It looks to me like you are perceived to be the wrong nationality and type.  Giacomo  13:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC) How badly does he want to edit? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC) About as badly as User:Counter-revolutionary, one of his old prime-agressors, who has just been welomed back after a two year block for all forms of deporable behaviour. It seems there is one rule for the Brits and one for the Irish.  Giacomo  13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Yeh, a lot of us Yanks have it in for the Irish while we love the British (guess which one we fought two wars against). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Oh I had no idea, that decisions solely up to you "Yanks." I thought this was an internationally collaborative project. Silly me.  Giacomo  14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) And how does a baseless accusation of anti-Irish bias aid in that collaboration? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) The unblock of the other user looks questionable, and you're free to follow the guy's edits and see if he misbehaves, and then take it to the admins. None of that has anything to do with O'Vintagekits, though. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC) I support Vintagekits return to productive contributing. Under some restrictions perhaps for a couple of months to help him settle back in and on a short rope as regards rudeness to other contributors, all he has to do is to be polite or be blocked again. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC) That seems fair, provided he stops playing the "look what you made me do" game. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) To focus on socking is a red herring. Yes, Vk has socked before—persistently—but there is nothing to suggest he has done so during the length on this block, despite ample time and opportunity to do so. Expecting (or demanding) an apology for socking is both pointless and punitive. Giano has a point beneath the nationalist spin: every block should be reviewed in the context of the reasons for the block, not other sundry past crimes. Vk seems to have addressed the reasons for his block on the second attempt. But, in my opinion, a major concern remains: denial of responsibility ("The actually block was malicious in the first place", "there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished"). If you don't demonstrate that you appreciate why your actions led to a block (and instead blame the actions of others) its unlikely you can make the judgments required to avoid making the same comments in future. My reading of both requests is that Vk believes he was blocked unfairly by a conspiracy of others. Only if the community accepts this should he be unblocked. Rockpocket 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC) I dont really want to focus on this as it is exactly the type of negativity that I want to avoid but do you agree that there are a band (orcastrated or not) who would not wish to see my return to wiki no matter what I said. Lets not kid ourselves here eh!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) I expect there are editors that consider your bridges well and truly burnt, and no matter what you say now will be unlikely to support your unblocking. But you might consider why some people feel that way (hint: the 31 prior blocks may have something to do with it) and instead try to convince those who are willing to give you another chance that you know how to avoid reaching 32. Rockpocket 21:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you Rockpocket, I think we will both agree that VK was a thorn in many sides and I will conceed that when in drink he could be objectionable. However, as he says "Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with those editors in futures." I know that his RL responsibilities have increased and with them his sense of responsibility. Does one punish the adult for the sins of the child? returning to that punishment, the reasons many were unhapy with his block was becase it was most defiitely as VK says hurriedly "ushered through on the back of a bandwagon whilst half the world slept." I have never before or since seen such a hurried indeff, in one time zone. Regardless of if you like it or not, VK was indeffed while Ireland was asleep. Now that his old adversaris are all unblocked, My view is that comon justice demands the lifting of this block.  Giacomo  17:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC) But irrespective of whether the indef was hurried through or not, the fact remains that there was a good reason the initial block was placed. Few, if any, of the editors who argued against the nature of the indef took issue with that. Vk-with-added-responsibilities said he would be happy to answer queries. So I have four before offering an opinion on the merits of his request. Do you think it is acceptable to refer to another editor, completely unprovoked, as a "fucking arsehole" or an "ego maniac"? Should editors who repeatedly or persistently use bilious language in personal attacks or in reference to other editors be welcome in our community? Pursuant to your answer above, why? If you were unblocked and used such language again in reference to another editor, should this block be immediately reinstated? Thanks, Rockpocket 17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Just to be clear: I support having Vk's indef block lifted, therefore I aint requesting anything from VK in his unblock request. I merely observed about the kind of unblock request he'll need, to get the community to support his unblock. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC) You're doing fine Vk. Remaining patient, no foul language usage, no socking. Such an approach helps & I believe at some point in 2011, you'll be unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editor in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. Decline reason: At this point, there's no way for you to be unblocked without a community consensus at AN or ANI (or appeal to BASC). Trouble is that starting such a thread so soon after the last one is unlikely to accomplish much. Consensus can change, but rarely does it overnight. My best advice would be to either wait a few months and try for return per WP:OFFER or to email BASC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Here's the problem: At the recent ANI discussion, most users were opposed to you being unblocked. The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor. I asked above if you would be willing to agree to these conditions and I don't see an answer anywhere. You have a few more supporters here now, but another discussion will be warranted if we are to seriously consider unblocking you. I don't see any point to initiating said discussion until you indicate whether or not you would be willing to accept such restrictions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC) It's quite apparent (at the moment) that if/when Vk is unblocked, another ANI community review will occur. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC) side conversation The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. the problem with that is, were similar restrictions imposed on his adversaries who behaved in far worse fashion and who are now unblocked after similar blocks - are you seeking to bias the Troubles debates and pages?  Giacomo  20:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Giano, your backhanded accusation of bad faith is really not going to help the situation. I'm sure you are aware of WP:NOTTHEM. I'm not saying VK has to agree to these terms, I'm saying he should answer the querstion of whether he would be willing to agree to them or not. If the answer is no, then we know before re-starting the discussion that that particular option is off the table. That's all, there is no conspiracy, just a simple request for clarification of a point that has already come up in these discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Please don't quote these ridiculous WP-THINGS to me because I never read them as they are usually written by Admins atemptimg to justify their own bad behaviour. I can assure you I meant nothing "backhanded," in fact, my meaning was quite obvious. You have allowed back his adversaries (who committed worse "crimes") without a murmer of dissent; now, just get on and unblock VK who has, unlike them, promised to mend his ways. It's begining to look like a huge bias.  Giacomo  21:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC) I haven't personally allowed anyone back in. I don't even know who you are talking about and I don't care to find out either. We are discussing VKs possible unblock. Some other user being unblocked by some other admin is a separate matter, and has abcolutely nothing to do with the simple question I am asking for an answer to. This bias you speak of, as it applies to me anyway, is purely a product of your imagination. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC) If you have not bothered to avail yourself of the facts pertenent to this case perhaps you sould not be commenting here at all. Such ignorance is worryingly common amongst Admins keen to have their names seen here, there and everywhere.  Giacomo  21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC) I have to wonder, at this point, if Giaco is actually trying to sabotage VK's attempt to get unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Your wonderings are of very little value.  Giacomo  21:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) My comments are every bit as valuable as yours. But thanks for the non-denial denial :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC) This entire conversation is of little value at this point, all I wanted was a simple yes or no answer to a question, and you have decided to drag imaginary nationalist conspiracies into it. I don't care one bit if VK is Irish, English, Iranian, Australian, Navajo, Greek, Albanian, etc. I'll have you know I'm half Irish Catholic myself, so if anything I would be more inclined to be biased in his favor. Now, if we could just let this non-issue alone and give VK a chance to answer the question with either a yes or a no that would be super. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Giano - who are these "adversaries who behaved in far worse fashion and who are now unblocked after similar blocks" because I'm really not seeing them? I hope that's not a reference to Counter-rev, as he was 1) neither Sussexman nor David Lauder, both of whom are still well and truly blocked and 2) was never as abusive as VintageKits was in his prime. See my talk page where I went over that already during the week - Alison 10:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) I see, so WJBscribe was lying/grossly exagerating here: "19:26, 1 July 2008 WJBscribe (talk | contribs) blocked Counter-revolutionary (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (abusing multiple accounts, threatening behaviour)" and that well known upstanding paragon of Wiki virtue Rlevse (renamed as Vanquished on VK's block log) was mreley upholding the sacred Wiki after the disgraceful night of dirty knives when North America hurriedly sent VK packing while Ireland slept - I hope you are proud of that in North America! One only has to look at the names on his block log to see what was happenng a combination of monumantal and engineered ignorance. You Alison, released Counter-revolutionary from his cage in time for the 2010 election after asking for few if any reasurrances of futire behaviour. Yet, when VK wants similarly releasing all hell breaks loose as the drones march out to comment, clearly (as Beeblebrox admits) with mot a clue about that which they are comenting on. I find this all very odd indeed. I am delighted that VK states he is a reformed charactor and hope he has the chance to prove that - a great pity you did not require similar assurances from CR.  