Hosta

Wheres ma talk page?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone?--Vintagekits (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Night In Hackney, theres One Night In Hackney, One Night In Haaaaaaaaackney.

theres One Night In Hackney.

--Vintagekits (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt someone be given Kittybrewster a warning about going around putting sockpuppet tags on long established editors pages without having a shread of evidence. Who the hell does he think he is?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits, Vintagekits, there's no on like our Vintagekits,

He's broken every human law, he breaks the laws on wiki-blitz.

His powers of levitation would make a fakir stare,

And when you reach the scene of crime--Vintagekits not there!

You may seek him in the basement, you may look up in the air--

But I tell you once and once again, Vintagekits not there!

Yes, he is barred [1], but the above was posted by an "anon" today on ANI [2] - it is very funny, let it stay for a few hours - we need some laughs here recently. Giano (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides (you of all people should know, Giano!) being blocked doesn't ban you from editing your talkpage... — iridescent 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gold Heart - Alison ^❤ 08:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not banned I am indefinately blocked - theres a difference.

2. Please be so kind as to not visit my user and talk pages.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are mistaken. Per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive16#Community ban, you are indeed banned. You are correct that there is a difference—any or all of the WP:BAN#Evasion and enforcement methods may be applied. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually kid, you are wrong I am not community banned and nothing in the link you provided says that I am. I am indefinately blocked not banned or communiy banned. And you have been destroying good articles and edits on the basis that I am banned - which I am not!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrwsc, could you please show me the exact words that say Vk is banned? Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link in my previous message. Under the "Community ban" subheading, Vintagekits is one of two users listed. How else should that be interpreted? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see is "Community ban" under which is *User:Vintagekits (previously on probation by ArbCom ruling). I guess your interpretation has some validity in the purely technical "what it says on the tin" sense:)Sarah777 (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off this page Max, next time you come here or to any of my pages then I will report you for provoking me. Andrew, just because someone put my name on that link doesnt justify me being banned. If I put your name there does that mean you are banned? Where is the official decision to say that I am banned because I have never been informed of this - all I have ever been told is that I am indefinately blocked. Which means your witch hunt to oversight edits is against wiki rules and also means that I can apply to come back at any time.--Vintagekits (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VK isn't banned. If he were? He couldn't be posting here (his personal page). GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, this is illogical. Blocking is a MediaWiki software mechanism to prevent users from editing anything other than their own user page. Banning is a social construct that the community imposes on unwelcome editors. Obviously, it makes enforcement of a ban easier if you indefinitely block the user, but the software still allows editing of the user page (if it is not protected). Since blocks and bans are distinctly different, I don't understand how you draw your conclusion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not holding any candle here one way or the other, but there is a difference between banned and indefinitely blocked. Banned means gone, never to return, while indefinitely blocked means gone with no end date. However, at some later stage an end date could be decided by someone, by which date the indef block would be removed and the user could then edit again. At least, that's how I understand it. --The.Q^(t)(c) 13:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a message at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Clarification of User:Vintagekits status to seek clarification of your status, Vintagekits. The summary on the WP:AE archive page seemed crystal clear to me, but I can also see how there is some confusion here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Andrwsc, I was mistaken. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be sorry about GoodDay - you were right - the link that is provided says that I am indefinately blocked and not banned - not one bit of it say banned. Anyway I should be allowed come back as long as I am not editing Irish political articles which is the only sphere in which I run into trouble. Andrewsc has deleted loads of very good boxing articles and how is that helping wiki?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of quotes from the discussion about my block -

• "User:Vintagekits was blocked indefinitely by myself last year in a turn of events that ultimately led to the Troubles ArbCom case, in which Vintagekits was unblocked and put on probation.

Placing this here for community input as this is bound to be controversial - Alison"

• "All the accounts are indef blocked. Vk has the same recourse to appeal as any other blocked editor, should he choose to do so. If he continues to use socks to avoid the block then those will be blocked too. We move on. Rockpocket"

• "The reason they should both be blocked indefinitely is that they have both socked abusively. They probably thought they were faced with no other option. Kittybrewster"

• Good work Alison. Endorse indef block. --John"

• I suggest a pragmatic solution. We insist on a stipulated user name, in these cases User:David Lauder and User:Vintagekits. The users are not allowed any socks, even normally legitimate ones. They also forfeit the normal precautions of checkuser, and may be checkusered at any time. In fact they should expect this to occur randomly and without their knowledge. They accept this as a condition of continued editing. They are placed on a list for this purpose. They may apply to be removed from the list after two years of good conduct, including 3RR, civility etc. They are blocked for one month in the first instance to give everyone else a rest. This period of time also means checkuser will be able to be used in the meantime: too long a block will lose the data. Tyrenius"

