Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Evidence

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses as short as possible; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Astrotrain appears to be a Scottish Unionist and monarchist and has a long history of editing on wikipedia and has made 10,000 edits to wikipedia since 2003. He has created many excellent articles especially in the sphere of aeronautics and banking - however, since March 2007 he has given up on making constructive contributions to Wikipedia and his primary reason for editing since then has been to use his acoount to cause and inflame conflicts, mostly through POV editing and edit warring.

In the FOUR years Astrotrain(As) has been editing wiki he was only block three times up until this year - each time was for breaches of 3RR/edit warring. However it was in January of this year that he found a subject matter in which he could not control his POV editing and this lead him being drawn into a downward spiral of disruptive editing and from April of this year he has primarily used his account as a revert tool.

For some background information this should be read (for some reason it was not followed through with).

His initial entrance into "the Troubles" dispute (as far as I remember) was on the 5th of January 2007 when he re-added the Ulster Banner to the Template:Precedence article. This was his first time to re-add that flag to an article and it would become almost his sole reason for editing wiki over the next few months. He made the same revert of the 7th [1]twice on the 8th [2][3] twice on the 10th it was four time [4][5][6][7] another two on the 11th [8][9] - that goes on for months but then he began to follow my edits on wiki and followed me to a conversation at Talk:Attacks on the London Underground.

At the article about Attacks on the London Underground the use of the term "terrorist" was used widely and inaccurately. I raised this on it's talkpage here - Astrotrain followed me over there and his first edits where to add the term terrorist, which as per Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter should not be used and then his next move was to move the name of the article to included the term terrorism. Now this might seem a small thing but it shows his basic POV and the foundation of the dispute that he largely almost singlehandedly spread across wiki. [10][11]. On the 14th of January he went back to redirecting without discussion or concensus [12][13].

• His next spate of redirections without concensus or discussion was on the Thomas Begley‎ article when he redirected it to the Shankill Road bombing page here on 24th of January.

• The same day he redirected Paddy Quinn (Irish republican) here to the 1981 Irish hunger strike.

• On the 25th of February he moved "James Stronge (Unionist)" to "Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet" without foundation, discussion or concensus - he reasoning was "title like his father" - this person who was killed by the IRA was never actually a Baronet - so it was obviously a controvertial move especially without discussion.

• On 1st of March he moved "Sean 'Spike' Murray" to "Sean Murray (Northern Irish republican)" and again without discussion or concensus - his reasoning was "proper title" - again this was a controvertial move because Irish republicans would find it offensive to be deems are "Northern Irish" as they do not recognise the country and also legally there is no nationality as Northern Irish - so it would be a strong POV statement to label him as such.

• On 7th of May he moved "Norman Stronge" to "Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet" this time it was not just without foundation but it there was discussion and he was clearly editing against concensus and against wiki guidance.

This type of editing continued throughout January - for example on the 13th of Jan at the Sean Dillon (Jack Higgins character)‎ article Astrotrain removes a fact tag that I placed - but did not add a citation and he also he added the following "a successful Irish terrorist" and he made a similar edit on the Urban Guerrilla page and added terrorist to the Le Mo bombing pageand againand againand again.

• Also after I raised notability questions on Sir Charles Stronge, 7th Baronet article he stated "Perhaps if he were a terrorist you would want to keep him?" here

• On the 28th of January on the Harrods bombing article, Astrotrain reverted my edit with the edit summary "rv- POV vandalism" to try and state that the IRA bomb on that day was to target "christmas shoppers" rather than the store itself despite there being no source that ever claimed that the target was civilians or shoppers. I then tried to engage in a discussion with Astrotrain and clearly outlined my concerns in a point by point fashion so that there could be no confusion and so the matter could be cleared up without escalating - so I made my concerns known here and Astrotrains only reply was to say " restored the article to the version by User:El chulito, which was the previous best version- obviously the items above would have been changes at this point" - and number of replies were made but Astrotrain just avoided the issue.

• On 26th of February on the Balcombe Street Siege article Astrotrain once again blankly reverted an edit I made wit hthe edit summary "restore to last version by Weggie- I do not believe they are POV terms" - again I left a detailed messege on his talk page, again outlining my queries in a point by point fashion because I feel that if issues are just generally addressed Astrotrain will simply avoid the issue or throw up a smoke screen and nothing will get resolved. I ddi the same on the 1996 South Quay bombing artile but before he answered he was blocked on another issue for "trollish and inflammatory comments" is a discussion about Islam v Christianity.

• Grandstanding and attepmting to create and enflame a dispute, ganging up and provoking

• On the 19th of March on the Thomas Begley article (an article which is had already tried to redirect without discussion) Astrotrain reverted my edit with the edit summary "restore Weggie version- these quotes are suspect and out of place" - which removed referenced material.

I then again tried to engage in a discussion with Astrotrain here to see why he made the revert and what could be sorted out about it. Astrotrains reply was that I should read his edit summary, which was " rv to last version by Weggie- correct to name this section that- given it is sourced from the IRA" - I asked him if he serious thought that the IRA wrote the book - he never replied but did continue to revert.

then he was blocked two days for " incivility and edit warring".

• He dissapeared not for 2 days but for a full two weeks and his first edits after he returned was to start blanking comments on his this page and then made this personal attack against a number of editors labeling their comments as harrassment from terrorist supporters and his next was to state that "Next time I will stick to making racist remarks, or perhaps adding the name of a terrorist organisation to my signature, or maybe I should stick to deleting referenced material to suit a POV republican viewpoint, or glorifying murder" here

• for this he was blocked for a week

• Again returning nine days later on the 19th of April he went straight into disruptive and POV editing.1st removing the NI logo, 2nd POV statement on Thomas Begley and UK regions issue again all within hours of returning from a week long block.

within hours he was given an article ban to try and stop him.

• More details of the vote stacking can be found at User:One Night In Hackney/Temp - which incidently Astrotrain tried to have deleted here at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:One Night In Hackney/Temp

• On the 5th of August he added that category of Category:Criminals who committed suicide to a number of articles about Irish republicans who died on hunger strike. These articles included Francis Hughes, Bobby Sands and others [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

• Canvassing

• devising and provokitive editing

On the same day the he redirect the Begley article he began to try and speedy delete numberous articles about Irish republicans such as James McDade, Martin Lynch - reasoning being "speedy delete- nn IRA terrorist- article is mainly about a bugging incident on Gerry Adams and very little info on him provided", Bernadette Sands McKevitt "speedy delete- nn sister of an IRA terrorist" Eddie Copeland "speedy delete- nn IRA terrorist" - all of the articles are still surving to this day.

This did not thwart Astrotrain and on the same day he nominated [McDade for deletion] - reasoning "Non-notable IRA terrorist, no verifable information can be obtained about him, and he has done nothing of note other than killing himself" - result 13 keep bote and zero deletes.

A number of messeges were left for him to stop his disruptive editing here and the other posts below it but that did not stop him. he next came [[22]] which Tyrenius speedily deleted because he didnt trust the sources.

Then on the 25th he nominated Charles Breslin for speedy deletion and Antoine Mac Giolla Bhrighde‎ for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde‎ this was a run of the mill AfD until he then joined forces with Kittybrewster, David Lauder, Major Bonkers, Couter-revolutionary and a serial sockpuppeter who was then named "El chulito" after he canvassed them.

The same day he nominated - Martin McGartland‎ here - now this is a guy who has a book written about him and a film made about him, you can all see the clear result of that too!

He a number of editors were involved in vote canvassing and what another administrator called “lock step” voting. In the next few months they vote in a number of AfD's on the basis of what “they like” rather than using the rationale of wiki policies. A number of central users with Astrotrain such as Kittybrewster, Counter-revolutionary, David Lauder, Major Bonkers but also included Fraslet and to a lesser extent Weggie and Gibnews and El chulito and Inthegloaming who I strongly suspected were socks - and these and others turned out to be confirmed socks.

All of the above can by generally stated as voting within the anti Irish republican and pro British unionist/ monarchist.

