Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Astrotrain (talk | contribs) at 20:19, 30 June 2008 (→Block and ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Rest In Peace Crip

Block and ban

Per this edit, I have indef blocked you for probation violation and proposed you be banned as your probation calls for in such an instance. See ANI there here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_VintageKits_breaking_terms_of_probation.3F. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You are joking right!?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain exactly why and on what basis you have blocked me?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, see the ANI thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read its not clear - you blocked me and are trying to drive through a ban without putting forward a balanced argument so the least you could do is explain it to me as I am pretty baffled by all this.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not driving through anything, I put it up to community consensus. If I were driving it through, I'd have banned you on my own. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you certainly seem very eager to ban my for any reason possible.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Qoute from Statement 8 of your probation terms: 8: For the three month trial, he will not make any reference or comment anywhere on Misplaced Pages (in article, talk, image or project space, edit summaries or via links off-site) concerning The Troubles. - you have violated that by mentioning the Troubles directly on Misplaced Pages on your userpage. D.M.N. (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, can you clarify that this is the reason that you have blocked me. thank you.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, are you going to reply to this or are you just happy to unjustly silence, block and ban me?--Vintagekits (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You are also now currently the subject of discussion for a permanent ban at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Block and ban proposal. The evidence there seems fairly definite that the earlier arbitration allowed for a ban should you violate any of the terms of the arbitration. However, if you have evidence which you believe should be considered, please present it, here if nowhere else, so that it can be considered. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I didnt think that that comment would breach my probation - if I had I wouldnt have made it - its seems pretty sad that I have stayed away from editing Irish political articles to comply with the terms of the probation and now I am to be banned forever on a technicality - it could be argued that by the letter of the probation I breached it but it would be a stretch but it certainly isnt in the spirit of the probation.

• As soon as John raised the concern that he thought it would breach the probation I removed the comment.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is a case of frustration at being unable to actually edit the article that leads to this. I also note that all those running to block and endorse the block of VK have not edited the article (and it needed it for grammar etc), were making no effort to add him to Deaths in 2008 et al. Some people prefer drama to actual editing, it seems. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OHHH NOOO; VK, why didn't you stick to the topic of Boxing? GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, I didnt know that the comment I made on my userpage was allowed - honestly I didnt. When User:John asked me to remove it I did straight away - I cant believe I am going to get banned for this especially as I havent edited one political article since my return - I was well pissed off to see you endorse it as well without investigating what actually happened.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

HMMM, I'm not completely convinced that commenting on one's own page should be disallowed. I'll retract my endorsement; but that's as far as I can go -- PS: ya should've stuck to Boxing. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

But i have stuck to boxing, just today I created Barry Morrison‎. This block really isnt in the spirit of the probation at all - the probation was designed to stop me getting involved in Irish political articles - which I have done.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've retracted my endorsement of a permanent ban. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers - I wish some of the other editors that endorsed the block would take the time to investigate what actually happened before they !voted - talk about a mountaim out of a molehill!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, you haven't been using any sock-puppets. That's a big plus with me. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not one - like I said I have kept my nose clean and havent been involved in any disruption of any kind since my return, thats what so dissapointing about all this. Sheesh!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

VK - this is important; can you promise that this will not happen again? - Alison 19:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It was just a slip - if I thought it was going to cause such a fuss I wouldnt have done it - but for the record, yes I promise.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that (IMO) condition #8 was vague - it didn't specifically bar VK from commenting on he's own page. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So what happens when any other terrorist dies in the future? Promoting and glorifying terrorism is what got you in trouble in the first place. Astrotrain (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you one or two hours back from your week long block? I'll give you a C- for goading, like my Science teacher used to say "must do better".--Vintagekits (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was blocked for upsetting Alison, not for glorifying a dead terrorist. Plus I am not goading, if you can't have a civil discussion then that is not my fault. Why don't you answer the question re: glorifying terrorists? Astrotrain (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I abhor terrorism, certainly wouldnt go glorifying it. AInt got the time for this now, plus I probably amint allowed talk about it either so plus stop.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I haven't called for you to be banned, but I would like to see less references to these people as heros. They are murderers and don't deserve glorification in death. Astrotrain (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above, in that such individuals cannot reasonably at this point be thought of as "heros". Having said that, I don't necessarily see an objection to "Rest in Peace" or similar neutral phrasings. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the Irish Government send a message of condolence for Hitler, so I suppose they have a precedence for this sort of thing. Astrotrain (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Astrotrain, you were blocked for 72 hours by User:Shell Kinney for violation of your Troubles Probation. You then went on to seriously insult and attack her, something you'd been warned about the day before, hence your well-earned 1-week block extension from me. You were not blocked for "upsetting Alison", but for this and your previous transgressions - Alison 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So it's the girls sticking together then!? Surprised you took offence anyway, given your well documented acceptance of hatred and bigotry. Astrotrain (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest this topic come to an end. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If anything Astrotrain should be blocked for trying to antagonise Vintagekits. Derry Boi (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Contempt for the conditions of the probation!!!!