Giacomo  11:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Please cease posting comments to this thread in the recent nationalist-battleground and what-about-that-guy vein. You clearly support VK's unblock, but your efforts are counterproductive to that aim and you seem unable to recognise that (as I said before, if you have current issues with other editors, then pursue DR as appropriate). My expectation is that VK will address the issue of whether he would accept the previous unblock terms and why they would work this time (with the hope that successfully respecting them would later give some chance of them being lifted) or else make the best case he can why he should be given the chance to show that such terms aren't necessary now. Then we can have another AN thread, where I don't rate his chances in the near future, but with a good enough effort, who knows. At any rate, there's no other way back, and you're not helping - quite the opposite. Rd232 13:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC) I'm sure you all hate haveing the nationalistic overtones of this debate brought out into the open, but there are no other conclusions one can draw? Bad behaviour hapened on both sides, yet only one side continues to be punished - or have you just unblocked VK? Oh and will you all please stop quoting these stupid WP-things at me, all written by yourselves. Either behave fairly or be quite yourself.  Giacomo  13:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Any more of this nonsense and I'll page ban you from here, mostly for VK's benefit but also for your own. Rd232 15:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Well, he's still blocked. Your reverse-psychology strategy worked. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC) - the question to Vintagekits .... The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor...Would you be willing to accept such a condition? I am unsure but I imagine such a condition would not be indefinite but perhaps for say six months or until the community could see you moving forward in a collaborative manner and a measure of trust and support was there to lift the restriction.Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Agree - address that, VK, or else make the best case you can why you should be given the chance to show that such terms aren't necessary now. Then we can have another AN thread and see where we stand. Rd232 15:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC) that conditionality wouldnt annoy me to be honest. I think people will be surprised with how I handle my self from now on so I would have no objection to a restriction like that.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) IMHO, an AN or ANI report/thread shouldn't be opened until Vk's unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC) VK shouldn't be unblocked until the community has agreed to removal of the effective community ban. Rd232 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Oops, I forgot, it was a community ban. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Bringing it up again at ANI could result in disappointment for VK, but could also be the fair thing to do, as the worst the group is likely to do is say "No" again. Just make sure you-know-who doesn't put his oar in and gum up the works for VK. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC) I find it fairly hard to take this process serious, especially considering the CR episode. My first unblock request was largely rejeced out oof hand because I didnt explain myself and then I did in the second and it was rejected because it was "too soon". Whats a guy gotta do?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Be patienet. Remember, there's alot of editors out there, who still don't trust you & aren't quick to forgive your past behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Make a third one. You've explained yourself better, and as it seems you're willing to accept the terms, it seems reasonable to now discuss an unblock at AN. I think the "too soon" issue may have been because at that point you hadn't addressed the terms, and now you have I wouldn't expect it to happen again. (And if it does, I'm happy to start an AN thread anyway.) Rd232 17:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC) As per the above, you have explained your position and alluded to your understanding of why you were restricted and you have offered and accepted the possible restrictions such as mentor and topic restriction, so moving forward and with this in mind your offer and request is worth presenting to the community, although I am sure you know there is no guarantee, if you are serious I suggest you present the new situation in an unblock template for community consideration. Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Disclosure; I'm half Irish, so maybe I empathize a bit too much, but I suggest you try again right away(apppears to me you have a bit of positive momentum right now) and if anybody who might be Christian throws up the "31 blocks" objection, just remind them, especially at this time of year, that 31 is not . Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Unblock Request - Take III This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editors in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project? Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am here for. Will I disagree with people? I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues which is the main thing. That is about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. Decline reason: Enough si enough. I have revoked your access to this talk page, please direct any further appeals to the Arbitration Committee via their Ban Appeals Subcommittee, the community is not receptive to unblocking you. Any unblock at this point will have to come from the Committee. Courcelles 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. You might want to fix the spelling errors and also clarify the "not...not" statement. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Chuck in a bit about your agreement to being sanctioned from the British & Irish political areas of Misplaced Pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Bit disappointing, VK - you just copied and pasted Take II without even reading carefully enough to find obvious spelling mistakes, never mind address the points discussed after Take II. This might easily look a bit cavalier to some, which seems silly when you're trying to convince people. Try and fix the issues mentioned before anything else happens. Rd232 14:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC) 'Cavalier' - do you agree with the rationale behind the closing of 'Take II'. By the way, my spelling is always terrible. It always has been, it always will be. If you find that offensive then I can only apologies. --Vintagekits (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Well, that response robs me of any remaining desire to help you. I wash my hands of this. Rd232 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I almost closed this one out of hand, thinking it a duplicate of the previous one. Which it is... UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC) What more would you like to see in this request?