• "At least wikipedia is being fair and unbiased, ie not taking sides, by indef blocking both. Personally I think this should be at arbcom enforcement with say a 3 month ban on each of them with the date reset for sock evasions, isnt that more how arbcom works and both carrot and stick. Thanks, SqueakBox"

• Keep them indef blocked, at least for about 3 months, then ask them to email asking for unblock, along with promises to behave, after that. Socks are fine for everyone to have for unrelated pages if we want, but they shouldn't really be used to back each other up/edit the same pages- used abusively. Vote stacking on Giano's ArbCom vote, even, took place on both sides. For now at least, these are excellent blocks all round. Oh and... it won't be that hard to enforce as they'll be quite easy to spot if they edit the same pages in the same way. If such people turn up, checkuser at the first sign of disruptive editing etc. Special Random"

It was pretty much unanimous that there should be an indefinate block 'not a banned and many editors voiced there opinion that I should be allowed to return after some time. If anyone cared to look at my edit history at the time I my block I had ditched those to socks and had decided to "go straight" and also I had pretty much stopped editing Irish political articles. I dont see the point in this block as long as I am not editing in a distruptive manner.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I originally started the ANI thread, let me just state for the record that I originally started it to request clarification of Vintagekits' indefinite block as it was bound to be controversial. It was not a community request for a ban - Alison ^❤ 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits, please read the link to the WP:AE page I provided above. An "uninvolved" admin has confirmed that you are indeed banned. Also, another admin had independently added you to the WP:List of banned users a few weeks ago. If you are waiting for an admin to provide "official" notice to you, consider this message to be that notice. You are banned. All the remedies in WP:Banning policy are applicable, which means that you are not welcome to edit any page, including this talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well its quite simple that the guy is wrong - people on that discussion expressly said it wasnt a ban and that it was an indefinate block! If I was able to I would take issue with him are direct him here but I cant. Maybe someone would.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Vintagekits solicited me to also post here, I shall reiterate my comments from WP:AE. As far as I can see, the discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#User:Vintagekits led to a community consensus for an indefinite block with no clear path to resuming editing and no end date in sight. That is as far as I am concerned community ban, and will remain one until such time as an administrator decides that Vintagekits should be unblocked. At which point it will no longer be a community ban, and the administrator may or may not also actually unblock Vintagekits immediately, depending on their judgment, policy at the time, and how firmly they feel. GRBerry 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But GRBerry, that was not the concensus during the discussion and your assumption doesnt really make sense. The people on the discussion about the block specifically said that they didnt want a ban and endorsed an indefinate block. Even the admin that started that discussion stated that it wasnt for a ban and was for a block - I feel you have just been railroad into a position by Andrew and now that you have made the decision wont change it - your position seems illogical to me because no one has ever mentioned a ban.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What topic ban similar to what is proposed here.