Astrotrain also canvassed !votes on these AfD's on a number of occasions [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Canvassing for AfD !votes for Raymond Gilmour [30]

Once he had assembled his group through canvassing there was systematic abuse of the AfD system with a number of a same editors arriving at an AfD on a subject which they either liked or disliked and voted to delete or keep on POV rather then wiki policy. The exact details are as follows –

James McDade AfD Nominated by Astrotrain. Result – ‘’’Keep’’’ 13 votes to Keep and 1 to Delete – that vote by as Astrotrain – therefore 100% of the delete !votes from “the group”.

Then [Montgomery] – this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. However Tyrenius ended the AfD because of a source that stated that Montgomery was involved in a murder.

Then Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 7 votes and Delete 7 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 71% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then Charles Breslin AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then Martin McGartland AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – Keep, Keep 10 votes and Delete 1 votes – that of Astrotrains

Then Diarmuid O’Neill AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – No consensus, This is where the real vote staking operation started and canvassing came into effect. Keep 20 votes and Delete 10 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept. Note the first eight !votes were to Keep and that is when the canvassing started and since then there has been almost total lock step.

Then Charles Breslin AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then we had a AfD of a biography relating to a member of the “British nobility”. This was the Robert_Murray_Arbuthnot AfD, this AfD was nominated by Argyriou on the basis of non notability. Result – Delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 9 votes – 3 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 75% of the votes to keep from “the group” in an article that was deleted

Again back to an Irish republican and the Martin_McCaughey AfD, this AfD was nominated by Tyrenius on the basis of non notability. Result – Keep, Keep 16 votes and Delete 12 votes – 7 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 58% of the votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Similar behaviour and calls for deletion in an number of AfD’s of members of the Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade such as the Tony Gormley AfD – bios of each of those that were merged not deleted can be seen on the of the bottom of the page that they were merged to.

The Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain received no delete votes and result was speedy keep'.

The Republic UK AfD, an anti monarchy organisation where they all !voted delete for an article that was kept.

There were more with the same pattern at the Federal_Commonwealth_Society| (here is where admin MrDarcy highlights this potential stalk voting).

• On the 10th of February Astrotrain was admonished by an admin for canvassing and another admin User:Jersey Devil confirms this. And there is an extended discussion about this on ANI.

Astrotrain was further admonished for the AfD campaign here by two admins.--Vintagekits 15:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See history at List of British flags, List of flags of the Republic of Ireland‎, [[

It began around the same time as the AfD disputes that he started finished - I again tried to discuss the issue rationally - here on his tale page but was told to "Stick to terrorist articles". I again civilly tried to discuss the issue with him but he then immediately archieved the discussion without answering the queries I had on the issue - and he also changed the font colour of his to Orange.

He was warned for this by an admin here for his actions with regard this and then blocked by another.

• On 14th of March he canvassed another editor to assist him in an edit war on the Flag issue at the List of British flags article. That day the editor that was canvassed appeared on the article thus enflaming the edit war. [31]

Since 2005 Astrotrain used to make about 350 edits per month to wiki but since April his primary reason to edit on wiki changed from what it was historically. He didnt really bother too much with wiki and would just log on for a few minutes/hours every other day make make his limited of reverts up to 3RR levels - then log off and come back a few days later and do the same. In effect he was not using his account to build any articles but escalate and enflame edit wars and to vote stack.[32]here[33][34][35][36][37]

• Summary

* bad faith AfDs

• point violations
• POV editing
• Civility and NPA breaches
• Controvertial redirecting of articles without concensus or discussion
• refering to editors as terrorists or terrorist supporters
• Canvassing
• Edit warring and breaches of 3RR

CR is a British monarchist who is a High Tory who has a more limited amount of edits on wiki (some 3,500). A High Tory is someone who is a fervent monarchist. likely a High Anglican in religion, a classically-educated believer in high culture with a suspicion and dislike of contemporary popular culture, cool towards the idea of democracy.

He is a member of Team Baronetcies and British royalty project, he is a close ally of Kittybrewster and most of his edits are to articles about eastern European monarchy and minor Northern Irish nobility especially focusing on the Stronge Baronets. It is through his editing of the series of Stronge baronets that I initially came into contact with him and this is the source from which came his disruptive editing on wikipedia.

All of CR's first edits were to articles relating to European monarchy his first foray into articles pertaining to "the Troubles" was a week into his wiki career and it was on Tynan Abbey which is the seat on the Stronge Baronets - as you can see from his creation if not really about the Abbey itself but about the the killing of James Stronge (Unionist) and Norman Stronge - articles about whom he created on the same day as well as the Stronge Baronets.

Although the articles show POV and a slanted outlook on these articles it was nothing that couldnt sorted out easily once an editor came along that did have such a degree of awe for these individuals came along. That editor came along on the 9th November in the shape of a retired English editor called SandyDancer. He stripped out much of the POV terms and added an unreferenced tag and did more again the following day.

This is when the ownership and {{WP:NPOV|POV]] issues of both Kitty and CR came to the fore and showed themselves, up to this point they were the only editors who had really added anything to the articles. A discussion (the first of many began the following day here.

As well as editing article on eastern european monarchy he increasing began to make minor edits to Northern Irish articles such as John Alexander Sinton, David Trimble, John Hermon, Edward Macnaghten, Baron Macnaghten, List of castles in Northern Ireland.

• CR's POV editing began in earnest on 3rd October 2006 when he added a number of weasal words to the James Stronge article such as calling the Stronges "an illustrious aristocratic family" and Stronge himself a "a decorated officer" whilst the ASU that killed the Stronges were an "IRA terror gang" who "stormed his anscestral home" and " murdered at point-blank range, while the terrorists set alight the historic castle as a final insult to the bereaved family" and then "Having been to witness to the murder of his elderley father, Capt. James Stronge was he, himself, gunned down" - not just is that POV it is also OR as was "It is this presumed he briefly succeeded Sir Norman as 9th baronet for only a few moments after witnessing his father's fate."

• Also on the 3rd of October he added a number of POV categories to article relating to "the Troubles" including these to Edgar Graham, changed died to murdered on the Doreen Knatchbull, Baroness Brabourne article. - and again of 8 of December

• On 7th of October 2006 he again added emotive, POV or OR material to the James Stronge article so that a paragraph read so unbalanced that it could be a tabloid newspaper - " It is thus presumed he briefly succeeded Sir Norman as 9th baronet for only a few moments, before he too was murdered by his father's killers. The bodies of the two baronets, father and son, now disfigured beyond recognition, were later recovered from the conflagaration at Tynan Abbey."

• On 11th of October he removed killed and added "murdered" at the John Knatchbull, 7th Baron Brabourne‎ article.

• On 9th of November again at the Norman Stronge article he added more OR and POV with "His murder caused such outrage on both sides of the community to the extent that" - on the same day at the James Stronge there was more sentionalist POV and OR with "His father managed to set off a flare (in a succesful atempt to alert the Royal Ulster Constabulary)" and also with "The authorities arrived shortly after and entered into a gun battle with the fleeing terrorists." All of this was removed later that day by Sandy Dancer which CR then reverted. He then created Sir James Stronge, 10th Baronet which turned out to be largely OR and nn - as well as a number of other articles which are now mostly merged.[38][39][40][41]

• On 12th of November Sandy added a NPOV tag to the Tynan Abbey article becuase the only source was a homemade website called IRA Atrocities which proclaim that "sinn fein/IRA are the devil's children" - this is the type of source that was being used in these articles. CR removed that tag without addressing the issue at hand - saying "i think the source may be bias, the article, however, is not. I shall add another source tomorrow. the article itself is neutral, really" - if the source is biased who can the article not be unless he is using OR!! We should only be representing verifiable information from sources. The following day CR readded the term "terrorist" to the stating with the edit summary "nothing POV about calling the IRA terrorists, esp. when they gun down an 86 year old civilian...Also, how does the term "ancestral home" suggest POV??)" and again - it was not until the 19th of January that a proper source was added to the article incidently it was me that did it

• It was in mid January that I found these the "Stronge articles" and like SandyDancer (the only other "outsider" to edit the articles) I immediately say that they were full of POV.

My first edit to James Stronge was 15th of January[42] and I made what I thought here minor neutralisations and dePOVing. CR immediately reinsterted the POV term - again on 20th January removes the neutral term of targetted and replaces with murdered.

My first edit to Norman Stronge was 18th of January again some minor dePOVing (or so I thought). immediately removed by CR with edit summary "Please do let me know why this word is PoV? He did not die, Sir Norman was murdered. I think this is a compromise as it is" wit hedit summary of ""targeted" is a meaningless word. He was murdered. This is historic and legal fact" - which was incorrect and OR - and again.