One editor commented that I show "Contempt for the conditions of the probation" - talk about absolute bs - I havent once edited an article I shouldnt have in all the time I have been on probation and have stayed away from pages of conflict - what the frick is that showing contempt for the probation - I have taken the probation very serious, I cant believe so many have jump on the bandwagon to ban me on which is a technicality.

Crip died today so I thought I would dedicate my page to him until his funeral - I made a comment on my own userpage that some thought might breach the probation and when asked by an experience editor to remove it I did - talk about a mountain out of a mole whole.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dedicating to him is fine, it's the redir and sickening commentary that got you in trouble. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sickening to you - not to others - the man is a hero to many for killing "King Rat" the sectarian bigot and murderer. Crip is known as "the rat-catcher" by many hence the reference to pest control but if you have known what you were talking about before you jumped in then none of your drama causing would have been needed. John asked me to remove the comment and I did and that should have been the end of it but you have been gagging to block me for weeks and didnt need much of an excuse. --Vintagekits (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock me so that I have the right to reply

There has been so much bs written on the page about banning me - I should be unblocked to answer those claims until this is done and dusted.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid things aren't looking good for you, at AE. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's 50/50 isnt it - the thing is the Rlevse and Exihno's opening gambit at the top is so slanted that most of the casual readers have there minds made up before they actually hear the other side ofthe story.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's looking better. My guess is, your probation will be restarted from the beginning (thus no indef block). GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I do hope so - its pretty harsh to get an indef block for that - however, a few editors (including the one that started this) seem very eager to push for an indef block.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The "one that started this" was you. You made the Crisp McWilliams redirect. You referred to the Troubles. You deleted my attempts to communicate the problem to you, even daring me to "take it to the admins" knowing full-well that you were on probation - the terms of which state that any infraction would lead to an indefinite ban. You created your own mess over several months (years?) of shenanigans which led to that probation being set in the first place. And now you're blaming me for your current predicament?! Crazy. -- ExNihilo (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It is my opinion that you came here in the first place to cause drama and disruption and it is my opinion that you went to ANI to cause drama and disruption - and the slanted ones sided view of this issue that you have put forward both on ANI and AE confirms my opinion. The spirit of the probation was to stop me editing in a disruptive manner on Irish political articles - since my return I have not done that, yet you still want to see me get an indefinate banned - and then you wonder why I treat you with suspicion.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Came where to cause drama and disruption? If you mean your talkpage I came here to discuss the apparent breach of your probation which I had noticed - that may have resulted in 'drama' but as I said above I was not the cause of anything. If you mean Misplaced Pages I think you'll find I've been editing for over 2 years without any drama whatsoever. As I've already mentioned I only went to ANI because you refused to discuss the matter here. And as far as my "slanted one-sided view" I really don't know what you mean. I stated the facts, plain and simple. And yes I support the indefinite ban because those are the rules that were laid down clearly and unequivocally in your probation: Any breach of terms would result in an indefinite ban. There's nothing personally against you about my opinion, it is merely an expectation that 'last chances' really are last chances because otherwise it encourages more disruption from more people if the goal posts are moved time and time again as they already have been in your case. Whether this breach was the specific issue the probation targeted or not is irrelevant IMO, it was still clearly against the terms and intent of the probation and whether it disrupted other users or not doesn't matter - the apparent willingness to push the limits of every restriction/probation/block/whatever that is placed on you seems to be a clear sign that you haven't really learned anything. -- ExNihilo (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about the re-directing of an article, Vk. What's up? GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what that is supposed to be is about the creation of the Crip McWilliams redirect to Christopher 'Crip' McWilliams. While that might be technically a violation, it is also, dare I say, such an obvious missing page that I personally couldn't object to its creation. If someone is referred to by a nickname in place of his real given name, then such redirects are nothing to complain about. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a disruptive re-direct, IMO. Thanks for the clarification, John Carter. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are going on technicalities

I have edited on any Irish political article but am going to be banned on a technicality - which is fucking bs way to treat me after i have stayed away from those article and stuck to sport.

