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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion for clarification

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Request by User:Kittybrewster.

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on Giano's statement: It is not true that my contributions are "mostly on the Arbuthnot family". I have made thousands of edits to my name, a few of which are on Arbuthnots. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage to be added as an involved party

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Motion to add User:Traditional unionist as a party

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Template

4)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Negotiation

1) Willingness to negotiate in a more or less civil way with the other editors of an article is a condition of editing the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted, and by the way, this applies even when you are right. Fred Bauder 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

With the principle, who can disagree? But, in relation to Irish/British matters we must find a neutral method of assessing civility. I don't believe this is happening. I won't give examples here as they might (would!) lead to an immediate "pov war". We should possibly have a separate workshop where this issue of "parity of abuse" is thrashed out. (Sarah777 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Battleground

2) Wikipedia is not a Battleground

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Think it goes without saying.. but just in case. SirFozzie 01:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's self-evident - Alison ☺ 06:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If you have a new addition, please make sure to change the section headings too. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously it is! But, equally it shouldn't be. We can sort out the Irish/British battle in this little corner of Wiki unless one side insist on total dominance. The workshop I suggested above would be a very good place to start. (Sarah777 22:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is a safe environment for all

3) Wikipedia is "The free encyclopedia which any one can edit" and all editors should be free to contribute here without being subject to threats, intimidation and harassment from their fellow editors. They are entitled to their privacy and should feel safe here. Cyber-bullying cannot be tolerated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This should really be self-evident - Alison ☺ 03:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Absolutely. --Deskana (apples) 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely (Sarah777 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Edit warring considered harmful

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Courtesy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Comment by others:

5) User:W. Frank has edited disruptively

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

I wonder how truthful "our W Frank" actually is and how much store we should set by what he says - this diff here [6] once contained a post by him giving what he claimed to be his real name - (I'm sure some clever admin can check that) which is not what is not the name claimed here [7] note that W Frank leads to that new name. Even there it seems he is not happy with one identity. (he wrote Amber House for both projects). Not a brilliant start for Citizendum which demands complete honesty and lack of anonymity from its editors. User: Alison can confirm to the Arbcom the name he claimed to be his own. Giano 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Vintagekits has persistently made personal attacks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Vintagekits has used sockpuppet and meatpuppet accounts

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

In a thread on Celticminded entitled Any wikipedia users on?, Sligobhoy67/Vk notes, If you have used wiki then let my [sic] know or just reply here and I will contact you. I need help with a bit of voterigging! [10] A member of Celticminded responds to Sb67/Vk's request for meatpuppets. This member is called Coeur-sang. [11]. This request was posted on Celticminded on 26-04-07. Coeur-sang's first contribution to Wikipedia was a delete vote on that day, in an AfD proposed by Vintagekits. [12] The date of another of SB67's requests on that forum: 12-06-7 [13], this date is co-incident with Coeur-sang's fifth [14] and sixth [15] edits, again to an AfD of Vintagekits' supporting his position. Maplecelt's recruitment is more circumstantial, but still convincing considering the supporting evdience. This, and much more, is detailed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits. If you are concerned at the synthesis of the purpose of different recruitments, I am happy to change the proposal to "Vintagekits recruited at least two meatpuppets to help with a bit of voterigging and attempted to recruit others for partisan voting purposes". Is that more to your linking? Rockpocket 01:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

User:Vintagekits has made threats of violence against other editors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

User:Rockpocket is an unhelpful presence on Irish related articles

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Collective 1 Revert Parole

1) The following users are placed on Revert Parole:

Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would also like to place Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on revert parole as well, but he is not currently an involved party (although I have requested him to be added as an involved party). This would be added to any blocks that are deemed necessary by the Arbitration Committee. SirFozzie 17:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ojection to my name being in this list. It is wholly unjustified on the evidence. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to User:SirFozzie putting my name in this list. When I have been in an edit war? David Lauder 19:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree with the above, including Kittybrewster, but feel Vintagekits needs also to be placed on this list in case the Arbcom do decided he does not need to be permanently blocked. Giano 18:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Conypiece blocked for one year.

2) User:Conypiece's editing priviliges on Wikipedia are revoked for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed seeing him come back with his first edits after being blocked being restarting a fight on a protected article's talk page and incivil comments to another editor while resuming an edit war on another page... it's obvious he's not going to hew to Wikipedia policies and rules. SirFozzie 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too long. Suggest 6 months after which mentored by an Admin. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Way too excessive. He has been blocked twice - a year, or even 6 month ban is totally oppressive. Moreover, this ignores the fact that the user is consistently faced with disputes with other users, such is the user's topics of interest. It doesn't excuse the fact, but mediates it - just like Vk was given enough chances (take a look at his block log). I'll try and cool things down. Blocks never really work - we should all know that by now. Logoistic
The problem is that not only has he perpetuated disputes with other editors despite blocks, he's also willingly gone head first into disputes that were already ongoing. His incivility is a major problem, as is his Unionist agenda. Looking through his contributions I've not seen a single one that justifies tolerating his current behaviour. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Vintagekits banned from Wikipedia

3) User:Vintagekits' editing privileges on Wikipedia are revoked and his indefinite block upheld.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. After multiple "last chances" and the gamut of policy violations to his name, Vintagekits continued to indulge in threatening and incivil behaviour. Rockpocket 08:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

These days ArbCom will only endorse indefinite blocks; it has not issued an indefinite ban on editors for a long time. Therefore, if this item is voted on, it will definitely need to be reworded. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Frank emails are produced, yes. If not, totally opposed as there would, in that situation, be serious suspicion that Vk has been a victim of a set-up. (Sarah777 22:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In light of Penwhale comment, can I reword this one, or is it usually preferred to make a new, reworded proposal? Rockpocket 00:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing what you might say, I'll be happy for you to reword. I trust you will be, above all, fair. (Sarah777 00:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User:Vintagekits editing priviliges revoked for one year

3.1) User:Vintagekits's editing priviliges are revoked for a period of one year. After the year is up, he is placed on indefinite civility and revert parole

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Alternate, if the ArbCom does not want to endorse the indefblock. SirFozzie 03:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Vintagekits's indefblock ratified.

3.2) User:Vintagekits's indefinite block is ratified by the Arbitration Committee.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion for clarification

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage to be added as an involved party

Motion to add User:Traditional unionist as a party

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Negotiation

Wikipedia is not a Battleground

Wikipedia is a safe environment for all

Edit warring considered harmful

Courtesy

Consensus

Template

Proposed findings of fact

User:Astrotrain has editwarred

User:Conypiece has participated in numerous editwars as a Single Purpose Account.

User:Conypiece has participated in numerous editwars as a Single Purpose Account.

User:Padraig has participated in numerous edit wars.

User:Padraig has participated in numerous edit wars.

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage has Edited Disruptively

User:W. Frank has edited disruptively

User:Vintagekits has persistently made personal attacks

User:Vintagekits has used sockpuppet and meatpuppet accounts

User:Vintagekits has made threats of violence against other editors

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

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

User:Rockpocket is an unhelpful presence on Irish related articles

Template

Proposed remedies

Collective 1 Revert Parole

User:Conypiece blocked for one year.

User:Vintagekits banned from Wikipedia

User:Vintagekits editing priviliges revoked for one year

User:Vintagekits's indefblock ratified.

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion