Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Evidence - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | The Troubles

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gibnews (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 15 September 2007 (→evidence by Gibnews). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:08, 15 September 2007 by Gibnews (talk | contribs) (→evidence by Gibnews)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses as short as possible; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by BigDunc

User:W. Frank is Editing Disruptively

User:W. Frank is not trying to find consensus on this issue, but instead is disruptively edit warring and refusing to take part in discussion.

On 8 and 9 August, W. Frank changed IRA to PIRA across several articles;

On 9 August 3 editors asked W. Frank to stop changing IRA to PIRA against the consensus on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army, where there was an ongoing discussion ;

On 9 August after 2 of the requests above were made, W. Frank continued to change IRA to PIRA without taking part in the discussion;

From 12 to 15 August, W. Frank continued to change IRA to PIRA without taking part in the discussion;

On 14 August W. Frank refused to take part in the discussion on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army and made his own demand about what acronym should be used;

At 10:58 on 15 August W. Frank was warned about his conduct by administrator Spartaz;

At 22:45, 23:11 and on August 15 and 06:25 on August 16 W. Frank was asked by Spartaz to stop changing IRA to PIRA;

At 23:47 on August 15 W. Frank made his first post (and to date, only post regarding this) to the centralised discussion on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army which he was made aware of six days before, and falsely claimed "that the team editors discuss me behind my back without ever a warning or a template or a courtesy notification". His post had previously been spammed to several other talk pages and ignored all the ongoing discussion, and was wikilawyering at its worst and wasn't an attempt to discuss at all.

On 20 August an IP editor vandalised an article; W. Frank restored the material with an edit summary of "retroring material deleted by IP in two unexplained edits: please explain your rationale on article's discussion page"; However he actually changed IRA to PIRA at the same time, despite being asked not to do this;

On 27 August W. Frank (editing with an IP Address by his own admission) again changed IRA to PIRA;

On 27 August admininistrator Alison asked W. Frank to stop being disruptive; And on 28 August Administrator Spartaz again asked W. Frank to stop changing the acronym without consensus;

User:Traditional unionist is editing with a conflict of interest

Traditional unionist has recently admitted to being a member of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP);

He has attempted to play down links between the Progressive Unionist Party and the terrorist Ulster Volunteer Force, due to the former's connections with the UUP.

He changed "The PUP is the political wing of" to "The PUP is said to give political advice to";

He changed "The PUP is said to be the political wing of" to "The PUP is said to give political advice to" ;

He changed "The PUP is the political wing of" to "The PUP is said to give advice to" complete with weasel caveat of "(and is considered by many to be it's political wing)";

Evidence presented by SirFozzie

Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a Pro-Unionist Single Purpose Account

User:Conypiece's initial User Page indicates that he has a strong Unionist POV, and that he is on Misplaced Pages as "A Unionist student sick and tired off republican lies..." which he tries to counter by edit warring on numerous articles. If one looks over his editing history, it can be effectively argued that he is a Single Purpose Account with regards to articles regarding Northern Ireland and The Troubles, and tries to edit them to promote the Unionist cause.

Harry West

Due to the edit war, Both Conypiece and Padraig were blocked for 48 hours by Alison, and the page was protected by myself

User:Conypiece has requested others act in tandem on edit wars User:Conypiece in conflict with User:Domer48 and User:One Night In Hackney regarding Séamus McElwaine

User:Conypiece removing the name of the (republican) MP from an article on a town: (note uncivil edit summary) (Note: Personal attack in edit summary)

User:Conypiece adding pro-Unionist information about an Orange Institution parade to a town summary.

One of his first edits after coming back from a block from edit warring (on a protected page's talk page:

Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is in heavy dispute with regards to flags and Northern Ireland

Padraig has a strong Point of View with regards to the use of the Ulster Banner, the flag of the former government of Northern Ireland and how it should be used on articles on Misplaced Pages. He states that since there is no "official" flag for Northern Ireland, that the Ulster Banner (the former flag) should not be used to represent the country (except for the period of time it was official). He has editwarred over this item frequently, and earned two blocks for revert wars.

He has a userbox on his page That states "This user opposes the ongoing campaign to misuse this flag within Misplaced Pages". A lot of his wars come from pages where the flag is used to represent the country in Templates and lists. Frequent opponents in edit wars are User:Astrotrain and User:Biofoundationsoflanguage.

Examples:

(against User:Astrotrain: List of British Flags

(against User:Astrotrain and User:Biofoundationsoflanguage (amongst others on both sides), Template:UKFlags

Other noteable articles/templates that he has warred against User:Astrotrain or User:Biofoundationsoflanguage: Template:UK subdivisions, Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations, Template:World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom

Harry West: Padraig was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring with User:Conypiece on Harry West by User:Alison, after which the article was protected by myself: (see Conypiece above, diffs can be provided.)

Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), habitual edit warrior

When I was preparing this submission, I was struck by the "Two Astrotrain"s that I saw by his contributions. One is a really good editor, who's added over 100 articles to Misplaced Pages. Then there's the other Astrotrain, the one with a block log that testifies to constant incivility and willingness to edit war at the drop of a hat .

Most of the articles/templates that he edit wars on are already described above. Time and time again, he's gone to the edge of 3RR or over the edge (usually resulting in a block for one or both sides), and he doesn't usually lack for opponents in his edit wars. Unfortunately, the "Bad Astrotrain" is starting to outweigh the "Good Astrotrain", and it has to be determined if a edit warrior who's logged 6 blocks in 5 months (3/22, 4/10, 7/19, 8/5, 8/16, 8/19), is a net positive to the project.