• During this discussion CR is informed that wiki considers assasination a loaded term - yet he continues to use it in articles. And then comes out with this attack - this is not a "place to "wax lyrical" about appeasing a vicious murder from a republican perspective"

• On 24 Feb 2007 more POV and OR and on the 27 Feb he removes a fact tag demands that his POV as OR is accepted as I should "USE COMMON SENSE" and that he "shall cont. to remove it!" - it being the fact tag - therefore he is saying that he is refusing to abide by WP:V and his OR overrides that!

• On 17th of March 2007 he hads a number of fact tags to an atrticle that he has been "attacking" - Republic (United Kingdom) - I have no problem with this but this is a tactic that he has on a number of occasion called wikistalking and harrassment. This edit appears to be another instance of him undertaking the same actions which he calls harrassment! example 2example 3

• On 23 April 2007 he made a very interesting and POV edit to the Pat Finucane (solicitor), Finucane was a solicitor for a number of Irish republicans and Irish members and was shot dead by "Loyalist" - CR removed the term "murdered" and replaced it with "killed" - exactly the opposite that he had been doing on the Norman Stronge and James Stronge articles as outlined above and which he did THAT VERY DAY!!here and [43] and [44].

• On 24 April 2007 he removes the term "Derry" from the Derry article against WP:IMOS - a hugely controvertial edits and one very rarely made be an experienced editor- and also removed the term County Derry from the County Londonderry article - equally bizarre and provokative especially from a editor that is established.

• On 19th of January CR removes referenced material (the first WP:V reference the article ever had) because it gave a source outlining the reason the Stronges were killed.

CR has !voted on AfD on the basis of whether or not he supported the article ideologically rather than if the article merited being its status pre wiki policy and guidelines.

• The first instances of voting on the basis of WP:ILIKEIT were on a pair of "student clubs" - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strafford Club and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Andrews University Scottish Nationalist Association - both were nominated on the same day - both were deleted - one was nominated for deletion by CR and the of was vehimently defended by CR - I will let you guess which was which before you click on the link. The following day we had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oxford Monarchists more of the same - and again here - but all that was light stuff.

• On 29 January] he voted to delete at the Diarmuid O'Neill AfD giving the reason " If we allow all terrorists killed to have Wiki. articles why don't we give the an article to all the victims of terrorism?" and again the following day "If we allow this article then it is against PoV not to have one for every innocent victim of the troubles in Northern Ireland. I don't think there is any need for it but if we allow this for a terrorist who did nothing of note, at all, in his lifetime then why not for terrorist victims?"

• The following day he voted to delete Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde at his AfD - simply claiming "per nom" - the nom stating "non notable IRA terrorist- no references and no evidence of having done anything". I would urge you to look at the article and consider if this was based on POV or not.

• On 8 February 2006 he voted to delete at the Martin McCaughey AfD giving the reason " This IRA member is even less notable than some of the others which should have been deleted. What did he do, except join the IRA to make him notable. I shall echo what's been said many times before, wikipedia is not a memorial to the IRA" - this person was the youngest elected representative in Ireland and at the same time as sitting on a council was also a member of the IRa and on the list of the UK most wanted men.

• On 21 February 2006 he voted to Keep at the Federal Commonwealth Society AfD giving the reason "It has been nominated for deletion by User:RepublicUK. Why? you might ask, because they disagree with this organisation! A clear breach of Point of View. Notable organisation, nominated out of spite" - so he based his keep vote solely on his assumed bad faith nomination and nothing whatsoever about the article- there was a reason for that because this article had no references outside of blogs and its own website and no claims to notability - other keep votes included - Major Bonkers, Astrotrain, David Lauder, Chelsea Tory and Kittybrewster - baring in mind this article had NO verifiable sources, its office was some guys front room in Canada and did claim to ever actually do anything all these guys still voted together to keep it. The article was delete despite all those "keep" votes from the "lock step" team and they were admonished here by admin Mr. Darcy who also warned them about block voting on this and Irish republican AfD's.

• Less than a week after voting to keep the "Federal Commonwealth Society" he then raised the issue of notability of Republic (political organisation) as "similar up opposite" organisation but one that CR is idealogically opposed - and the article was nominated for deletion on 28 February. Again this organisation had a higher profile and better references than the "Federal Commonwealth Society" which he had just voted to keep less than a week before this. On the day the AfD started he voted to delete the article and cited " non-notable, may have some cursory supporters, but none take an active interest, apparently. It doesn't seem to contribute anything society other than having a website, which any organisation can have. It doesn't hold events &c" - stark contrast to the AfD a mere few day earlier. When it was pointed out that the references appeared to show notability CR replied "references do not equate with notability" - really!! and ", I am and have seen many referenced organisations deleted. I could easily public lots of websites referencing a fictional society, would that make it notable? So far as I can tell this does not exist outside the internet." and finally and most notably he stated "Wkipedia's job is not to give forum to a voice for different/extremist views. If it's not notable it's not notable!" - what happened to WP:NOT

• On 6th of April CR place a notability tag on the Movement Against the Monarchy - and the following day sent it to AfD - and stated "seems un-notable, although it maintains a website this is NO evidence of notability in itself. Anyone can establish a "movement" and start a website. Non notable and with no need to be here" - there were no other delete votes and the article was kept.

• On 10 May 2007 on the Emma Groves afd (Emma Groves was shot in the face by a Britsh solider and blinded with a plastic bullet and was then a life long campaigner against pastic bullets and a co-founder of United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets - loads of references etc and CR voted delete stating "not even about her death. Just about her being hit with a plastic bullet. I was injured in a rugby match at school, do I deserve a WP article? nonsense." - obviously the article was kept but there was one other delete vote and that was from an obvious sock of someones called Sergeant Trotter that make three with the same name and agenda - Sergeant Trotter, Major Bonkers and General Peabody - fishy.

• On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Arbuthnot of Invernettie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Arbuthnot of Meethill a pair of Kitty's article and he is pretty much the only keep vote - both were deleted!!

• On 19th of January CR requested that "Chelsea Tory" protect him during a revert war. Later that day Chelsea Tory entered the revert war and would later also be canvassed for AfD's.

• Ten days later on the 29th of January at the Diarmuid O'Neill AfD he shows an unusual take on WP:CANVAS stating that canvassing is "more aptly described as raising awareness".

• Months later on 13 March 2007 CR still has the same casual attitude to canvassing within "his team" - saying "This is not canvassing, he has not told anyone which way to vote. He has merely done wikipedia a service by bringing this issue to the attention of interested parties."

• On 8th February 2006 admin Tyrenius removes personal attacks from CR and BLP from anon sock. Warning given for endorsing attacks. CR then accuses me or stalking him and is warned for this also.

• On 25th of February 2007 CR accuses my of wikistalking without basis or providing any diffs or evidence.

• Less than a few hours after CR accuses me of wikistalking him he appears on a boxing page that he has never edited before and makes an extremely controvertial edit to the John Duddy article. When he changes the details of the nationality section of the infobox from Irish to Northern Irish and the flagicon for the Irish tricolour to the Union Jack. Blatantly a provokitive and conrovertial edit especially when you consider that Duddy is a catholic from a nationalist area of Derry, who uncle was killed by the British Army during Bloody Sunday, who fought for Ireland as an amatuer, who self identifies as Irish, who's nickname is "Ireland's John Duddy - not to mention the terms of the Good Friday Agreement which allows those from the 6 counties to legally indentify as Irish, British or both.

• On the 9th of March CR against make a blatant and direct personal attack on my on my talkpage stating that I am "offensive, crass, and lacking in a common sense of taste and decency". He was again warned by an admin (Tyrenius) here regarding personal attack but immediately removed the warning and didnt reply or acknowledge it and then blanked his page. From now on he would blank his page - in my opinion to hide his past - Kittybrewster and David Lauder would also adopt this tactic.

• On 26 April 2007 accussed be of "bad faith" and "class hate" for nominating this Baronet

• On 10 May 2007 he made one of his most disgusting edits to Caitríona Ruane when he referred to her as "snide, hypoctricial cow" - he was warned about it here he claimed it was a mistake when it went to ANI but had twice brushed that comment off before that [45][46] - amazing the guy still never had a block at this stage!