I should be allowed edit other articles where I cause no disruption and add to wikipedia.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this, it is a reasonable suggestion.--Domer48 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion certainly not an unreasonable proposal. Just look at contributions made to boxing articles, a case of cutting of your nose to spite your face by not allowing this. BigDunc (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support VK being fully allowed back, if he proved himself first. That is three months trial, editing nothing but his boxing pages. He would not be permitted to create any new pages or edit any pages other than those boxing pages he has edited previously, or those which have no connection withthe Irish Troubles. He would be allowed to comment only on Wikipedia and policy pages that have no concern with the politics of any nation. For those three months probation he would be forbidden any contact with the Kittybrewster crowd, even by email, if they torment him, that may be a problem [3] - then an independent Admin (User: Lar springs to mind) could be appointed to address the situation. If VK uses anywhere on the site any obscene or seriously offensive language (in any language or spelling thereof) then he should be banned permanently (a list of such words could even be drawn up in advance). There should be no right of appeal or alteration of these rules half way through. After three months he is allowed to edit full and normally, although a topic ban on Irish political pages could still prevail. This is a very Draconian and severe solution, but people say he has been given chances before - he has never before been this severely curtailed before. He might even feel he would not rather not edit than be so curtailed, but if he is so keen to edit and wants a truly final chance he will accept. If he doesn't accept then leave him banned, he'll get no further sympathy from me. Whatever the outcome the problem is finally and irrevocably solved. Giano (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be a final, final chance? This has been decided and we are allowing VK to manipulate this dispute to re-open a closed debate. --MJB (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is not manipulating or negotiating anything, he does not have that right. He either takes this solution or leaves it. (The only minor modification I would accept to the above, would be he could create new pages, if the subject matter were full and publicly vetted, for conditions of the parole, before he created the page) He has been given second chances before, but never under such strict conditions, and they are strict. I don't think any editor has ever before been given such a harsh parole, but he has brought this on himself. I'm not sure he would be able to keep to it, so it's his chance to prove himself serious and us wrong, when he is good, he is very good....This parole makes sure he stay's good, and any trouble and he is out for good. I will write up the terms of the parole myself in unambiguous legal language if necessary, they can be posted at the top of his page and he can live with them or go! Giano (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's been given final, final chances how many times before? He has been blocked over 20 times in the past, been caught recruiting meatpuppets, using socks abusively (including Giano's own Arbcom election vote), threatened editors, published someone's home address (twice!) and tried to pass it off as a joke; when indef blocked he has operated multiple sock accounts; and only the other day on this page was telling editors to "fuck off"... (anyone looking for that will find it was redacted by Giano). Rhetorical questions - would "chunt" be on this putative list of banned words? What other mispelt expletives? My opinion is no, he should not be allowed back - he's had many second chances and threw them back in the WP community's faces. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am under no illusions about him (I mention the spelling in the proposal above) this is a tying him up completely proposal, no ifs, no buts, so way outs. He either edits in a productive fashion of he goes. All the other chanvces he has previously had have given him too much leeway - this gives him none at all. He will find it very very hard, we should add sockpuppets to the conditions, one account only. I don't care how painful and restricting he finds it, as I have said, he either takes it or leaves it. Giano (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said if you look at my edit history at the time I got blocked I had given up editing articles on Irish republicanism and "The Troubles" because it was giving me a headache and I was almost solely focusing on boxing articles. As the Olympics are coming round the corner there is going to be a lot of boxing stuff that needs doing so I would like to be able to do that.

I don't have a problem with a restrictive topic ban at all but I would like it to be an exclusive one rather than an inclusive one. e.g. I would still like to be able to edit football articles or articles about music or railway stations or geography or places of interest so long as it didn't stay into the sphere of Irish republicanism or politics.

I think that most people will agree that prior to me being blocked I wasn't causing any disruption and that the only issue I had in the months before my block was the spat with Rockpocket - who since then has said that he (incorrectly) thought I was harassing his family and that is probably the reason he was gunning for me at that time. I would just like to go back to the way I was editing in the weeks prior to my block. Like I say - just check the edit history.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by Giano to comment. I haven't mulled this over in great depth but, while acknowledging that there is a widely held perception that VK has been given "final chances" before, and at least some perception that VK has "exhausted the communities patience", the plan that Giano has laid out seems quite tightly bound and intolerant of even minor missteps, so is likely to be monitorable and enforceable. VK's boxing contributions are good, and if he can be confined to them (or at least confined far away from anything to do with politics in any shape or form) with fairly little effort, that seems a net win on balance, so I'd tend to support giving this a try. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Giano's idea of 'restricting' Vk to boxing articles & having him give up his sock-puppets, are reasonable constraints. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was kinda wondering when VK was going to make a break for freedom! :) All that kerfuffle about the userpage, the socking, the boxing stuff - yeah. Anyways - I'm certainly not averse to some sort of parole system being put in place yet again but it would need to be seriously curtailing this time as VK has a habit of pushing the boat out once he gets leverage. But yeah, 24 blocks and kinda sorta standing :) I'd like to see quite a bit more community input before anything happens, though, maybe even through some of the folks on WP:IWNB - Alison ^❤ 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to support Vk's bid for freedom. I think with the Olympics coming up we need the boxers updated; people will be looking it up as soon as the contests start. Sarah777 (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. He is an unpleasant editor who has been given and squandered many chances.--MJB (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC) PS Can "friends" cease protecting VK? If he makes a threat to me (or others) do not remove it.[reply]

You mean being as unpleasant as this?. Or maybe like this where I requested that you stopped canvassing at this AfD! People in glasshouses shouldnt go throwing stones.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked a comment and took advice, hardly "nasty". The second example is, if anything, evidence of your overbearing sarcasm. Try harder. No doubt, you will be able to list all my suspensions, threats and use of foul language. Keep smiling --MJB (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxburgoyne, he is certainly nowhere near as unpleasant as you seem to be. Your userpage sneering at the vast bulk of Wiki editors tells me all I need to know about you. Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment

Vk. Thanks for your email. I have been traveling and without internet access for almost a month, hence the lack of a reply.