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC) What do you think are the reasons you got into trouble here? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Many because I was reeled in by dishonest people. What about you?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC) What were you blocked for? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC) It's all set about in my block log and the above discussions.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Do YOU understand what you were blocked for? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Now now KB, have a bit of manners when you are on my talkpage. Its not like you have showered yourself in glory when you have been here before. I'll answer your question with a question. Have you read my unblock request?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I have. And I don't believe your reasons for requesting an unblock. You were on a final final chance and you blew it out of the water. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I don't think you realise Kittybrewster, that it is your friends who have largley caused the problem which VK has had. However, I'm sure all concerned are noticing, that VK is behaving with maturity and gravitas and not rising to your bait, so perhaps a little introspection would be beneficial for you.  Giacomo  21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Indeed you are right; I don't realise that my friends (whatever that means) have largely caused VK's problem. Nor do I think VK has begun to make clear that he is responsible. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Whatever makes you happy Kittybrewster can only be applauded. However, I don't think you will find than VK or indeed anyone other eager to respond to yout trolling here. Good evening.  Giacomo  21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I was about ready to read yet another attempt by Giaco to sabotage VK's comeback attempt, but VK seems to have done a good job sabotaging himself this time. I can only conclude that he really, really does not want to edit on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ Folks, this bickering is pointless. Whatever anyone's view of the unblock request, it's going to need an ANI discussion to consider it, and a finger-pointing exercise here does not nothing to assist anyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I was ready to log a "support unblock", but it's clear he's not serious, so forget it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Just a courtesy notice that I have asked at WP:AN for a previously uninvolved admin to come deal with this, it has obviously dragged on far too long. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Userpage The userpage should be changed to indef block, as that's what VK's status currently is. He's certainly not retired. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC) True though that may be, is it really that big of a deal? Anyone can see from this page that the "retirement" was not voluntary. In short you are correct but it is hardly the most pressing issue here. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC) It's just illogical to keep thate retirement tag, when that's not the situation. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I agree completely. I just don't see it as a pressing problem. There has already been a slo-mo edit war over this for over a year, and it's still there. There are things that are worth fighting for and things that are not. I suggest this falls into the "not" category. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I changed it to indefblocked yesterday, especially since consensus was formed at AN/I that he's blocked indefinitely, but I was reverted out of hand by his friend. As usual, on Misplaced Pages, it's not about what you do but who you know. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) It's not worth edit-warring over. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Nothing ever is.--Tznkai (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel you have been treated unfairly, there have been several community discussions wherein a clear consensus was established that you should remain blocked. Emailing me as if this was all my doing isn't going to change that one bit. You may contact WP:BASC if you want to appeal this any further, I'd appreciate it if you did not email me any further regarding this as I couldn't override the community's decision even if I wanted to. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Toi tim.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Toi tim.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:O'hanlon.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:O'hanlon.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Moved to Commons and now used on Fergal O'Hanlon - Alison 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Poster50r.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Poster50r.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Irhm sign.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Irhm sign.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Grave of emmet.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grave of emmet.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Commons. We'll have it for ga.wikipedia - Alison 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bresli an phob.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bresli an phob.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:All 350.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:All 350.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:JimBreen.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JimBreen.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi VK, I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. That’s assuming, of course, I’m not already seeing you and am too stupid to realise it. Be happy! Giano (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)