Additional: Please look at this Checkuser report: where Astrotrain came back as a Possible for an IP address that was edit warring with User:Padraig (just blind reverts of Padraig's material). While this would not be enough to earn Astrotrain a block for using the IP's to continue an editwar (the IP did get a quick block), I would like to submit it as evidence of his behaviour, that he has turned into a revert warrior

SirFozzie 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and sockpuppets

During discussions a few weeks back, Kittybrewster disclosed that he had created at least one, and from the way he said it in the plural, multiple sockpuppets to discourage other editors from wiki-stalking him. At that time, I said that I would have no problem with that, as long as a neutral administrator who was aware of the situation had a list of the alternate accounts. It appeared that Kittybrewster had done so However, it has now been disclosed by the administrator that this disclosure did not happen. Considering that User:Kittybrewster had a problem earlier with the creation and ownership of articles related to his real-life identity, and going back on his word to provide these details, I have a big problem with him running multiple accounts without proper disclosure, and request that ArbCom or CheckUser determine if A) Kittybrewster has indeed created multiple accounts, and B) has used them in a way to violate Misplaced Pages's policies on the uses of alternate accounts. SirFozzie 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recent entry as an editwarrior

This user, has recently begun edit warring with Padraig regarding the Ulster Banner issue on several articles, and has accumulated three recent blocks for edit warring and 3RR, including one where he was unblocked, stating that he now understood the WP:3RR, but immediately went back to edit warring, and was reblocked for a longer duration. Link to Biofoundationsoflanguage's Block Log. I have asked the members of the Arbitration Committee to allow User:Biofoundationsoflanguage as an involved party. He is new to this series of issues, but he is seemingly no less enthusiastic then any other in these edit wars.

Examples of edit war on List of British Flags:

Awarding a barnstar to User:Conypiece, after he was blocked for fourty eight hours and added to this Arbitration Committee case (nothing wrong with it, but it's obvious from the award where his PoV is coming from.

SirFozzie 18:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protecting the pages that are under dispute

For evidence, I have protected three pages that have had edit wars break out amongst the editors in this dispute.

They are: List of British flags (amongst, well, quite a few folks in this ArbCom, including User:Domer48, User:Padraig, User:Jonto, User:Biofoundationsoflanguage, and User:BigDunc.)

‎Harry West (Amongst User:Conypiece, User:Astrotrain, User:Domer48, User:Padraig, User:Scalpfalmer)

Orange Institution (Amongst User:Conypiece, User:Aatomic1, User:Traditional unionist, User:One Night In Hackney with others) SirFozzie 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Thepiper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First off, I note with interest Rockpocket's notes regarding Thepiper, and also agree with Kittybrewster that the account is too familiar with the personalities in this situation to honestly be a new account.

Now, to the meat of my reply. Thepiper's initial sentences state No matter what User:Rockpocket will try and tell you, (I was looking at the charges he is preferring), these troubles started in 1603, in the Plantation of Ulster, and not here on Misplaced Pages. Irish People, in their own native country, had a very hard time, to put it mildly..

I am not going to say that there may not be a kernel of truth to what he says. I'm part-Irish by ancestry (along with several other nationalities), but I am no expert in the field. Until I volunteered to mentor User:Vintagekits when it looked like he was getting a rough break and being hounded by several editors, I had no knowledge of the details of "The Troubles".

However, when it comes to editing Misplaced Pages, the ill-feelings does not, and CAN not excuse making Misplaced Pages the latest battleground in the The Troubles. That's one of the core principles of Misplaced Pages. I have no time for editors whose only focus on WP is either glorifying their side of a conflict, or denigrating the other side. There are editors on BOTH sides of the issue that fit that last definition, by the way. SirFozzie 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), contributing to edit wars

User:Domer48 was one of the primary parties in the Great Irish Famine case, which was recently before ArbCom. While he is only a contributory part of this ArbCom case, he does have a part to play. His primary focus is on Northern Ireland articles and The Troubles, and while he generally does attempt to take items to the talk page and work with other editors, occasionally he lapses into personal attacks. (See this diff for an example of a comment that he got blocked for. and occasionally will get involved in an edit war.

For example: Séamus McElwaine

and several other edits in that edit war, against Conypiece. SirFozzie 20:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Astrotrain

I find his accusations laughable, to be quite honest. I have given evidence against both "sides" in this issue. I have blocked people on both sides of this issue. I have actually received a barnstar for my efforts from User:Major Bonkers, who no one can deny is partial to one side in the dispute (although does not let it colour his edits that I can see). SirFozzie 13:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Gold heart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) using multiple accounts to harass User:Alison both on and off-WP

At this point in the case, I hope the ArbCom has already decided for themselves that User:Gold heart, who also used the accounts User:Thepiper and User:Gold Heart (Temp) in this ArbCom case, has violated WP:SOCK. However, I now wish to submit much more powerful (and to me, DISGUSTING) evidence. The person behind all these accounts has created further sockpuppet accounts, amongst them User:Pronterra and User:Perolla and is using them to out, and harass User:Alison both on and off-Misplaced Pages, about her history. Alison has posted publicly about this , and I hope she forwards the emails that she has received to the Arbitration Committee. SirFozzie 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • My relationship with Alison goes way back to Feb/2007, before she became Admin, and has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. I met her in Dublin in July, and we had coffee together. Subsequently, I got very depressed, never did I think that I could fall in love over the internet, and certainly it was never my intention. For that reason I stayed at WP for some months longer than I should have, and my mental state, which which is normally good, began to deteriorate, and I began to suffer from huge depression. In fact, I almost committed suicide on one particular night. It was a classic case of a situation trapped within cyberspace that I wasn't able to deal with. It has absolutely nothing to do with Vintagekits, as SirFozzie claims. User:Gold_heart 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by One Night In Hackney

Counter-revolutionary has ignored WP:NPOV

After Tyrenius spent about four hours editing Norman Stronge to make it NPOV () Counter-revolutionary has repeatedly changed "killed" back to "murdered".

