Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Vintagekits

Vintagekits

Moved thread over 80k from WP:ANI to here. Please keep discussions centralized concerning his possible unblock. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long-term behavioral problem, having threatened violence, verbally abused people here when drunk, and created multiple socks to evade his various blocks. He is currently indefinitely blocked since February. He has continued to create new socks since then. Here is the archive of the decision to indefinitely block him. There is currently a discussion at User talk:Vintagekits#Is VK to return? regarding unblocking him. Vk states that he is ready to come back and will stay away from contentious areas. Personally, I do not think this user is capable of that and has had too many last chances already. I see no evidence presently that the user has learned or changed from the experience of being blocked, as evidenced by his continuing sock abuse. I would require at least three months without evidence of sock abuse before I would even consider unblocking. However I thought I would raise it here to give the community a chance to discuss the matter. --John (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• You know, when you state the issues like that, I immediately diagnose pugnacious Irishman. Nothing wrong with being a pugnacious Irishman, of course, but this particular one seems to bring a rather difficult combination of contentious subjects, aggressive action and unwillingness to compromise. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• 26 socks? Sorry, but no. Blueboy96 18:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• While I remain essentially neutral on the issue of Vintagekits (my basic philosophy is that I don't care whose account it is as long as the edits are good), I am having a hard time rectifying this fait accompli lack of consideration for unblock with the unblock we saw yesterday of User:Jack Merridew, who also had lots of socks (some of which it seems were Arbcom-banned), has repeatedly used his socks to edit in areas where he's had problems before, and has (according to some interpretations) harassed other editors in good standing. Now, both Jack Merridew and Vintagekits have made good contributions in areas of the encyclopedia. Jack Merridew was unblocked without any conditions or anyone agreeing to mentor him. Many of VK's socks were blocked simply for being socks, and their edits were all encyclopedic. Help me out here to see the difference between the two cases. Risker (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Compare this with this to see why this is apples and oranges. --John (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Um, no, not quite a fair comparison. Merridew was a successor account to an account that had several socks as well, and JM was socking too.. all that means is that he was bad-handing with more proficiency than VK. Relata refero (disp.) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to a second umpteenth chance here, given that VK seems to have realised that the problem comes when you mix passion and contentious subjects. There are areas where his input was wholly beneficial to the project, such as boxing, and I know he wants to work on the Olympics. If someone is brave enough to mentor him, and we have a voluntary but enforceable restriction keeping him clear of the Troubles, broadly constructed, and any engagement with the likes of Kittybrewster, I suspect we'd have a net benefit to the project. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the details of the Merridew case; however, the problem with Vk has always been that he seems unable to stay away from Irish-related topics; almost anything he gets involved in morphs into a refighting of the Irish struggle. Mentorship and warning him to stick to boxing articles have both already been tried before without success, so I remain pessimistic about the prospects should he be unblocked. In my opinion, the added value of his contributions are outweighed by the time-sink of admin work that I fear this will become (again) should he be unblocked. Of course, YMMV. --John (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I can understand some of your concerns. Who was VK's mentor in the past? And at what point was he restricted to boxing articles? It strikes me that because those things had been *discussed* in the past, it is assumed that they were in place, but I'm not finding any firm decisions on these points. Not suggesting any bad faith on anyone's part, to be clear; I've misremembered many a conversation myself over the years. Risker (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• User:SirFozzie was his mentor. I feel sure the broken promise about sticking to boxing articles is somewhere in the 3.7k deleted revisions to his talk page, but I did not investigate further. As Andrwsc observes here, this may be a moot point anyway, as editing boxing articles has been problematic for him in the past. I did come up with this, which shows the level of nose-thumbing he has indulged in towards the project by creating multiple socks while indefinitely blocked. I do see some evidence of him having changed his ways, in the last months, but I feel he may be just saying the right things that he thinks will let him edit again. I certainly don't see a consensus either here or in the discussion at his talk to unblock either. --John (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Since this is an Olympics year we could trial a return on the basis that he edits only that area of articles (and boxing?) per Guys comments? If there is no concerns brought up during that period we could then expand the topic base, and generally review the matter and expand the topic until only those verbotten geopolitical subjects are excluded. During this time any bad behaviour in the first instance means back to Olympics only subjects and subsequent violation (or only violation in the first period) results in the block being reimposed. I suggest this would minimise the risk to the encyclopedia together with a chance of getting some good contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If it influences anyone's decision, I just spent a relaxing evening at Special:Newpages, and there are a lot of boxing articles being created in preparation for the Olympics. It appears that because Latin American countries and so on that are major in the certain (non-heavyweight?) divisions are not normally given that much attention between Olympics, we have something of a deficit there.. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No reason at all not to give Vk a trial run. Again, here and elsewhere, some of the anti-VK brigade seem to me, despite my best attempts to WP:AGF, motivated by vindictiveness and anti-Irishness combined with a certain strain of repugnant authoritarianism. (I am certainly not saying all or even most editors are motivated by any of these but OTOH some editors seem to be guided by all three. Time to let Vk out. Sarah777 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits was indefinitely blocked after having been discovered multiple-voting, using sock-puppets, in the recent ArbCom elections. His recent record, up until his blocking, had been broadly acceptable and he had kept his nose clean; in contrast, his previous record had been horrendous and extremely disruptive to the extent that, in contrast to Sarah777, I was astonished that he got away with it for so long. John, may I suggest that you notify the other Admins associated with 'the Troubles' about this discussion for their input? My own view, for what it's worth, is that both Vintagekits and David Lauder (talk · contribs · logs) (who was also found to have cast multiple votes but has a better record) should be blocked for three months, which would, in practice, allow both back towards the end of this month should have their cases kicked up to the ArbCom to take the decision --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC). There should also be an absolute zero tolerance for incivility/ rudeness/ baiting thereafter; any raising of the temperature on 'the Troubles' or Irish-related articles should be stamped on extremely hard; we could do without some of Vintagekit's recent comments on his own Talk page, which are simply designed to wind-up others, for example. I wonder if Giano might be prepared to take on an over-sight role if it comes to that? --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[Reposted after having accidentally deleted half of AN/I yesterday (sorry). --Major Bonkers (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)] Sorry, Giano, I've slightly changed my mind after reading the Talk page and, in particular, Andrwsc's comments. Still using sock-puppets, I don't care about; but winding-up other Users, again, is just repeating the original offense and ultimately likely to lead to yet another edit-war, just on the subject of boxing this time instead of Ireland. <exasperated> Why can't he understand that we're all sick to the back teeth of this casual rudeness? --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits has agreed that if allowed to return to abide by the stringeant condtions outlined here [1]. Two senior Admins, Lar and Alison, have both indicated support for this plan. VK truly wants to edit and prove himself responsible, to deny him oppportunity is to the detriment of the project. If he should fail to keep to those coonditions then the machinery can easily be applied for a permanent ban. Giano (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. All we need is a consensus to unblock (so far absent) and a reliable volunteer to enforce the conditions (no sign of that either). --John (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I edit boxing articles quite frecuently so I could enforce the conditions, if he limits all contributions to those articles he may be able to control the other issues. However, we still need a consensus. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, you're an awesome guy an' all, but can I just point out that we don't have "senior admins" on the project. We're all editors in good standing, is all and to be honest, I don't feel all that old! :) - Alison ^❤ 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the conditions outlined by Giano are fine in principle: they do provide for a very strict form of probation. However, as Giano has noted on VK's talk page, VK has not yet publicly agreed to these conditions.