I think its best that I completely forgo offering my thoughts on this "bid for freedom". My opinion matters no more than anyone else's; suffice to say I would not protest a change in your current status if there was significant support for it. Things have finally settled down for me now, and I would rather keep it that way by not drawing another target on my chest.

If the community decides to welcome you back under Giano's conditions, then good luck to you. I hope if, in the unlikely event we cross paths, we can do so in a civil manner. If not, then I guess we'll continue to see you around in various guises anyway. Rockpocket 07:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VK. Have you any idea as to who's the current title holder? Is it Raymond Joval or Daniel Geale. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geale is - Joval was forced to vacate/stripped because he failed to defend.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vk. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - all in a days work. Hopefully you will support my propose that I can come back editing so long as I stay away from editing Irish political articles - that way I can sort out those boxing articles that are in a mess.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll stay away from the Irish political articles & cease creating/using sock-puppets? You'll have my support. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite that simple, he has to be firmly regulated, if he is to edit again. Giano (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firmly regulated? Whatcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see above! Giano (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Scuse my pugilistic cluelessness - but what does "pound for pound" mean? I know boxers are dived into weight classes but I don't see what it means re the table below...(Checked the link - not much help there!)Sarah777 (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rank	Fighter	Record	Weight class	Titles held at present
1	John Duddy	24-0 (17 KO)	Middleweight	IBA middleweight champion
2	Andy Lee	15-1 (12 KO)	Super Middleweight	Irish Super middleweight champion
3	Paul McCloskey	16-0 (7 KO)	Light Welterweight	IBF International light welterweight champion
4	Bernard Dunne	25-1 (14 KO)	Super Bantamweight
5	Matthew Macklin	21-2 (16 KO)	Middleweight
6	James Moore	15-0 (10 KO)	Light Middleweight
7	Neil Sinclair	31-6 (24 KO)	Light Middleweight
8	Brian Magee	30-3-1 (19 KO)	Super middleweight
9	Oisin Fagan	21-5 (13 KO)	Light Welterweight
10	Andrew Murray	11-0 (5 KO)	Light Welterweight	Irish Light Welterweight champion
11	Stephen Haughian	13-1 (5 KO)	Welterweight
12	Michael Gomez	35-8 (24 KO)	Super featherweight
13	Martin Lindsay	11-0 (4 KO)	Featherweight
14	Jason McKay	19-2 (5 KO)	Super middleweight
15	Henry Coyle	6-1 (6 KO)	Light Middleweight
16	Kevin McBride	34-6-1 (29 KO)	Heavyweight
17	Jim Rock	29-4 (9 KO)	Middleweight	Irish middleweight champion
18	Martin Rogan	10-0 (5 KO)	Heavyweight

Congratulations Vk. A request for your page to be protected, was rejected. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vintagekits!
We thank you for uploading Image:Sligo Benbulben 2.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I am blocked I cant do notin about sortin dis out. Can someone please sort it. ta.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it's your own pic, what license do you want to release it under? GFDL okay? - Alison ^❤ 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dont know the differences between the different licences. Put whatever on it please.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going for GFDL, so. It's the most 'free', IMO - Alison ^❤ 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

' sorted' ;) - it's actually now on Commons, so any editor (hint, hint) can use it on other projects such as putting it on ga:Contae Shligigh - Alison ^❤ 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, an account with your name was created on Simple English Wikipedia earlier. Was it you? If it wasn't, you may like to usurp it to prevent further imposters. Cheers, Majorly (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure its me mate - got a link and I will check it out.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VK - I got it all sorted out with the 'crat over there & the vandal accounts are now renamed. Just sign in and grab your own account and you'll be fine - Alison ^❤ 15:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxburgoyne hasnt really been my buddy since I had an article about his local shop deleted this AfD.

During that that AfD he canvassed a number of editors and one of them that !voted on the AfD recreated the article here. Which I understand is not allowed. --Vintagekits (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "nasty" and do not bear grudges but I do have little time for bullies. There is nothing snide about my user page and i sad it was interpreted that way. I concede that I am intrigued by the pooterish self-obsession of some editors. Finally, thank you for the information on the revival of Harry Tuffins - I had no idea! Such is my influence that, unlike some, I hve no need of sock-puppets and threats. --MJB (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max, I think your interest in Vk is seen as vindictive since he had your shop deleted; as I pointed out your user-page is an attack on a vast bulk of Wiki-editors. I suggest you remove your comments there and recuse yourself from attacking an editor with whom you are in dispute. Sarah777 (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my shop! An attack on "the vast bulk of wiki-editors"? Just the Pooters --MJB (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pooters are used for catching small insects, arachnids, crustaceans, and any unidentified wriggly things, collectively known in the scientific community as 'bugs'. By definition, these bugs are very small, and in addition to that many of them sting, bite or ooze at you when feeling threatened. In short, they can be difficult to catch, which is bad news for scientists and children (who frequently like to catch bugs, either to examine, or eat). I cannot imagine, Max, why you think the bulk of Wiki-editors are Pooters. Sarah777 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, she's right! :) - Alison ^❤ 22:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting pooter that guy has, what? (excuse the juvenile mind but it's what keeps one young:) Sarah777 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read, The Diary of a Nobody by George and Weedon Grossmith. Charles Pooter wrote a diary of his mundane life self-centeredly assuming that his views would be of interest to others. Wiktionary has a page [4]. I do not think the bulk of editors are equally Pooterish, just those who share their interests. Frankly, I find bloggers equally odd. It is not a judgment; rather it is bemusement. Finally, why are you so defensive? If you are - and I suspect you are - a balanced person with a rich life, why do you care so much? --MJB (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'lord Max! Are we not all pooters of the latter kind? To some degree? It being impossible to refute a charge of defensiveness without seeming defensive I can have no adequate response to the charge. A close acquaintance has a wee dog named Max - small world, eh? He's a Prince Edward or somesuch - though he was born and bred in County Laois. Sarah777 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I just know Vk would want me to leave a photo of your namesake on this page. This is the young Max when last he visited my verdant field back in '03. Note the slightly blank look in his eyes. Probably due to his British ancestry. Sarah777 (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck S777. I promise to leave VK's page alone unless, of course, I am dragged back by a personal comment. Woof, woof! --MJB (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I was as cute! I note your comment about his blank look. No doubt you have an instintive affection for terrierists. Sorry!--MJB (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to VK's original comment, I was under the impression that a user's own page was their own for preliminary projects etc, maybe this is all Harry Tuffins is to me?? Also, will you accept that I wanted to comment on the AfD as I explained at the time. (By the way, I still believe it deserves to have its own article). --Fuelboy (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Oisin_Fagan_Irish_Title.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a grudging and weary consensus (above) on this page that Vintagekits should be allowed to edit once again, while severely restricted. Is there an admin prepared to put some cogs into motion on this subject - so the community can debate the precise restrictions to be imposed on his editing - should he return, and then lift the block/ban? Giano (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proper appeals procedure. By all means he should submit an appeal but a few voices here hardly represents a mighty groundswell. --MJB (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose his return. Wikipedia is a community of volunteers, and the sheer size of this community necessitates that its participants follow a set of rules of behaviour. Vintagekits has shown nothing but contempt for these rules.

When his sockpuppets were discovered 2½ months ago, he admitted to using them but offered no apology. Bang to rights, they are me and I am not going to deny them. Strangely, he was praised for this!

• If only others had your dignity
• At least you leave with a bit of class, and good grace
• It's refreshing, to see an editor being honest about his/her dishonesty

However, despite this "show of class", only two days later he created another sockpuppet – Stick Negative (talk · contribs) – and started editing again. His list of socks (confirmed by Alison) is now at 14.