(note: the last edit took place while Vintagekits was indefinitely blocked)

Other examples (note: James Stronge (Unionist) was killed/murdered at the same time as Norman Stronge, and these diffs post-date Tyrenius changing the Norman Stronge article):

Kittybrewster has admitted to abusive sockpuppetry

Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor with a history of conflict of interest editing (see Arbuthnot family entry), is using sockpuppets to prevent other editors tracking his contributions.

Kittybrewster has previously been blocked twice for COI editing.

Various editors have used articles for deletion debates in a partisan manner

User:Astrotrain, Counter-revolutionary, Kittybrewster, Major Bonkers, and David Lauder have engaged in partisan votestacking that ignored Misplaced Pages notability guidelines during Troubles-related AfD debates, and the debates were also canvassed.

Selected excerpts from deletion debates:

  • "Delete unless it is Misplaced Pages's intention to carry a biography of every dedicated murderer of innocent civilians who ever existed"
  • "Delete: another article glorifying a subversive terrorist in Britain"
  • "the IRA were a proscribed and illegal organisation throughout all of Ireland. There was no "war" in Ireland, just a terrorist campaign by an illegal group of monsters responsible for the deaths of innocents. Glorification of these people in pages on Misplaced Pages should be discouraged entirely. That is not what encyclopaedias are for."

Deletion debates:

Canvassing:

W. Frank has added original research to articles

W. Frank added his own opinions about "civilian" targets to an article without attributing it to a source.

W. Frank removed the source for "Economic targets throughout Belfast" in order to change it to his own opinion of "targets throughout Belfast", which again was not attributed to a source.

(note: first diff is W. Frank editing from an IP, article history for 25 May shows it was obviously him)

W. Frank has added his own opinion ("and regards this heritage as important for continuing electoral success") to an article, absolutely no source for this.

W. Frank has ignored WP:NPOV

Despite W. Frank claiming other editors are adding Irish republican political progaganda to articles, he did the exact same thing.

On 17 May an unsourced addition that failed NPOV by a long way (phrases such as The trial itself proved something of a farce and Their testimony, when it was given, was rubbished are a bit of a giveaway) was added to an article.

20 minutes later I reverted the addition with a clear edit summary of "rv - good faith edit, but unsourced and fails WP:NPOV".

Two months later on 22 July W. Frank added back the unsourced information, probably assuming bad faith that I only remove negative POV about Irish republicans.

I later discovered the entire addition was a copyright violation from an article written by Sinn Féin activist Danny Morrison.

I recently asked W. Frank to explain his edit to this article, and received a less than satisfactory response (complete with attacks on me). Contrary to his response, there was no reference at the time for the trial information that was added, and if an editor cannot see that The trial itself proved something of a farce and Their testimony, when it was given, was rubbished are clearly POV and cannot be stated as fact his judgement is rather suspect.

Astrotrain has ignored WP:NPOV

Astrotrain repeatedly added "terrorist" without attribtution to who said a particular incident was terrorist.

Astrotrain has added original research to articles

Astrotrain added "suicide" categories to the article about the 1981 Irish hunger strike and the participants. As a source () Padraig posted on the article talk page () shows, the official causes of death were not officially listed as "suicide".

Response to Astrotrain's evidence

As said repeatedly and at length, the Irish Republican Army is not a terrorist organisation. As for 303, that's been dealt with before here. 303 refers to a Roland TB-303 used in producing underground dance music. My username is a song and 303s are used in the production of that song. There's an audio sample on both the Misplaced Pages page and the externally linked page, which confirms that is the case. It seems some people will try and find the most tenuous possible connection so they can assume bad faith. One Night In Hackney303 10:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim I only removed it when forced to is also completely untrue. I was not forced to change it at all, I changed it voluntarily as a gesture of good faith while discussion was ongoing, as the archive shows, and despite numerous editors not having a problem with 1916 I voluntarily changed that as well. Astrotrain's "evidence" is nothing more than a series of false allegations not backed up by any supporting diffs. One Night In Hackney303 13:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As hilarious as Astrotrain's "evidence" and baiting is, he really should read my statement. I'm here for the duration of the case, then I'm gone. So if you want to waste your time any further, feel free. One Night In Hackney303 17:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain has been disruptive

Astrotrain has repeatedly redirected articles related to Irish republicanism without discussion, or nominated them for deletion in contentious AfDs.

Only after his redirect was reverted for the fourth time did he propose a merge and attempt to discuss it.

Similarly only after being reverted twice was an attempt made to discuss it.

(second AfD closed as speedy keep due to bad faith nomination)

Response to evidence by Traditional unionist

Firstly, can you in all honesty claim that other editors wear their POV on their sleeve when your username is "Traditional unionist"? Secondly, I have no real POV regarding Ireland unlike the overwhelming majority of people involved in this case. As you're clearly not aware with your constant references to "nationalists", I'm English born and bred.

Your latest comments show exactly what the problem is. You come from a strong POV, and see anything that goes counter to that POV as "nationalist propaganda" from "Irish nationalists". You frequently use your POV as arguments, I have repeatedly asked you for sources to back up your claims and you refuse to produce them.

Evidence presented by User:Brixton Busters

User:W. Frank has added original research to an article

W. Frank repeatedly added his own opinion about why the US State Department did not classify the Provisional IRA as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization". The source he used on his third attempt only says "NOT a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), but listed as "active" during 2000" so he was synthesising that and the FTO Misplaced Pages article to draw his own conclusions which is shwn by his talk page argument . I later discovered that the Provisional IRA may never have been classed as an FTO at all, as can be seen here.

