Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | The Troubles

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brixton Busters (talk | contribs) at 17:44, 4 September 2007 (→‎[[User:W. Frank]] has added original research to an article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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; [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

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 ; [7] [8] [9]

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; [10] [11] [12]

From 12 to 15 August, W. Frank continued to change IRA to PIRA without taking part in the discussion; [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

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; [27]

At 10:58 on 15 August W. Frank was warned about his conduct by administrator Spartaz; [28]

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; [29] [30] [31]

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. [32] [33] [34] [35]

On 20 August an IP editor vandalised an article; [36] 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"; [37] However he actually changed IRA to PIRA at the same time, despite being asked not to do this; [38]

On 27 August W. Frank (editing with an IP Address by his own admission) again changed IRA to PIRA; [39]

On 27 August admininistrator Alison asked W. Frank to stop being disruptive; [40] And on 28 August Administrator Spartaz again asked W. Frank to stop changing the acronym without consensus; [41]

{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.

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 Wikipedia 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 [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

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 [48] User:Conypiece in conflict with User:Domer48 and User:One Night In Hackney regarding Séamus McElwaine [49] [50] [51] [52]

User:Conypiece removing the name of the (republican) MP from an article on a town: [53] (note uncivil edit summary) [54] [55] (Note: Personal attack in edit summary)

User:Conypiece adding pro-Unionist information about an Orange Institution parade to a town summary. [56] [57] [58]

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 Wikipedia. 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. [59]

He has a userbox on his page That states "This user opposes the ongoing campaign to misuse this flag within Wikipedia". 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 [60] [61] [62] [63]

(against User:Astrotrain and User:Biofoundationsoflanguage (amongst others on both sides), Template:UKFlags [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]

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 Wikipedia. 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 [69].

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: [70] 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia's policies on the uses of alternate accounts. SirFozzie 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]

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. [79]

SirFozzie 18:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 [80] (amongst, well, quite a few folks in this ArbCom, including User:Domer48, User:Padraig, User:Jonto, User:Biofoundationsoflanguage, and User:BigDunc.)

‎Harry West [81] (Amongst User:Conypiece, User:Astrotrain, User:Domer48, User:Padraig, User:Scalpfalmer)

Orange Institution [82] (Amongst User:Conypiece, User:Aatomic1, User:Traditional unionist, User:One Night In Hackney with others) SirFozzie 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, the ill-feelings does not, and CAN not excuse making Wikipedia the latest battleground in the The Troubles. That's one of the core principles of Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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 ([83]) Counter-revolutionary has repeatedly changed "killed" back to "murdered".

[84] [85] [86] (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):

[87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]

Kittybrewster has admitted to abusive sockpuppetry

Kittybrewster, an editor with a history of conflict of interest editing (see Arbuthnot family entry), is using sockpuppets to prevent other editors tracking his contributions.

[97]

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 Wikipedia notability guidelines during Troubles-related AfD debates, and the debates were also canvassed.

Selected excerpts from deletion debates:

  • "Delete unless it is Wikipedia's intention to carry a biography of every dedicated murderer of innocent civilians who ever existed" [98]
  • "Delete: another article glorifying a subversive terrorist in Britain" [99]
  • "the IRA were a proscribed and illegal organisation throughout all of Ireland. There was no "war" in Ireland, just a terrorist campaign by an illegal group of monsters responsible for the deaths of innocents. Glorification of these people in pages on Wikipedia should be discouraged entirely. That is not what encyclopaedias are for." [100]

Deletion debates:

[101] [102] [103] [104]

Canvassing:

[105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111]

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.

[112] [113]

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.

[114] [115] (note: first diff is W. Frank editing from an IP, article history for 25 May shows it was obviously him)

Evidence presented by User:Brixton Busters

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

[116] [117] [118] 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 Wikipedia article to draw his own conclusions which is shwn by his talk page argument [119]. I later discovered that the Provisional IRA may never have been classed as an FTO at all, as can be seen here.

.

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: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lapsed_Pacifist#User:Lapsed_Pacifist.

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 usermames 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 [120], intelligent, vindictive, sneaky (in more than one sense), threatening [121], disruptive [122] [123], self-pitying, prone to blame admins and others - and extremely focused on continuing to do more of the same [124]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [125] 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 [126]

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

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism with the comments, "Help set us free from the murderous bassa's [bastards]" and "they are all around us". [141] This is typical of Vintagekits' partisan and belligerent editing on Wikipedia. In response to the block, Vintagekits wrote "FUCK OFF ORANGE CHUNTS _ YA@LL GET WHAT BILLY WRONG DID!! TIOCFAIDH AR LA!!!" [142] For context, Orange c[h]unt 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" [143] (though Vintagekits denies sending such an email [144]) Alison reviewed the evidence and blocked Vintagekits for "one of those "I know where you live" moments and you did it twice today" [145] I did likewise (before oversight), identified the suspect edits and endorsed the block after confirmation with Alison. [146] [147] 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 [148] and BrownHairedGirl [149] also endorsed. Vk originally claimed to lack understanding of why Alison blocked, saying "What the hell are you talking about??? I'm baffled!" [150] but later acknowledges he did insert "the street name of an editor into a post." [151] 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 [152] I find it difficult to imagine what humour anyone would find in the release of one's personal information on Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [153] [154] 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) [155]
    • "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." [156] Admin John informed Thepiper this is not acceptable, to no avail [157] [158]
    • Making erroneous claims of canvassing [159] (when I asked other editors to stop agitating) Admin John informed Thepiper of this, to no avail [160] [161]
    • Making erroneous claims of harrassment [162] (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 [163])). 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?" [164] and "He was brought down by the pack. I don't agree with Vk on everything he writes, but I'm no traitor." [165] (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))[reply]
  • 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 [166]. Examples include calling other editors "insurgents" and "terrorists". [167] [168] Eventually the IP was blocked first by myself for harrassment, then Tyrenius (talk · contribs) for suggesting he intended "to find and reveal personal information" [169] 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) [170] However, a checkuser request was declined. [171] 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 [172][173]. Incidently, the lack of success in pursuing this led to further accusations of administrative bias [174], a good example of the impossible job of an administrator in this conflict. Rockpocket 09:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by uninvolved User:Thepiper

This trouble started in 1603

  • 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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[175]. 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!!!" [176]., 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." [177]. 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 Wikipedia. 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[178]. He picked what suited his purpose, and left out the rest of the sentence too.
  • Welcome Response from User:BrownHairedGirl [179], 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 Wikipedia, everyone would be afraid to be candid, or even ask the pertinent questions.
  • Also here we see User:Rockpocket openly discussing Vintagekits private details. [180]. Here we see an administrator issue subsequent warning[181]. 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. [182]
  • A clear case of canvassing by User:Rockpocket here [183]
  • Well, if I liked, I could call it uncivil, here is User:Rockpocket again [184] --Thepiper. 13:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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 Wikipedia only. I am a major contributor to it. Here[185], you can see me testing the German proficiency of another "involved" editor, who says he's German. Thepiper 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Evidence&oldid=155666672"