• On 12 June 2007 began labelling !voters as Irish or Irish republicans after they voted. He was given a block this action and then he blanked his page to hide it

• On 4 August 2007 an admin (Bishonen) gave CR a warning for his edits on my talkpage - CR immediately removed this warning without acknowledgement or reply with the edit summary of "Removing vandalism" he then got another warning for another admin (Geogre) to which he replied that the admin (with whom he has never had any contact with before "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Counter-revolutionary&diff=next&oldid=149127609 was out to provike him"

Grandstanding and attepmting to create and enflame a dispute, ganging up and provoking

Gibnews's evidence is long on accusations but short on diffs - blanket accusations of racism without proofs to back that up.

1. I see nothing wrong in the diffs he has proved, sure I was fairly green around the gills back in December and I wasnt aware of the do's and dont's of wiki. his first diffs was in response to equally POV comments from Gibnews who has serious ownership issues over articles relating to Gibraltar - nothing racists in what I am saying, I dont argee with British colonialism - since when is that opinion racist!

1. Referring to Michael Gaughan as a minor criminal is the most telling comment in all of his evidence - it clearly shows his biased POV. Gaughan is a member of the IRA that was killed or at least died in very controvertial circumstances after being forcefed whilst on Hunger strike in prison. This is the exact POV that you are up against with some British editors, especially those listed in this dispute - they have their opinion of the IRA so ingrained from their media that anything less than portraying IRA members as "petty criminals who are foaming at the mouth, ruthless, baby eaters" his contrary to thier understanding of the situation, and back in December and January when I came on to wiki it was a massive struggle to even just use neutral language in articles about the IRA or IRA members. As you can see Gibnews was blocked for his exchanges with me for referring to me as a "rabid editor" - I didnt block him - admin did so they were obviously sure what he meant - again he hasnt proved the diffs in his agruments which is bordering on a rant.

1. He states that this edit "Removing the reason the PIRA team were shot in Gibraltar" - that is not entirely true, I removed it from the first sentance per WP:LEAD because it was a. a POV statement, b. outlined exactly in more detail in the main body of the article.

1. He correctly outlines that this edit " Deleting other peoples comments in talk" - that is correct I did, remove both mine and his because it was becoming more like an internet discussion forum discussion rather than a serious dicussion relating to the article and I wasnt offay with the talk page etiquitte in December. Gibnews reinstated the discussion so I removed my own contributions and then Gibnews immediately withdraw his so in essence after all that hassle the talk page ended in in the exact same state as it was when I removed both our comments - anyway it was a lesson learned.

1. Again another unfounded accusation of "racism" - doesnt even require a defense because there is nothin to defend (it is was also one of the comments I thried to delete (above) which he reinstated.

1. Reaction to banning hasnt even for a diff so I cant comment but it looks like nothing again.

1. In his summary he shows his POV again with is " Wikipedia is to be written by all its users or subverted to a narrow racist POV" obviously he considers that wiki should be written from "his" POV and there is no need for neutrality. Vintagekits 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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; [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

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 ; [53] [54] [55]

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; [56] [57] [58]

From 12 to 15 August, W. Frank continued to change IRA to PIRA without taking part in the discussion; [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]

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; [73]

At 10:58 on 15 August W. Frank was warned about his conduct by administrator Spartaz; [74]

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; [75] [76] [77]

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. [78] [79] [80] [81]

On 20 August an IP editor vandalised an article; [82] 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"; [83] However he actually changed IRA to PIRA at the same time, despite being asked not to do this; [84]

On 27 August W. Frank (editing with an IP Address by his own admission) again changed IRA to PIRA; [85]

On 27 August admininistrator Alison asked W. Frank to stop being disruptive; [86] And on 28 August Administrator Spartaz again asked W. Frank to stop changing the acronym without consensus; [87]

Traditional unionist has recently admitted to being a member of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP); [88]

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

He changed "The PUP is the political wing of" to "The PUP is said to give political advice to"; [89]

He changed "The PUP is said to be the political wing of" to "The PUP is said to give political advice to" ;[90]

He changed "The PUP is the political wing of" to "The PUP is said to give advice to" complete with weasel caveat of "(and is considered by many to be it's political wing)"; [91] [92]

Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has frequently made personal attacks on other editors inlcuding describing anyone who disagrees with him as a "nationalist" or claiming their edits are vandalism; [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]

Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has attempted to dismiss sources he doesn't agree with or says they are written by "nationalists", frequently describing them as "nationalist propaganda"; [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]

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 [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116]

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 [117] User:Conypiece in conflict with User:Domer48 and User:One Night In Hackney regarding Séamus McElwaine [118] [119] [120] [121]

User:Conypiece removing the name of the (republican) MP from an article on a town: [122] (note uncivil edit summary) [123] [124] (Note: Personal attack in edit summary)

User:Conypiece adding pro-Unionist information about an Orange Institution parade to a town summary. [125] [126] [127]

One of his first edits after coming back from a block from edit warring (on a protected page's talk page: [128]

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. [129]

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 [130] [131] [132] [133]

(against User:Astrotrain and User:Biofoundationsoflanguage (amongst others on both sides), Template:UKFlags [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]

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.)

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 [139].

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: [140] 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]

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]

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: [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148]

Awarding a barnstar to User:Conypiece, after he was blocked for forty 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. [149]

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

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

‎Harry West [151] (Amongst User:Conypiece, User:Astrotrain, User:Domer48, User:Padraig, User:Scalpfalmer)

Orange Institution [152] (Amongst User:Conypiece, User:Aatomic1, User:Traditional unionist, User:One Night In Hackney with others) SirFozzie 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

For example: Séamus McElwaine
[153] [154]

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

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

At this point in the case, I hope the ArbCom has already decided for themselves that User:Gold heart, who also used the accounts User:Thepiper and User:Gold Heart (Temp) in this ArbCom case, has violated WP:SOCK. However, I now wish to submit much more powerful (and to me, DISGUSTING) evidence. The person behind all these accounts has created further sockpuppet accounts, amongst them User:Pronterra and User:Perolla and is using them to out, and harass User:Alison both on and off-Wikipedia, about her history. Alison has posted publicly about this [155], and I hope she forwards the emails that she has received to the Arbitration Committee. SirFozzie 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

SirFozzie has wrote an essay on Nationalism and how it pertains to Wikipedia, using his experience with editors involved in this ArbCom case as a baseline for his essay. The essay was posted here. This was considered uncivil by User:Astrotrain, who had asked for a civility parole on User:SirFozzie based off writing this article. SirFozzie 18:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Tyrenius spent about four hours editing Norman Stronge to make it NPOV ([156]) Counter-revolutionary has repeatedly changed "killed" back to "murdered".

[157] [158] [159] (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):

[160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169]

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

[170]

Kittybrewster has previously been blocked twice for COI editing.

[171] [172]

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" [173]
• "Delete: another article glorifying a subversive terrorist in Britain" [174]
• "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." [175]

Deletion debates:

[176] [177] [178] [179]

Canvassing:

[180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186]

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

[187] [188]

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.

[189] [190] (note: first diff is W. Frank editing from an IP, article history for 25 May shows it was obviously him)

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

[191]

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

On 17 May an unsourced addition that failed NPOV by a long way (phrases such as The trial itself proved something of a farce and Their testimony, when it was given, was rubbished are a bit of a giveaway) was added to an article.[192]

20 minutes later I reverted the addition with a clear edit summary of "rv - good faith edit, but unsourced and fails WP:NPOV".[193]

Two months later on 22 July W. Frank added back the unsourced information, probably assuming bad faith that I only remove negative POV about Irish republicans.[194]

I later discovered the entire addition was a copyright violation from an article written by Sinn Féin activist Danny Morrison.[195]

I recently asked W. Frank to explain his edit to this article, and received a less than satisfactory response (complete with attacks on me).[196] Contrary to his response, there was no reference at the time for the trial information that was added, and if an editor cannot see that The trial itself proved something of a farce and Their testimony, when it was given, was rubbished are clearly POV and cannot be stated as fact his judgement is rather suspect.