Response to evidence presented by Rockpocket

Rockpocket has confirmed that he believes 84.13.156.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is probably User:W. Frank . User:W. Frank has willingly admitted he has also been editing using a similar IP on the same internet service provider 84.13.10.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has also been used to abuse other editors in a similar way . Due to his admission of using one IP, no "outing" can possibly be done by a checkuser taking place to confirm the suspicions of several editors including User:Rockpocket that User:W. Frank was also editing using 84.13.156.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Evidence presented by User:Kittybrewster

The troubles

I am not particularly interested in the troubles and have made few edits on them. Nor am I interested in being wiki-stalked by Irish republicans gathered by Vk off wiki. The more I think about this, the more I think the answer is 42 – but what is the question? This link seems relevant: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Lapsed_Pacifist#User:Lapsed_Pacifist.

Rebuttal re COI editing

I have twice been blocked by User:BrownHairedGirl for COI editing articles about people with my surname but in neither case was there a WP:COI. Both people are extremely distant relations. So what? So are David Cameron, Adam Hart-Davis, Rupert Murdoch, Isabella Blow, Winston Churchill and Alec Douglas-Home, etc. I could go on.

Rebuttal re sockpuppets

I have never had a problem with WP:OWN and indeed created a number of stubs specifically in order to gather more information about those people.

I did indeed create and use different usernames in order that my edits not be pursued by the "friends of" Vintagekits. I did not do this outside wikipolicy and it was not abusive and there were no edits on anything remotely Irish. I did not break my word to anyone nor did I !vote twice on anything. I did write to User:Rockpocket who did not reply. Now that Vintagekits is dead in the water, I can return to using my old username.

Relief at Vintage being blocked

I am pleased that Vintagekits has been stopped from disrupting the development of wikipedia. I found him to be didactic , intelligent, vindictive, sneaky (in more than one sense), threatening , disruptive , self-pitying, prone to blame admins and others - and extremely focused on continuing to do more of the same . He threatened User:Rockpocket with getting what Billy Wrong did, this being a reference to the assassinated Billy Wright (loyalist) and twice told User:W. Frank with whom he was often in dispute that he knew his home address. He referred to Lord Mountbatten as "dandruff", the extremely offensive meaning of which does not need to be spelled out, and he blamed Lord Mountbatten for being responsible for his grandson's murder. Had he stuck to boxers, I would have had no problem with him. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on User:Thepiper

I imagine User:Thepiper is a sockpuppet but don't know whose.

"The troubles started in 1603 ... and Vk is not responsible" is a ludicrous excuse for everybody to lay responsibility elsewhere and blame others. John Major and Tony Blair took precisely the opposite approach as a result of which progress is being made. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Rockpocket

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of poor behaviour.

I will provide evidence only from the last few months to illustrate the persistance of this behaviour despite numerous prior warnings. Prior to the extent of the evidence presented here, Vk had been blocked 6 times, by 5 different sysops for

Subsequent to (and a consequence of) the evidence provided here, Vintagekits has been blocked another 5 times (twice indefinately) by a further 4 different sysops (myself, John, SirFozzie, and Alison; the latter two mentors of his choosing). In spite of this, claims are made by Vintagekits of bias against him by a small cabal of admins

In articles regarding The Troubles, and tangential fields in the last few months alone, examples of Vintagekits engaging in:

  • Sock-puppetry (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits for full case)
  • Meat-puppetry at least twice (summarised, , evidence of off-wiki recruitment , see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits for full case)
  • Personal attacks and incivility on Misplaced Pages (Note: Vk appears to think that the swapping of, or addition of letters - usually h - disguises his regular use of the word "cunt" in reference to other editors .)
  • Continued personal attacks, threats and incivility by email
  • Low level revert warring to suit his POV (see, for example, a wholescale reversion to a error strewn version of an article because our MoS did not, in his opinion, display enough "respect for holy orders" ) Rockpocket 07:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Even during Vk's current block and during the process of this case, Vk admits sending emails goading another editor about evidence presented here . Rockpocket 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits recently and knowingly used paramilitary rhetoric to the effect of intimidating other editors

Vintagekits was recently blocked indefinitely (twice) for using paramilitary rhetoric to threaten or intimidate others. The first incidence of this occurred after I issued a short block for a number of attacks and examples of incivility, culminating in him welcoming a new editor Semtex set Ireland free (talk · contribs) to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Irish Republicanism with the comments, "Help set us free from the murderous bassa's " and "they are all around us". This is typical of Vintagekits' partisan and belligerent editing on Misplaced Pages. In response to the block, Vintagekits wrote "FUCK OFF ORANGE CHUNTS _ YA@LL GET WHAT BILLY WRONG DID!! TIOCFAIDH AR LA!!!" For context, Orange cunt is a pejorative reference to Protestants in the Irish conflict, Tiocfaidh ár lá is, according to our article, "the unofficial slogan of the Irish Republican movement, especially embraced by the Provisional Irish Republican Army" and Billy Wrong is a coded reference to Billy Wright a loyalist paramilitary who was killed in jail by Irish republican paramilitaries (allegedly in collusion with prison authorities). The clear implication is a threat that the person the comment was in reference to (myself) will be killed, presumably for blocking Vintagekits. This threat is barely credible as I reside many thousands of miles from Vintagekits, however its purpose was clearly to intimidate.