SO as we are going on technicalities I would like to point out that Point 8 of the probation doesnt say I cant mention "the Troubles" on my userpage. It expressly I cant discuss it in article, talk, image or project space, edit summaries or via links off-site - it does not say anything about a userpage.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you stick to the topic of Boxing? This is so frustrating, to have happened. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Name an article that I have edited that I shouldnt have!!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've retracted my endorsement of a ban. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

VK--term 8 "reference or comment anywhere on Misplaced Pages", that would include user pages. It is not vague. I'm responding on the AE thread, I am not ignoring this. The post in question and the redirect are why I took the action I did. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This would be far better blocked if it had been outside the user space, but sure if he has technically broken the probation he should be blocked for somewhere up to a week but certainly not indefinitely, I can see no justification for this as a response to what VK said in his user space. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is that in probation? User pages are part of wiki and the terms specified anywhere on wiki. It also did not specifity varying severity of terms, his prior behavior brought this upon him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Each of the different types of pages that I was not to edit on were expressly outlined and the user page was not listed. Your witch hunt to get be banned really goes against the spirit of the probation which was to stop me from disruptively editing Irish political articles and since my return I havent made ONE edit to an Irish political article - yet you seem to ignore that and havent mentioned it once and just seem hell bent on getting me banned for some reason - I really cant get my head around your attitude to be honest.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer or lawyerly type, I counsel flexibility and seeing this for what it was. IMO an indef block is disrupting the project far more than what VK did which didnt disrupt the project at all. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see an indef block of Vintagekits very disruptive at all. _{1 != 2} 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't see your political opinions as political opinions either! Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why editors out there, are upset with what Vk puts on his own page. I've got a RIP George Carlin thingy on my page. Carlin was an athiest; should I remove my RIP so I don't offend religious people? Let's refocus people. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep - I don't care what anyone puts on their page either - after all it takes deliberate effort to read it. So I reckon folk are seeking out offence! Sarah777 (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

VK does good work on boxing articles, Until. And if he learns to put his political views to one side he has enormous potential on the RoI side of The Troubles articles too. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Chin up, VK. Get back to us as soon as you can.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

AE discussion a tough slog

Vk, I think you will have to unambiguously admit that what you did was a breach (technical or not) and that with hindsight you shouldn't have done it and that you won't do it again. When all the POV is stripped away we are still left with a breach, unfortunately. Failure to recognise this openly (with the benefit of hindsight) might lead some of the more moderate Admins to conclude it was deliberate rather than an oversight - there is a substantial minority of support for you staying on the project but they need to be reassured. That's my take for what it's worth. Sarah777 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you'll listen to me, but FWIW I think Sarah hits it on the head. "I'll do my best not to do anything that will wind someone up unnecessarily" would be the way I'd put it. – iridescent 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice guys, and you are right - looking back on it is a breach of the parole conditions, I didn't think it was at the time but once John pointed out that it could be then I had second thoughts about the comment and removed it within two minutes - surely that shows that I am not trying to avoid or evade the terms of the parole but take them serious. I think Risker summed up exactly what happened in this post - that is exactly what happened.

In the strictest interpretation of the parole (as taken by ExNihilo, Rlevse and Andrewsc) it is a breach but if we look at what the probation was put in place for its clear that I have stuck to the conditions of the parole and have edited within the spirit of the parole. I really think the ExNihilo, Rlevse and Andrewsc are being unreasonably harsh in their assessment of the events - but who knows what there agenda is and if you look at the edit history of ExNihilo I am very suspicious of his involvement in this and hence my reaction to his initial messages to me - as you probably know there have been a lot of socks and anon IP's edit "my articles" and send me messages to try and derail the parole from Day 1 - can you blame me for feeling paranoid. If ExNihilo is a genuine editor and his messege was in good faith then I apologise for not wanting to engage with him - sorry. As you can see - within an hour of me being blocked there was a sock created to mimmick me lashing out here, I think some of his edits have been oversighted.

At the time I didn't think the edit would breach the parole, I genuinely didn't, but I acknowledge the mistake with the benefit of hindsight I wouldn't have made the edit at all.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see why you consider my involvement suspicious. As you can see, my contributions over the last 2 years have been on completely different subject matter to The Troubles or anything relating to Ireland and/or sectarianism. I think there was one edit over a year ago involving use of the term "POW" which I presume is how your User/Talk page ended up on my Watchlist. As a result of which I was vaguely aware of some of your more recent issues and your probation (some of the more colourful edit summaries piqued my interest) and ultimately was the reason I saw the edit which led us to this point. I don't know who you think is trolling you on Misplaced Pages but they must be a schemer of Machiavellian proportions if you honestly believe that I'm a sockpuppet who's made a couple of hundred edits on other topics purely as a rouse to throw people off the scent when I finally "attack". Especially given that it wouldn't make sense to "blow my cover" seeing as an IP editor could have raised the probation issue and the point would have been no less valid or serious for it. The conspiracy just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I have no idea who 'Nicholas_Corsellis_Q.C' is. I'm sure there are any number of admins involved on the AE page who could check the IP logs to verify it isn't me (at least as far as IP verification can). -- ExNihilo (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well as I said above, if you arnt a sock then I apologies for not giving you much time initially, but the red link to your user page and the short edit history you have as well as your comments about the Ulster Banner and the fact that you have never been on my talk page before are what raised my suspicion. Again there have been a lot of socks and anon IP's that have tried to derail the probation from the start and that is what has me on my toes.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)