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

[197] [198] [199] [200]

Astrotrain added "suicide" categories to the article about the 1981 Irish hunger strike and the participants. As a source ([201]) Padraig posted on the article talk page ([202]) shows, the official causes of death were not officially listed as "suicide".

[203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215]

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

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

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

Any AFDs for terrorists that I started where in good faith- many of them were poorly written and sourced to terrorist websites. Some of them were deleted following AFDs, many survived due to "no consensus". - let's have some diffs to prove that statement please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[216] [217] [218] [219] Only after his redirect was reverted for the fourth time did he propose a merge and attempt to discuss it.[220] [221]

[222] [223] Similarly only after being reverted twice was an attempt made to discuss it.[224]

[225] [226] (second AfD closed as speedy keep due to bad faith nomination)

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

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

Across various AfD debates, talk pages and elsewhere there have been debates regarding the notability of baronets. At times they have been heated, and at other times they have bordered on ludicrous, but I think the following debate is the best example. Mackensen trys to discuss why an article should not be merged, and the debate descends into chaos with arguments about "pecking order" and other irrelevance.

[227]

One of the editors involved in the debate (and disputes in general), Counter-revolutionary, said elsewhere of the notability of baronets - "Kittybrewster's edits should not lead to an assault on his article by those who continually treat the British ascendency with disdain. There are many wider issues here. These editors, numerous are openly pro-Irish republicanism, cannot accept that the holding of a signficant honour from the British Crown (a baronetcy) can make one inherently notable, they believe that becuase it is hereditary is is somehow irrelevant. This is obviously not the opinion of society as a whole. This anti-hereditary bias is clearly a PoV, which has no place on wikipedia."

[228]

The Caitríona Ruane evidence is slightly misleading. At 22:56 an IP editor added the information calling a living person a "snide, hypoctricial cow". I reverted the edit with a summary of "rvv" at 22:57, then Counter-revolutionary reverted back to the previous version with an edit summary of "Perhaps if they could source it..." at 23:02. Counter-revolutionary was clearly stalking my edits, and clearly didn't even bother to read the information he was adding back to the article.

[229] [230] [231]

As can be seen by the evidence above, editors voted to delete articles about IRA members due to their dislike of the subject matter rather than based on notability guidelines (WP:IDONTLIKEIT).

The evidence below shows the same editors also disregarded notability guidelines when they liked the subject matter of an article (WP:ILIKEIT).

The Federal Commonwealth Society had a contentious debate with clearly partisan voting.

[232]

I have had the article temporarily restored to User:One Night In Hackney/Federal Commonwealth Society, so the lack of notability can be seen. There were zero independent sources, and other than blogs or sites that linked to the FCS website no reliable sources were produced during the debate to prove notability. Various comments ignoring guidelines on and notability were made, including:

Counter-revolutionary "Keep.....Notable organisation, nominated out of spite"

[233]

Kittybrewster "Keep and expand"

[234]

David Lauder "Keep: total and utter reliance on the internet, as proposed by Angus McLellan, should never be the last word. Libraries still exist will millions of books and periodicals one cannot find on the internet, which is not the be all and end all. This organisation is contentious enough (at least for those opposed to it) in its objectives to be notable. It has a website. Mr Darcy in his comment refers to a Wiki guideline, the template of which tells us is not set in stone"

[235]

Very partisan voting on the this debate, with the only four votes on this Arbuthnot related (not a family member apparently) article to keep came from Kittybrewster, Astrotrain, David Lauder and another member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies.

[236]

Deletion was taken to DRV due to a source that he took part in an allegedly high profile case, but deletion was endorsed.

[237]

Notability was disputed on this article, but comments such as the one from Astrotrain failed to say why the person was notable and simply attacked the nominator, as did David Lauder

[238]

Astrotrain 'Keep - disruptive nomination as part of a campaign against the Arbuthnot family"

[239]

Kittybrewster "Keep (later changed to Strong Keep). Notable for having founded a successful merchant bank"

[240]

David Lauder "Keep: The founder of an old established merchant bank is of course notable. I suggest efforts be made to research and expand the subject/article. Can't help thinking this is just another bad faith AfD nomination"

[241]

Seeing as below he complains that "My improvments to Flag of the United Kingdom, a whole nights work, was deleted...." this deserves a mention.

On 1 August he made an edit with a summary of "add back unofficial section per consensus on NI page and remove non flag".

[242]

This was actually a revert to his preferred version from 30 April.

[243]

Naturally this edit reverted the improvements of many editors, but in particular it removed MediaWiki image syntax improvements that had been made.

[244]

[245] [246] [247] 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 [248]. I later discovered that the Provisional IRA may never have been classed as an FTO at all, as can be seen here.

Rockpocket has confirmed that he believes 84.13.156.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is probably User:W. Frank [249]. User:W. Frank has willingly admitted he has also been editing using a similar IP on the same internet service provider 84.13.10.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has also been used to abuse other editors in a similar way [250] [251]. Due to his admission of using one IP, no "outing" can possibly be done by a checkuser taking place to confirm the suspicions of several editors including User:Rockpocket that User:W. Frank was also editing using 84.13.156.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

I am not particularly interested in the troubles and have made few edits on them. Most of my edits were spelling and grammatical corrections with which they were full. Nor am I interested in being wiki-stalked by Irish republicans gathered by Vk off wiki - and the self-confessedly nasty User:Giano_II. 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.

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

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

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

I am pleased that Vintagekits has been stopped from disrupting the development of wikipedia. I found him to be didactic [252], intelligent, vindictive, threatening [253], disruptive [254] [255], self-pitying, prone to blame admins and others - and extremely focused on continuing to do more of the same [256]. He is also sneaky (in more than one sense) and revels in reporting people to Admins and calling for reprimands. 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"Village pump - Dandruff wasnt "undoubtedly murdered" he was killed. I am sure you could find WP:RS sources to say he was murdered but he wasnt he was killed, I am sure you could find WP:RS sources to say it was terrorist that killed him but we wouldnt use that terminology in this respect also.--Vintagekits 22:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC), 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]

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]

This Arbcom contains an amazing amount of finger-pointing, fault-finding and blaming of others. This has been enhanced and exacerbated by uninvolved editors wading in and trolling. I think it will not be possible for the matter to be resolved until each editor takes responsibility for his own edits. The admins have not initiated the blaming culture but as they were called upon to restrain the poor behaviour, they inevitably became blamers. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 [257] for

• "Personal attacks and not following the policies" on 28 January 2007 by Shyam (talk · contribs)
• "taunting of blocked user (second such WP:CIVIL violation)" on 19 February 2007 by MrDarcy (talk · contribs)
• "personal attack after warnings" on 5 March 2007, by Tyrenius (talk · contribs)
• "3RR on Hugh Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of Allander" on 10 March 2007, by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs)
• "personal attacks - 4th block for same" on 22 May 2007, by MrDarcy (talk · contribs)
• "incivility, personal attacks, and edit warring after warning" on 13 June 2007, by Picaroon (talk · contribs)

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 [258]

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

• Sock-puppetry [259] (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits for full case)
• Meat-puppetry at least twice (summarised, [260], evidence of off-wiki recruitment [261], see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits for full case)
• Personal attacks and incivility on Wikipedia [262] [263] [264] [265] [266] (Note: Vk appears to think that the swapping of, or addition of letters - usually h - disguises his regular use of the word "cunt" in reference to other editors [267].)
• Continued personal attacks, threats and incivility by email [268][269] [270]
• Low level revert warring to suit his POV (see, for example, a wholescale reversion to a error strewn version of an article because our MoS did not, in his opinion, display enough "respect for [the subject's] holy orders" [271] [272]) Rockpocket 07:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Even during Vk's current block and during the process of this case, Vk admits sending emails goading another editor about evidence presented here [273]. Rockpocket 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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". [274] 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!!!" [275] 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" [276] (though Vintagekits denies sending such an email [277]) Alison reviewed the evidence and blocked Vintagekits for "one of those "I know where you live" moments and you did it twice today" [278] I did likewise (before oversight), identified the suspect edits and endorsed the block after confirmation with Alison. [279] [280] 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 [281] and BrownHairedGirl [282] also endorsed. Vk originally claimed to lack understanding of why Alison blocked, saying "What the hell are you talking about??? I'm baffled!" [283] but later acknowledges he did insert "the street name of an editor into a post." [284] 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 [285] 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]