The second, more subtle, instance of this type of rhetoric led to the most recent indef block. For reasons unexplained, Vintagekits investigated and/or obtained the street address of W. Frank (talk · contribs) off wiki. He was discussing an issue relating to Irish republicanism (specifically, Ógra Shinn Féin) with Frank and, apropos of nothing, Vk twice mentioned Frank's address in a coded message to him. (These comments have since been deleted on oversight). For context, paramilitary groups in Ireland have a history of notifying opponents that they "know where they live" to intimidate them (often followed by violence). Frank was clearly aware of this, having also claimed he had received emails from Vintagekits with "graphical threats of violence and arson" (though Vintagekits denies sending such an email ) Alison reviewed the evidence and blocked Vintagekits for "one of those "I know where you live" moments and you did it twice today" I did likewise (before oversight), identified the suspect edits and endorsed the block after confirmation with Alison. I can confirm that at least one other uninvolved admin also identified them independently and approached me to discuss the matter privately (I can provide this editors name to ArbCom if required). Admins John and BrownHairedGirl also endorsed. Vk originally claimed to lack understanding of why Alison blocked, saying "What the hell are you talking about??? I'm baffled!" but later acknowledges he did insert "the street name of an editor into a post." His explanation is that "I thought he would think it was funny" and "I was only having the craic with him". He denies awareness of the personal information guidelines at WP:HARASS and believes "there was no threat" intended and that the block was a "set up" by a number of admins including myself, Alison and John I find it difficult to imagine what humour anyone would find in the release of one's personal information on Misplaced Pages, especially by an editor one was in perpetual dispute with. But considering Vk's history of paramilitary rhetoric and threats, I remain convinced there was intent in those comments and, in this case, the threat is much more geographically credible. Rockpocket 07:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Provocative single purpose accounts stoke the conflict

A significant number of single purpose accounts are involved in this wide ranging dispute. These are often accused of being sockpuppets or meatpuppets used for AfD vote stacking or revert warring (see the evidence of others). Other apparent single purpose accounts appear in this subject area to "discuss" issues almost exclusively, often with strongly partisan opinions and with the result of antagonising the discussion. These often appear to see Misplaced Pages in the context of the Irish conflict, and will excuse or justify behaviour of individuals here in terms of political or historical incidents (see evidence of Thepiper, below). Examples include:

  • Thepiper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had edited Misplaced Pages on just 5 separate individual days since his first appeance on 23 June, 2006, mainly minor edits. His 15th edit overall and first for 2.5 months was to the discussion on Vintagekits' block, to which he has made a subsequent 100-150 edits, the vast proportion of his contributions. This had led to questions of sockpuppetry Some recent antagonistic examples include:
    • "BrownHairedGirl stuck her nose in, when she shouldn't have done so, and screwed it up for other more considerate admins" (his second comment on the subject and 19th overall)
    • "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." Admin John informed Thepiper this is not acceptable, to no avail
    • Making erroneous claims of canvassing (when I asked other editors to stop agitating) Admin John informed Thepiper of this, to no avail
    • Making erroneous claims of harrassment (wrongly claiming I was attempting to obtain the personal details of others. Infact, I am already aware of the person's whereabouts through my previous interactions with him. My comments were carefully worded to not reveal any personal information, instead pointing out that the speculation being made by others was unhelpful )). The fact that a number of others did discuss the general (though not specific) whereabouts of the editor (including Thepiper himself) but received no "warning" from Thepiper suggests a motive other than the security of the editor in question.
    • Demonstrating Irish vs British partisanship: "You claim that you are an Irish Admin. Well, why don't you edit Irish articles, instead of editing British articles. I see that you are very heavy into Lordships, and Sirs, and Baronierieees (whatever the spelling) etc. Surely that was the suffering of Ireland this last 300 years, your lords and your ladies. correct?" and "He was brought down by the pack. I don't agree with Vk on everything he writes, but I'm no traitor." (Note added later: It has since be brought to my attention that the latter comment was later modified to remove mention of being a "traitor" Rockpocket 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
  • 84.13.156.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared with the apparent sole purpose to provoke Vintagekits, continuing to do so even after Vintagekits, and other editors including myself, asked him to stop . Examples include calling other editors "insurgents" and "terrorists". Eventually the IP was blocked first by myself for harrassment, then Tyrenius (talk · contribs) for suggesting he intended "to find and reveal personal information" A number of editors, most notably Brixton Busters (talk · contribs) have offered circumstantial evidence that the IP was a sockpuppet of W. Frank (talk · contribs) However, a checkuser request was declined. In the absence of a solid link to an established editor, and because the IP was already blocked, there was little else that could be done, despite Brixton Busters further requests . Incidently, the lack of success in pursuing this led to further accusations of administrative bias , a good example of the impossible job of an administrator in this conflict. Rockpocket 09:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by "Uninvolved" User:Thepiper

This trouble started in 1603

"Please Note, this evidence is solely compiled in response to User:Rockpocket's evidence. I am totally uninvolved in any edit-warring on the relevant pages. User:Rockpocket, in my opinion fails to understand what the ArbCom is about."

  • No matter what User:Rockpocket will try and tell you, (I was looking at the charges he is preferring), these troubles started in 1603, in the Plantation of Ulster, and not here on Misplaced Pages. Irish People, in their own native country, had a very hard time, to put it mildly. Denied jobs, education and opportunity, in the 1960s, when the rest of the world was enjoying freedom, the Roman Catholics of Northern Ireland, started to march, in order to gain civil rights. They were met with rubber bullets, baton-charging police, many were shot dead, and guns planted on their dead bodies. On Bloody Sunday (1972), the British Army shot dead 13 unarmed civil rights marchers at point blank range. Then the IRA grew from strength to strength, until the British Government were forced to negotiate a settlement with the Belfast Agreement. That's a brief synopsis of the long sordid history of the Northern Ireland part of Ulster, under British Rule. My point here is that the troubles are old and Vintagekits is not responsible. The great American jurist Senator George J. Mitchell worked wonders with the Belfast Agreement, that's what Misplaced Pages needs now, to solve it, and not more of the same. Thanks for reading, I may update this as I may deem necessary.
  • Orange is a "not" a pejorative reference to Protestants in the Irish conflict. That is a slant of Rockpocket. Protestants refer to themselves as Orange.
  • Tiocfaidh ár lá translates to "our day will come", which is an euphemism for a "United Ireland", an all Ireland free of British Rule. To apply any special sinister meaning to it is an exercise of extreme personal point of view.
  • Also, Billy Wright's killing was set up by the British Government, and involvement by paramilitaries. He had murdered about 50 Roman Catholics. It's important to make corrections to stated facts here.
  • Although I totally disagree with this sentiment, "FUCK OFF ORANGE CHUNTS _ YA@LL GET WHAT BILLY WRONG DID!! TIOCFAIDH AR LA!!!" ., I do honestly believe that it is forgivable considering the Belfast Agreement and Senator George J. Mitchell's great work to bring peace to Northern Ireland. Obviously Vintagekits got carried away momentarily. I am certain he didn't mean it, and he did make an apology. It happens all the time in Northern Ireland,different sides shouting insults at each other. I am not suggesting that it should be tolerated on WP, but it is forgivable.
  • Comment on Quote of mine by User:Rockpocket "I don't agree with Vk on everything he writes, but I'm no traitor." . The part about but I'm no traitor, was to emphasise that, as an Irish person, I would not outrightly condemn a fellow Irish person, for loving their country to the point where it got them into heated words and subsequent discussion on Misplaced Pages. On immediately reading it, it became obvious to me that it could be misread. That sentiment only applied to me alone, and nobody else. I immediately changed it, which User:Rockpocket again fails to mention. He picked what suited his purpose, and left out the rest of the sentence too.
  • Welcome Response from User:BrownHairedGirl , which User:Rockpocket again fails to mention; -- conveniently?
  • Also if all of the assertions of User:Rockpocket about perceived incivility were to be agreed with, then there would be minimal discussion on Misplaced Pages, everyone would be afraid to be candid, or even ask the pertinent questions.
  • Also here we see User:Rockpocket openly discussing Vintagekits private details. . Here we see an administrator issue subsequent warning. I believe that the ArbCom should examine the de-admin of User:Rockpocket because of this very serious breach of Admin behavior, although I am not advocating such an extreme penalty, a warning at the very least. My warning to User:Rockpocket about his discussing private details on the internet.
  • A clear case of canvassing by User:Rockpocket here
  • Well, if I liked, I could call it uncivil, here is User:Rockpocket again --Thepiper. 13:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Rockpocket has particular style of making disparaging remarks to other editor inputs. This attitude can lead a fractured cooperation between editors, and thus causes a certain disharmony. Here is a typical remark

My last words before I retire from WikiPedia. Although I do like User:Rockpocket, I do believe that he is a stickler for taking offence. I believe that that stance can be taken too far, and actually harm WP. Otherwise, I'm away on a long holiday, and I may not return 'till mid Oct. Thepiper 11:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, -- Contrary to some of the refs to "socks". I speak fluent German, and live in Germany for over 8 months every year, and when there I edit the German Misplaced Pages only. I am a major contributor to it. Here, you can see me testing the German proficiency of another "involved" editor, who says he's German. Thepiper 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Giano

Is it possible for User: Kittybrewster to stop referring to Vintagekits in morbidly unnecessary ways? He says here "Vintagekits is dead in the water" elsewhere he has referred to Vinyagekits' suicide. I find this terminology distasteful. It may well be that Vintagekits' work here is finished but that really is something for the Arbcom to decide rather than Kittybrewster. Giano 07:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Theoldanarchist

W. Frank is disruptive

W. Frank is an incredibly disruptive presence on articles related to Irish Republicanism, in fact his disruptive presence and the overall combative atmosphere to which he is a major contributor has caused me to take a lengthy wikibreak. For all his comments about NPOV, I have never seen him actually add a source to substantiate any additions or changes of wording he makes to articles. For example he has added "terrorism" in an unattributed/unqualified manner, which is a breach of NPOV:

As BigDunc's evidence shows, W. Frank is not interested in discussing changes with other editors even when there is a discussion ongoing. He constantly attacks other editors, for example he claimed an editor had a conflict of interest with the Provisional IRA, i.e. that he was a member of an illegal terrorist organisation, he calls other editors "fanatical antagonists," refers to an editor's "biassed editing and fanatical POV agenda," calls other editors "ignorant 'me-toos'," and makes constant references to other editor's non-existent political agendas and use of political propaganda. If you look at the Gerry Adams talk page - you will see how little discussion there is about improvements to the article and how much of it is W. Frank attacking other editors or posting lengthy off-topic rants. Here are some examples of his incivility and attacks on editors:

He has been warned several times about his disruptive editing and attacks on his fellow editors, to little or no apparent affect:

Evidence presented by User:Gold Heart (Temp), now departed

No assertions to make, only this.

The reason why I fought so much for WP to retain Vintagekits, is simply that he is a much better editor than me, and has given far more to WP than I have. He is probably a much nicer and better person than I am too, so if anyone among you would dislike or hate Vintagekits, well you would probably dislike or hate me 10 times as much. So Vintagekits staying or leaving becomes a measure which I must judge myself whether to stay or leave, or to be even worthy to edit Misplaced Pages. Some people here know my past , and "Gold Heart" is not my first account, and I have been in and out too, but thankfully never banned. I hope there is happy solution for everyone here. My contributions . Just, everyone be kind to each other. Gold Heart (Temp) 11:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Evidence presented by User:Astrotrain

User:One Night In Hackney has openly supported terrorism and terrorist organisations

He added IRA to his signature - despite knowing that it clearly refered to a banned terrorist organisation. He only removed it when forced to. He then changed his signature to include 1916- presumably referring to the Easter Rising; and now uses 303- which I am led to believe refers to a rifle used by terrorists during Bloody Sunday.

Is it appropiate for someone to use the name of a terrorist organisation in their signature?

He claims IRA does not refer to a terrorist organisation, rather the Irish Republican Army. However, he linked IRA to his talk page, so most people would assume he means the Provisional Irish Republican Army which is always abbreviated to IRA in all articles. Indeed many of his comrades have edit warred to keep it as IRA.

I have yet to see an explanation as to why he added this to his signature. Note that his talk page records were deleted when he left the Wiki in the huff a few months ago.