If he had left Wikipedia alone for a few months and come back with a request for a fresh start, I'm sure that some admins might consider it. But his actions since February 19 speak volumes to me about his lack of contrition and unwillingness to abide by community standards, so I am one admin who will not unblock him for any reason. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give up the sock puppets Vk & take a few months off. It's likely your only way to return from 'exile'. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no active socks. I havent edited article that wasnt involving boxing since I got the indefinate block so what Andrwsc says should be put in that context. I dont see why I should be limited from editing sporting articles when I have no history of conflict on those articles. --Vintagekits (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Agree totally. There appears to be an unpleasant tone of vindictiveness amongst those getting het-up about using socks to edit boxing articles. Sarah777 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is on an indefinite block, then they know they're not supposed to be editing, period. Using socks to evade the block does indeed show contempt for the community. Even now its "I don't see why I should be limited...", not "Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't have done that." Oppose an unblock. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support.I think it is only fair and humane, to let VK edit subject to the clear conditions above. Forbidding access to edit his boxing pages is just vindictive, and serves nobody well, including the encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. He doesn't have it in him to limit himself to boxing. For example his recent unnecssary comment above saying MaxBurgoyne is unpleasant. This from banned editor. He is just too much trouble. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are old but if you can read Max said I was unpleasant not the other way around. --Vintagekits (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you would have still been in bed following the celebrations Kitty? Giano (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credit where it is due. Vintagekits is not a diva. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true Kitty, glad you are coming around to my view that VK has many good points. One small thing though, VK isn't banned, or can point to a discussion with consensus for a ban? Any admin can unblock at any time. Giano (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misassumptions galore. I never said he has many good points. The community has determined he is too much trouble. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you saying those who control sockpuppets should be banned? Do you have a link to the ban discussion? Giano (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not for me to determine. Numerous incidents culminated in his name being put on the list of banned users. He can always appeal. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty could you provide a link to a discussion which resulted in a consensus for VK to be banned? I cant seem to find one. BigDunc (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find Dunc that Kitty harassed several admins to add VK to the list of banned users, even though he wasn't even banned to begin with, there was no discussion, which is why VK can now be unblocked. Giano (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<---(unindent) Given the recent discussion at WP:ANI about User:Jack Merridew, also a known sockpuppeteer who produced some good content, and his recent unblock, it seems that consistency would indicate that VK should be unblocked as well. I am one of the people approached to put VK on the list of banned users, which I refused to do because there was not a community ban discussion anywhere; it wasn't just admins who were approached, and I know at least two other people refused to add him to the list. The proposed restrictions seem reasonable to me, should VK agree. Risker (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the matter here so that others may comment. --John (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving such an unbiased comment to direct people to this discussion.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both he and David Lauder should be allowed back under severe restrictions. it would be wrong to unblock Vintage and not Lauder. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Lauder is community banned, Vintagekits is not. The two are nothing to do with each other, David Lauder can appeal to ArbCom to be unbanned, Vintagekits can be unblocked by any administrator. BigDunc (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock, but under editing restrictions. I don't think he should be under restrictions forever, but only for a short period of time. Maybe he could have a mentor also? D.M.N. (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He already had a mentor - it didn't work. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the mentor? Risker (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was given User:SirFozzie as a mentor - but nothing really came of it in terms of formal mentorship because he got sick and wasnt around much and also because he was in the US and me in Europe so we were never around at the same time.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think restrictions should include a 10 year ban on voting at arbcom or similar elections. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 10 years I think is a little too much. 2/3 years maybe at the most? D.M.N. (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We as the community are too lenient on users such as him. Plus I don't trust that he would be able to follow them. User:Andrwsc says it pretty well. Wizardman 17:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, well to be fair logic doesnt really bare that comment out. 1. when I was indefinately blocked I hadnt been editing in areas of conflict. Check my edit history if you dont believe me? 2. the block was for a history breach of rules, not for what I was doing at the time. 3. the socks I have used since the indefinate block havent caused any disruption and have only edited sporting article which is an area that I have never had any trouble.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Keeping him blocked now is punitive not preventative, and therefore a breach of the blocking policy. He's agreed to only edit sporting articles and not cause disruption, and nobody could say any of his socks since his indef block were disruptive only constructive. Most of the people are attempting to punish him for past crimes, so it's a punitive block. BigDunc (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Every time you use a sock to get around a block, you're essentially saying 'Fuck you and your rules'. So far your 'Fuck you and your rules' count is at almost 20. HalfShadow (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support but only for sport articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Like I said above if you look at my edit history at the time I got blocked I had given up editing articles on Irish republicanism and "The Troubles" because it was giving me a headache and I was almost solely focusing on boxing articles. As the Olympics are coming round the corner there is going to be a lot of boxing stuff that needs doing so I would like to be able to do that.

I don't have a problem with a restrictive topic ban at all but I would like it to be an exclusive one rather than an inclusive one. e.g. I would still like to be able to edit football articles or articles about music or railway stations or geography or places of interest so long as it didn't stay into the sphere of Irish republicanism or politics.

I think that most people will agree that prior to me being blocked I wasn't causing any disruption and that the only issue I had in the months before my block was the spat with Rockpocket - who since then has said that he (incorrectly) thought I was harassing his family and that is probably the reason he was gunning for me at that time. I would just like to go back to the way I was editing in the weeks prior to my block. Like I say - just check the edit history.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]