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 [286] [287] 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) [288]
  • "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." [289] Admin John informed Thepiper this is not acceptable, to no avail [290] [291]
  • Making erroneous claims of canvassing [292] (when I asked other editors to stop agitating) Admin John informed Thepiper of this, to no avail [293] [294]
  • Making erroneous claims of harrassment [295] (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 [296])). 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?" [297] and "He was brought down by the pack. I don't agree with Vk on everything he writes, but I'm no traitor." [298] (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]
    • Subsequent to the evidence provided above, Thepiper confirmed he is a sockpuppet of Gold heart (talk · contribs) and expressed regret. Arbitrars should note that same individual has therefore provided evidence twice to this case. Rockpocket 05:16, 12 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 [299]. Examples include calling other editors "insurgents" and "terrorists". [300] [301] Eventually the IP was blocked first by myself for harrassment, then Tyrenius (talk · contribs) for suggesting he intended "to find and reveal personal information" [302] 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) [303] However, a checkuser request was declined. [304] 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 [305][306]. Incidently, the lack of success in pursuing this led to further accusations of administrative bias [307], a good example of the impossible job of an administrator in this conflict. Rockpocket 09:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No matter what User:Rockpocket will try and tell you, (I was looking at the charges he is preferring), these troubles started in 1603, in the Plantation of Ulster, and not here on 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[308]. 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!!!" [309]., 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." [310]. 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[311]. He picked what suited his purpose, and left out the rest of the sentence too.
• Welcome Response from User:BrownHairedGirl [312], 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. [313]. Here we see an administrator issue subsequent warning[314]. 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. [315]
• A clear case of canvassing by User:Rockpocket here [316]
• Well, if I liked, I could call it uncivil, here is User:Rockpocket again [317] --Thepiper. 13:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rockpocket has particular style of making disparaging remarks to other editor inputs. This attitude can lead a fractured cooperation between editors, and thus causes a certain disharmony. Here is a typical remark [318]

• Please Note, User:Rockpocket has substantually altered parts of his evidence after I stated my interpretation of the "goings on". - Thepiper 10:04, 3 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[319], 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]

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]

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

[320]

As BigDunc's evidence shows, W. Frank is not interested in discussing changes with other editors even when there is a discussion ongoing. He constantly attacks other editors, for example he claimed an editor had a conflict of interest with the Provisional IRA, i.e. that he was a member of an illegal terrorist organisation, he calls other editors "fanatical antagonists," refers to an editor's "biassed editing and fanatical POV agenda," calls other editors "ignorant 'me-toos'," and makes constant references to other editor's non-existent political agendas and use of political propaganda. If you look at the Gerry Adams talk page - [321] you will see how little discussion there is about improvements to the article and how much of it is W. Frank attacking other editors or posting lengthy off-topic rants. Here are some examples of his incivility and attacks on editors:

[322] [323][324] [325] [326] [327] [328] [329] [330] [331] [332] [333] [334] [335] [336] [337] [338] [339]

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

[340] [341] [342] [343] [344] [345] [346] [347] [348]

The reason why I fought so much for WP to retain Vintagekits, is simply that he is a much better editor than me, and has given far more to WP than I have. He is probably a much nicer and better person than I am too, so if anyone among you would dislike or hate Vintagekits, well you would probably dislike or hate me 10 times as much. So Vintagekits staying or leaving becomes a measure which I must judge myself whether to stay or leave, or to be even worthy to edit Wikipedia. Some people here know my past , and "Gold Heart" is not my first account, and I have been in and out too, but thankfully never banned. I hope there is happy solution for everyone here. My contributions [349]. Just, everyone be kind to each other. Gold Heart (Temp) 11:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags is one of the main areas I am interested in on Wikipedia and I have created many of the articles [350] and templates [351] that are under dispute myself. It used to be the case that the Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg was used when a flag was needed for Northern Ireland and tagged with "unofficial" or "former official flag" or some other wording.

List of British flags was created by me on 25th July 2005 [352] with the Northern Ireland flag present (allowing for the deletion of the old .gif image). It was not until 25th January 2007 that the flag was first removed by Vintagekits and the dispute started.

Template:UKFlags was also created by me on 25th July 2005 [353] with the Northern Ireland flag present. Padraig began to target this template on 29th March 2007.

Vintagekits has also been targeting other flag articles I edit. My improvments to Flag of the United Kingdom, a whole nights work, was deleted with the edit summary "remove incorrect POV information" [354]. He was blocked by Tyrenius for this.

Any AFDs for terrorists that I started where in good faith- many of them were poorly written and sourced to terrorist websites. Some of them were deleted following AFDs, many survived due to "no consensus". One was deleted due to a WP:BLP violation (Vintagekits was alleging that an individual was involved in a murder and linking to a news article that did not exist.

Anti-British racism by Vintagekits "Aside from the fact that term British actually makes my skin crawl" [355]

He added IRA to his signature [356]- despite knowing that it clearly refered to a banned terrorist organisation. He only removed it when forced to. He then changed his signature to include 1916- presumably referring to the Easter Rising; and now uses 303- which I am led to believe refers to a rifle used by terrorists during Bloody Sunday.

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

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

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

Advocating violence against monarchs with a tasteless userbox. [357]

WP:BLP violations on Vintagekit's talk page against The Duke of York and Prince Henry of Wales. [358]

I can't link to any evidence as he deleted his talk page under right to vanish. This incident happened after he was blocked for edit warring and decided to leave Wikipedia in a huff. The arbcom should review his deleted talk page archives.

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

Another chum of VK, ONIH and Padraig and intervenes to support them in their edit wars (eg blocks Astrotrain for being in a dispute with Padraig on flags, but does not block Padraig [359] or protects articles to suit Padraig's prefered version). Again, either she shares their POV views on Ireland and is edit warring by proxy- or there is a conflict of interests.

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

On April 19, he accussed me of being a sockpuppet (without any checkuser backup) and proceeded to "ban" me from certain articles,[360] despite admins not even having this power. Why did he do this? Was it because Padraig asked him [361]? It certainly pleased Padraig [362].

As thsi diff clearly shows

I believe that User:BigDunc and today User:Breen32 are sockpuppets of Domer48 Breen32 was welcomed to wikipedia by BigDunc 10 days before Breen made his second edit, his first being to create a page. (see User talk:Breen32) BigDunc was welcomed to wikipedia by Domer48 after only two edits. No more edits were made from this account for almost exactly three months. [363]

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

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

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

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

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

I feel compelled to submit this nonsense as evidence.Traditional unionist 11:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here Padraig shows that he is more interested in Nationalist POV than using proper Grammar. This despite evidence that one third of people in Northern Ireland, including a quarter of Catholics, call themselves Northern Irish. [364]

I stand by every one of the diffs presented, particularly this one, which justifies my claims that vandalism through the back door was being planned - it came to pass. I urge the arbitrators, indeed anyone reading this, to study them.Traditional unionist 12:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here Padraig shows that he is more interested in Nationalist POV than using proper Grammar. This despite evidence that one third of people in Northern Ireland, including a quarter of Catholics, call themselves Northern Irish. [365]

Astrotrain's accusations about me shows very clearly he is a very difficult editor, who insists blindly on his own view, regardless of evidence to the contrary. A survey of my talk page will show that at an early stage of these disputes it was a forum for all parties to post their complaints. These parties include Astrotrain himelf.[366][367] The latter post is a complaint by Astrotrain about an attack from Vintagekits, which resulted in my blocking Vintagekits.[368] I informed Astrotrain on his talk page that I had blocked Vintagekits: my post was deleted, along with others with the edit summary "delete harrassment from terrorist supporters".[369] Vintagekits and others were welcome to post to my talk page. If their complaints were justified, I upheld them: if not, then I rebutted them — this thread on Vintagekit's talk page is an example of that.[370] Astrotrain fails to mention that I have also blocked ONIH (One Night In Hackney).[371]

Because of Astrotrain's tendentious editing relating to "Irish subjects", I imposed a ban on four articles, as a less harsh alternative to a block. My rationale is here.[372] This ban on Astrotrain and the sockpuppetry was discussed on AN/I.[373] Astrotrain has received blocks from 10 admins altogether (one rescinded), for 3RR, incivility, attacks and edit warring.[374]

Tyrenius 05:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of motive (VK asserts it was "only having the craic with him", others disagree), VK posted the street address of W. Frank on Wikipedia. He did this a total of two times, once on an article talk page and again on Frank's talk page.[375][376] Both of these diffs have now been oversighted but not before Fred Bauder and two other administrators had seen them. Evidence of the contents of these have been provided to Fred Bauder, and a redacted copy of the evidence has been provided to ArbCom. This is the primary reason why I indefinitely blocked VK. Note that VK initially denied knowledge of this[377], but eventually admitting that he had posted Frank's address.[378][379].