User:SirFozzie has shown bias in using his admin tools

SirFozzie appears to be a friend of both VK, ONIH and Padraig. I believe he has shown bias in using his admin tools, by targeting anyone who disagrees with these two editors. Either, he shares their POV views on Ireland and is edit warring by proxy- or there is a conflict of interests.

User:Alison has shown bias in using her admin tools

Another chum of VK, ONIH and Padraig and intervenes to support them in their edit wars (eg blocks Astrotrain for being in a dispute with Padraig on flags, but does not block Padraig or protects articles to suit Padraig's prefered version). Again, either she shares their POV views on Ireland and is edit warring by proxy- or there is a conflict of interests.

User:Tyrenius- bias and harrassment

Tyrenius' talk page is the unofficial complaint page for Vintagekits, ONIH, Padraig and others. Looking though his talk page archives you will find numerous complaints and requests to block anyone they are in dispute with.

On April 19, he accussed me of being a sockpuppet (without any checkuser backup) and proceeded to "ban" me from certain articles, despite admins not even having this power. Why did he do this? Was it because Padraig asked him ? It certainly pleased Padraig .

Evidence presented by User:Traditional unionist

User:One Night In Hackney has no qualms about wearing his POV on his sleve

As thsi diff clearly shows

User:Domer48 is engaged in sockpuppetry

I believe that User:BigDunc and today User:Breen32 are sockpuppets of Domer48 Breen32 was welcomed to wikipedia by BigDunc 10 days before Breen made his second edit, his first being to create a page. (see User talk:Breen32) BigDunc was welcomed to wikipedia by Domer48 after only two edits. No more edits were made from this account for almost exactly three months.

Until recently there has been no other activity by any of these three users on the others talk pages, and I cannot find an instance where any of these users have edited at precisely the same time.Traditional unionist 19:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As a slight amendment, I should point out that I am almost certain that Breen is a sock of BigDunc. The only other explanation for Dunc's magical knowledge of a user who did nothing more on wikipedia than create a userpage is that Breen is a meatpuppet of Dunc. I do believe that Dunc is in turn a sock of Domer, but accept that the evidence is less compelling, but the CheckUser should let us know the lie of the land on that.Traditional unionist 11:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to response from User:One Night In Hackney

Being born and from somewhere outside Northern Ireland does not prevent a person from being an Irish Nationalist. My username and userboxes display any conflict of interest that I might have, the only one being particularly relevant is my membership of the Ulster Unionist Party. People know what background I come from when reviewing my edits. I do not use my pov as an argument in discussions, my evidence is a small example showing that ONiH does.Traditional unionist 19:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One Night in Hackney, Domer48, BigDunc and Breen48 have edited disruptively

Talk:Orange_Institution#Sectarian_Movement to the end of the page is the most utterly exasperating experience I've had on wikipedia. Bias after bias (even if referenced) is presented as fact. Not happy with this, these editors are now team editing to have legitimate information removed. They may have the letter of the rule son their side, but anyone who cares to read these discussions cannot fail to see that this is vandalism by the back door.

Response to Evidence presented by BigDunc

It is more encyclopedic to say that the PUP gives advice to the UVF rather than political wing. Perhaps I was wrong to make those edits, if I was I apologise, however I believe them to be a better form of words than the original, which are probably quite POV.

Evidence presented by Tyrenius

Response to Astrotrain

Astrotrain's accusations about me shows very clearly he is a very difficult editor, who insists blindly on his own view, regardless of evidence to the contrary. A survey of my talk page will show that at an early stage of these disputes it was a forum for all parties to post their complaints. These parties include Astrotrain himelf. The latter post is a complaint by Astrotrain about an attack from Vintagekits, which resulted in my blocking Vintagekits. I informed Astrotrain on his talk page that I had blocked Vintagekits: my post was deleted, along with others with the edit summary "delete harrassment from terrorist supporters". Vintagekits and others were welcome to post to my talk page. If their complaints were justified, I upheld them: if not, then I rebutted them — this thread on Vintagekit's talk page is an example of that. Astrotrain fails to mention that I have also blocked ONIH (One Night In Hackney).

Because of Astrotrain's tendentious editing relating to "Irish subjects", I imposed a ban on four articles, as a less harsh alternative to a block. My rationale is here. This ban on Astrotrain and the sockpuppetry was discussed on AN/I. Astrotrain has received blocks from 10 admins altogether (one rescinded), for 3RR, incivility, attacks and edit warring.

Tyrenius 05:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Alison

Vintagekits posted another editor's home address on WP

Regardless of motive (VK asserts it was "only having the craic with him", others disagree), VK posted the street address of W. Frank on Misplaced Pages. He did this a total of two times, once on an article talk page and again on Frank's talk page. Both of these diffs have now been oversighted but not before Fred Bauder and two other administrators had seen them. Evidence of the contents of these have been provided to Fred Bauder, and a redacted copy of the evidence has been provided to ArbCom. This is the primary reason why I indefinitely blocked VK. Note that VK initially denied knowledge of this, but eventually admitting that he had posted Frank's address..