The above user was warned by myself for revert-warring on the Orange Institution article. in their zeal to remove two cites, they also ran over numerous spelling corrections, as well as removing two unrelated paragraphs[380]. When I warned them on their talk page,[381] I was answered[382] in the Irish language, this was a blatant and transparent attempt to paint me with the 'nationalist POV' brush, which I felt was unwarranted. They then went on to do the same[383] to User:BigDunc. It's clear from the edit history at the time that User:Traditional unionist had been making the same reverts, had "run out" of 3RR, and Aatomic1 immediately began reverting in the same manner - Alison ^❤ 22:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been one of the protagonists of this affair. He has been very involved in commenting on the Troubles pages indicating a contemptible disdain for those not sharing his British establishment views. Frequently making unfounded complaints to User: Tyrenius and User: Padraig's talk pages a few weeks ago about "harassment" and "vandalism". Thos who do not share his views regarding the Irish problem are sanitising terrorism [384]. He has also has been known to use sockpuppets to votestack and sway concencus in an AFD [385]

He edits chiefly his own little group of Baronet stubs, probably related to him Lauder Baronets all pretty harmless. However he has laid claim to educational qualifications which he may not possess [386]. In my book this is a wiki-crime above all others as it discredits the encyclopedia. He is accused here of using false qualifications to score a point [387] (8 June 2007 -"claimed to have received an MBA from Oxford University over thirty years ago, which, as has been pointed out, is impossible.")This debate rambled on and became more embarrassing to read as he squirmed and twisted as it became more and more obvious that it was impossible for him to have the degree he claimed from the College he claimed to attend [388]. He later emailed me claiming "age" as an excuse. It was all too embarrassing at the time to pursue. However his recent malice and undeserved hostility towards Vintagekits in all this has made me think again on all of this. His memory seems quite good when it suits him. He is also keen to promote himself as a member of the British establishment who chats with Dukes [[389] ]

However he attacks indiscriminately all who fail to agree with him as having Irish sympathies [390] [391] [392]. Anyone who does not agree with Lauder is insulted [393] this was to a respected admin who had been helping him, he then pursues the matter [394] 25 August 2007 attacking her further with slurring reference to Vintagekits. How much of this is VK expected to put up with? Lauder then becomes almost hysterical with anger and tells the unfortunate admim [395] "no longer an administrator to be relied upon". The recipient of his ire is actually the admin who has been trying to sort the mess out. Kittybrewster says in his statement to the arbcom she has been doing a good job. However, David Lauder chooses to attack all in sight. Full of self pity lamenting the situation. He makes little effort is made to see anyone other's point of view [396]

David Lauder has a philosophy of attack all who do not appear to agree with him continues - my moving a comment of his pertaining to this arbcom case, which he had placed in the wrong place on the arbitration page was cause for him to attack [397]. He appears determined not to let Vintagekits off his hook [398]. Admins trying to explain the procedure to him are too deleted [399] unarchived.

David Lauder's views on the Irish problem are probably best indicated here [400] [401] Giano 11:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even at this late stage in the Arbcase some people cannot refrain from a few subtle digs and snide comments intended to goad and inflame [402] I suggest Major Bonker's latest edit is ignored by all but the Arbcom. Giano 12:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• :These accusations are completely out of context.

1. I have had minute involvement on pages concerning Ulster or 'The Troubles'.
2. I gave my views on what I saw as IRA promotional articles, which views are undoubtedly shared by the majority of people in this country. Such articles I feel can only bring Wikipedia into disrepute. In any case those comments on AfD pages were months ago.
3. Any complaints I made I felt were warranted. I did not deem it necessary to consult User:Giano who is not an administrator.
4. The Lauder (or any other) baronets are not related to me unless you count a pre-1600 connexion. There was a Wikipedia baronets project and I participated. What has this to do with 'The Troubles'?
5. I acquired one of my post-graduate qualifications from an Oxford College which at the time was only affiliated to the university there, not dissimilar to the Courtald Institute in London. The Courtald's degrees are nevertheless from London University and ours were from Oxford University of which that college is now a full part. In any case I did not claim a degree in Business Management gave me some sort of superiority in editing Wikipedia!! That entire debate was deliberately engineered into a mountain just to have a go at me. But it has no relevence to this ArbCom whatsoever and is non of Giano's business.
6. I had a dispute some months back with User Christina Kay, on several Talk Pages. She was pushing a POV which was demolished by numerous sources I produced. I am unable to see what that has to do with 'The Troubles'.
7. I have not promoted myself as a member of the British Establishment at all (not that it would be a crime). My comment there has been taken entirely out of context to the discussion it was part of. We are a small community in Scotland. I am sorry Giano seems to think we should only converse with the lower orders. Again this is meaningless to this ArbCom.
8. Any references to Vintagekits to the best of my knowledge have been made in response to him/his deliberate provocative actions. David Lauder 21:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. I have never been hysterical, but I felt an admin had acted incorrectly and I said so. Are we not all adults? Are admins beyond reproach by editors? David Lauder 21:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Giano's very clear attack on me is a scandal in itself, deliberately engineered, concocted and presented in the sort of language which had I used it I would have been accused of breaking any number of Wikipedia guidelines. It seems to me that he can reproach anyone he likes in this kind of aggressive manner with impunity. You wonder what I've done to him?
11. I stand my by work on Wikipedia which does not at all just cover Lauder baronets, a statement which is sneering and absurd, as my contributions demonstrate.

David Lauder 11:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been editing disruptively to promote an anti-nationalist and pro-Unionist POV on Northern Ireland articles.

• First version of his userpage, reflects his POV [403] contains this statement A Unionist student sick and tired off republican lies... 18:30, 18 April 2007

Edit history:

Pro-UUP edits

Tom Elliott

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

Removing Public domain image from republican articles

• [406],[407],[408],[409],[410],[411],[412],[413],[414],[415],[416],[417],[418],[419],[420],[421],[422],[423],[424],[425],[426],[427],[428],[429],[430]

Removing information from articles

• [431] Revision as of 16:24, 29 April 2007
• [432] Revision as of 19:08, 29 April 2007
• [433] Current revision (19:17, 29 April 2007)
• [434] Revision as of 23:14, 19 August 2007 removing copyvio tag
• [435] Revision as of 23:42, 19 August 2007 removing copyvio tag
• [436] Revision as of 21:07, 29 April 2007 removing relevent material
• [437] Revision as of 21:12, 10 September 2007 removing copyvio tag

Harry West removing {{1981 Hunger Strike}} template from article.

• [438],[439],[440],[441],[442],[443],[444],[445],[446],[447],[448],[449],[450],[451],[

(Incomplete will add more later)

• Personal attack on other editors on Astrotrains user page. Message removed by SirFozzie.

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

• More info relating to Astrotrain included below in Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) section.

(Incomplete will add more later)

Removing referenced material from articles.