Evidence presented by User: Giano

David Lauder has fostered the problem surrounding The Troubles

David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been one of the protagonists of this affair. He has been very involved in commenting on the Troubles pages indicating a contemptible disdain for those not sharing his British establishment views. Frequently making unfounded complaints to User: Tyrenius and User: Padraig's talk pages a few weeks ago about "harassment" and "vandalism". Thos who do not share his views regarding the Irish problem are sanitising terrorism . He has also has been known to use sockpuppets to votestack and sway concencus in an AFD

He edits chiefly his own little group of Baronet stubs, probably related to him Lauder Baronets all pretty harmless. However he has laid claim to educational qualifications which he may not possess . In my book this is a wiki-crime above all others as it discredits the encyclopedia. He is accused here of using false qualifications to score a point (8 June 2007 -"claimed to have received an MBA from Oxford University over thirty years ago, which, as has been pointed out, is impossible.")This debate rambled on and became more embarrassing to read as he squirmed and twisted as it became more and more obvious that it was impossible for him to have the degree he claimed from the College he claimed to attend . He later emailed me claiming "age" as an excuse. It was all too embarrassing at the time to pursue. However his recent malice and undeserved hostility towards Vintagekits in all this has made me think again on all of this. His memory seems quite good when it suits him. He is also keen to promote himself as a member of the British establishment who chats with Dukes ]

However he attacks indiscriminately all who fail to agree with him as having Irish sympathies . Anyone who does not agree with Lauder is insulted this was to a respected admin who had been helping him, he then pursues the matter 25 August 2007 attacking her further with slurring reference to Vintagekits. How much of this is VK expected to put up with? Lauder then becomes almost hysterical with anger and tells the unfortunate admim "no longer an administrator to be relied upon". The recipient of his ire is actually the admin who has been trying to sort the mess out. Kittybrewster says in his statement to the arbcom she has been doing a good job. However, David Lauder chooses to attack all in sight. Full of self pity lamenting the situation. He makes little effort is made to see anyone other's point of view

David Lauder has a philosophy of attack all who do not appear to agree with him continues - my moving a comment of his pertaining to this arbcom case, which he had placed in the wrong place on the arbitration page was cause for him to attack . He appears determined not to let Vintagekits off his hook . Admins trying to explain the procedure to him are too deleted unarchived.

Evidence presented by Padraig

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

This editor has been editing disruptively to promote an anti-nationalist and pro-Unionist POV on Northern Ireland articles.
  • First version of his userpage, reflects his POV contains this statement A Unionist student sick and tired off republican lies... 18:30, 18 April 2007

Edit history:

Pro-UUP edits

Tom Elliott

  • Revision as of 17:47, 26 March 2007. Removing material about other candidates, and inserting POV in favour of the UUP.
  • Revision as of 13:49, 5 June 2007. removing material to favour the UUP. Also removes link to another article of someone with same name.


Removing Public domain image from republican articles
  • ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Removing information from articles
  • Revision as of 16:24, 29 April 2007
  • Revision as of 19:08, 29 April 2007
  • Current revision (19:17, 29 April 2007)
  • Revision as of 23:14, 19 August 2007 removing copyvio tag
  • Revision as of 23:42, 19 August 2007 removing copyvio tag
  • Revision as of 21:07, 29 April 2007 removing relevent material
  • Revision as of 21:12, 10 September 2007 removing copyvio tag


Harry West removing {{1981 Hunger Strike}} template from article.
  • ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[
(Incomplete will add more later)

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

  • Suspected for using anon IP to continue edit war checkuser came back as a Possible.


(Incomplete will add more later)

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

(evidence to be supplied)

Reply to SirFozzie

I see you make mention of my userbox regarding the Ulster Banner, my userbox is in responce to this:

User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia

which is used by some editors on their userpages such as Traditional unionist, Setanta747, Beano ni, Keithgreer, Biofoundationsoflanguage. I did offer to remove my userbox here I have copied my comment there below:

  • Comment my userbox was created from the one being Discussed here, it was a light hearted response to their nonsense, I would gladly remove it myself, if this one is removed from wikipedia. There is no campaign to remove the Ulster banner from WP as they claim, just to try and get editors to use it in its proper context, something that WP:Flagcruft is aiming for and something I fully support.--padraig3uk 22:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So as the result of Mfd was No consensus, default to Keep, then my userbox is not a issue here.

Evidence presented by User: Gibnews

Vintagekits is problem in search of a solution

I have not been involved in the dispute over 'The Troubles' however I have interacted with vintagekits in relation of Operation Flavius and Mairead Farrell as both of these related to Gibraltar which is my prime area of interest and expertise.

I have managed to establish a reasonable relationship with most editors, including Irish Republicans, this has not been possible with this particular user where friendly messages were met with fuck off and racist insults.

He further followed me to articles about Gibraltar and The Falkland Islands with comments like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Operation_Flavius&diff=93137111&oldid=93137024

you should try and open your eyes a little wider what happens on that "Rock" which I hope Spain get back soon, and I support the idea that the British give all lands that the British thieved back - Hong Kong and must of Ireland has been returned, Las Malvinas, The Rock and The Occupied 6 Countries of the North East of Ireland are yet to come. Vintagekits 12:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To avoid further racist abuse I requested that he did not post further messages on my talk page, as his welcome had expired.

On being approached by user:Biofoundationsoflanguage regarding Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) a minor criminal, I advised him not to get involved as it was being contested by 'rabid editors' and did not make any changes myself.

Vintagekits complained that this was a personal attack, although his name was not mentioned, and I was blocked for a few days, which I (and others) do not accept was justified. However I have since refrained from similar comments even where they are.

Vintagekits edits

There are a lot, here are some samples;

  • Removing the reason the PIRA team were shot in Gibraltar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mair%C3%A9ad_Farrell&diff=101834756&oldid=101834316

  • Deleting other peoples comments in talk

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Operation_Flavius&diff=prev&oldid=93366823

  • Further racist abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Operation_Flavius&diff=93354618&oldid=93344560

Those involved with the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin were considered terrorist and criminals

by the British Government also - they went on to form the first Irish government! Give the Rock back to Spain ye cuckoos! Vintagekits 12:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Reaction to banning
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.--Vintagekits 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

SUMMARY

The behaviour of Vintagekits raises serious issues beyond simply banning him on whether Misplaced Pages is to be written by all its users or subverted to a narrow racist POV.

I see no harm in taking someone things to the limit to establish where the limits are, however this user when banned for going past those limits, then considers 'all his sins are forgiven' and goes further thereafter.

Whether or not he is a productive and good editor in places, his dissruptive attitude wastes too much time and energy for the good of the project as whole.

--Gibnews 21:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.