• Michael Gaughan removed referenced material, which I restored, he again removes it, Vk restores the removed info

Starts edit warring on templates along with Astrotrain:

• Template:Northern Ireland cities changes template title from Northern Ireland cities to Northern Irish cities [452]

• Adds Ulster Banner to template and again changes the title, I reverted the insertion of the Ulster Banner, Astrotrain then re-inserts it, Ro2000 removes image, Astrotain again reinserts it. I removed image and my edit is reverted by Biofoundation, using a edit summary of add flag per Northern Ireland talk page, there is no discussion on that page relating to this template and no consensus on the use of the Ulster Banner, which has been removed from the infobox on that article. Barryob removes the flag and then fixs the template title.
• Bio again reverts using a edit summary of (rv see northern ireland talk page. and it is "Northern irish" in keeping with "scottish", "welsh" and "english" templates.) which is again reverted by Barryob. Astrotrain reverts again with a edit summary of (restore consensus version- please see talk page and contribute there) There is no discussion or concensus on the talk page. Barryob reverts the edit, biofoundation again reverts with a edit summary of (Undid revision 148772136 by Barryob (talk) this is now deliberate vandalism. please stop).
• I removing the flag [453] with a edit summary of (This template is for use in Northern Ireland articles relating to today not pre-1972, the Ulster Flag is not the current flag and never was for Northern Ireland, see message in talk page) I posted a message on the talk page.
• Biofoundation moves the template from Tl:Northern Ireland cities to Tl:Northern Irish cities within two minutes of posting on the talk page without any discussion or consensus. then alters the template title to his move. Barryob restores the template back to its original name. Admin John reverts Barryob dispite no consencus on talk page being achieved. Barryob again restores the template to its correct name with a edit summaryof (moved Template:Northern Irish cities to Template:Northern Ireland cities over redirect: move back to origianl location the links only point to Northern Irish because Biofoundationsoflanguage put in the wrong name in the template field) and fixes title.
• Biofoundation again changes title. Biofoundation again moves the template to TL:Northern Irish cities without consensus, move reverted by Barryob.
• Astrotrain adds Ulster Banner again with an edit summary of (rv- per consensus at Talk:Northern Ireland) still no consensus exists to do so, in fact the consensus is not to use the Ulster banner in this context. I revert this edit and leave a edit summary (removing defunct flag as per WP:Flagcruft also see discussion in talk page, stop edit warring this is not a national flag). Biofoundation reverts again, I revert his revert with an edit summary of (removing defunct flag as per WP:Flagcruft also see discussion in talk page, stop edit warring this is not a national flag).
• Biofoundation reverts again with a edit summary of Undid revision 149161024 by Padraig (talk) it takes two to edit war. WP:Flagcruft is irrelevant. it's a consensus matter) there is still no consensus for this. I again revert his edit with a edit summary of (There is no consensus to include non-National flags in this template, see the discussion in the talk page of this article, and further rv could be regarded as vandalism). The template is now protected by an admin.

• To evade the block they then created a new Template:Northern Irish Cities, which was nominated for deletion and deleted as a result.

(incomplete)

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

User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia

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

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

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

There has since my post above been a second Mfd on the User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia which decided to delete it, so I have now removed my userbox as I said I would in the first vote.--Padraig 11:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Proposal_for_warning_against_inappropriate_use_of_Northern_Ireland_flag_templates which was designed to ensure that the Ulster Banner would only be used in its proper context, and stop the edit wars that where on going on templates. But it was opposed by the Tories and Unionists block voting.--Padraig 22:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a lot, here are some samples;

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

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

• Deleting other peoples comments in talk

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

• Further racist abuse and claims of 'murder'

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

Those involved with the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin were considered terrorist and criminals by the British Government also - they went on to form the first Irish government! Give the Rock back to Spain ye cuckoos! Vintagekits 12:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reaction to banning

I've been to confusion (its wikis version of confession!) and Fr. O'Leary has absolved me of my sins so as far as I am concerned its a clean(ish) slate.--Vintagekits 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

I certainly don't promote colonialism, however VK is anti-British and that is racism. Stating Gibraltar should be 'handed over to Spain' is considered very offensive.

Describing editors as 'rabid' The record shows that there was no mention of Vintagekits, and also that he monitored my user page on which he had outstayed his welcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gibnews&diff=115021464&oldid=115013765

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gibnews&diff=95944575&oldid=95926272

The user:Biofoundationsoflanguage took my advice to leave the Michael Gaughan article alone and makes an observation on the value of such propaganda pieces.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gibnews&diff=143135372&oldid=143114266

Criminals It is self-evident that members of an illegal organisation are criminals.

IRA visit to Gibraltar I have at all times tried to be factual and neutral. If I have a POV it is neither PIRA or that of the British Government but as a Gibraltarian, and a target.

--Gibnews 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Counter-revolutionary's response to User:Vintagekits;

As with many things in life Vintagekits’ case against me has been taken grossly out of context. Only those present in the debates and edits going on at the time could fully appreciate my responses and my reactions. Further to this many of my alleged mistakes, PoV adding, edit-warring, &c., occurred mostly at the beginning of my editing to Wikipedia. I should now like to think that I have learnt to accept Wikipedia’s factual inaccuracies and eccentricities and edit within this as much as I can.

Individual Responses
1. Londonderry – This is the factual, legal and, subject to disagreement, oft’ used term to describe what Wikipedia calls "Derry", the result of a consensus. I ask why "consensus" should diminish fact. We do not call Mumbai Bombay, even though that is what, I should think, most people still call it.

2. Norman Stronge – This was an article created by me. At the time of its creation the only lengthy source regarding his life to be found on the internet was the "IRA Atrocities" web-page. Given Wikipedia’s strict requirements for sources I thought it expedient to include this, for fear of the article being sent to AfD for not being referenced. Since then many more articles referring to Sir Norman have appeared on the internet, which I have included. Further to this I feel the need to discuss some comments made by User:Vintagekits with reference to Sir Norman;

*We all know the REAL reason taken out - however his funding and that motive is not verifiable in any book that I have read.--Vintagekits 14:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC) – here he accuses 86 year-old Sir Norman, a highly respected MP, as funding Loyalist paramilitaries. This is wholly untrue and, if Sir Norman were alive, would be considered libelous.

• Here he removes a sourced quote, which shows that even the nationalist community were incensed at Sir Norman’s killing. It was eventually reinstated by administrator Tyrenius.
• In saying Sir Norman was "murdered" I was only following media consensus; such as that of Time Magazine and many more, in response VK said;

Using the term murder is HIGHLY POV and is used as an attempt to criminalise the republican movement, I am sure you could get other quoted from reliable sources to say they were terrorists that carried out the attack but that is also POV. If we are going put these terms into articles then I will be adding it to other British Army murders who were active in the British Occupied Six Counties of Ireland.--Vintagekits 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC) – a clear threat of carrying out editing against WP:POINT.

• Here VK is again chastised for contravening WP:POINT and calling the British murderers! See a pattern emerging?

• [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANorman_Stronge&diff=110709910&oldid=110709442 Here] he again accuses Sir Norman of funding loyalist paramilitaries, without any evidence, and this is removed by an Administrator.

3. Tynan Abbey - this article has since been substantially improved, by me, to add much more architectural and historical information. It now poses no contention.

4. Pat Finucane – Perhaps my most misinterpreted edit. I replaced the work "murder" for "killed", yes. In my opinion, which I stated at the time, I believe this should be described as "murder", but I couldn’t understand why he, a republican, was murdered, yet unionists and the British were, merely, killed. Thus this edit was against WP:POINT, I admit that, but I was forcing through the discussion of the issue. I believe Prince Louis, Sir Norman and James Stronge, Pat Finucane, et al were murdered – Wikipedia Should reflect this as such. But, yes, this was one such example of me being wrong.

5. General Thoughts - Much of VKs case against me refers to cases where I edited articles which I had not edited before, or were out of character. Big deal. Surely I am not restricted to editing topics on Eastern European Royals, Northern Irish aristocrats and various miscellanies! Why cannot I contribute to articles on Boxers, who were born in Northern Ireland – whether they like it or not!, or of members of the IRA. So what if I believe many IRA members were non-notable, that is my right to express this in an attempt to improve WP. So what if I believe the title of baronet, whether of first creation or not, is notable given that it’s an honour of the British government! That is my right to argue my case.

I hope this is of some help, I did not intend to comment in this arbcom. But the case being put against me has forced a reply.

--Counter-revolutionary 12:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aatomic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has participated in edit wars on Troubles related articles, which resulted in him being blocked on two occasions.

[454] [455] [456] [457] [458] [459] [460] [461] [462] [463] [464] [465] [466] [467] [468] [469] [470] [471] [472] [473] [474] [475] [476] [477] [478] [479] [480] [481] [482] [483] [484] [485] [486]

After being blocked for a week at 01:59, 22 August 2007 for his second 3RR on the same article, Aatomic1 used two sockpuppets to evade his block and continue to edit war.

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

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

Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made personal attacks on other editors inlcuding describing anyone who disagrees with him as a "nationalist" "sectarian," or claiming their edits are vandalism; [487], [488].

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

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.