If VK is to be allowed to return, I think that there should be:

1. a restatement of Giano's proposal in a numbered list form, with the wording double checked for ambiguity (I didn't spot any ambiguity myself, but it's best to double-check), including named mentors
2. An unequivocally clear public statement from Vk that he accepts the conditions in letter and in spirit and that he accepts the named mentors
3. For the avoidance of any doubt, it should be a condition of the unblock that the conditions are displayed prominently at the top of his user page, with a clear link to this ANI discussion and to Vk's acceptance of the terms and a link to any mentors who have been agreed.

That way, there shouldn't be any scope for confusion about what was agreed and why. I think that this is important both to ensure that Vk doesn't overstep the mark, but also to remove grounds for any others needling him about his return. If that's done, I think this is worth trying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started to draft some ideas and conditions here but we could all add our thoughts for cementing/altering them on the talk page. I stress this is only a draft. I also think VK should be permitted to comment, but not dictate, on the proposals - but at the end of the day it has to be a "take it or leave it" situation for him. Giano (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, I simply can't see this proposal working, especially given commentary elsewhere and that other Users (as you are aware) either feel that they're on a hiding to nothing or that they have been warned-off. I don't think that you are going to get a consensus on this; kick it upstairs is still my advice. Incidentally, from memory Gaimhreadhan also had a bash at drawing up a clear framework, mid-way through last year. I can't find the thread, which I think is probably in Vintagekits' archive somewhere. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Major Bonkers, I understand that you and your friends would like to have VK blocked for ever come what may. Howver some of us are a little more forgiving. I remember very clearly, your friend, the "late" Gaimhreadhan (who like so many of your other friends, liked to share his computer, and on one occasion even logged in as someone else, or was it the other way around? - never mind, an easy mistake) I do though seriously wonder if it is wise to resurrect that particular ghost. There has been a great deal of unpleasantness surrounding the troubles on all sides, I can see no possible harm in attempting to bury some of that trouble, along with the dead and allow talented editors, like VK, to edit productively in fields they excel. Giano (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

Is this how your mentoring is going to work in practice, Giano? We give up the vulgar personal abuse from Vintagekits for your slightly more eloquent variety? For the record, Gaimhreadhan made an effort to reach out to Vintagekits and draw up a framework for him - which effort has now, unfortunately been lost with the blanking of Vintagekit's Talk page - and Vintagekits had the good grace subsequently to post a message of condolence on Gaimhreadhan's death. And frankly banging on about an alleged sock-puppet, when an explanation was given and accepted by Fred Bauder, only draws attention back to Vintagekits' own record in that department.

Throughout this 'community discussion', you have constantly ignored the points that are being made by other editors. Instead of putting words into my mouth, I'll set it out clearly for you: I have no particular objections to Vintagekits' return - after all, he's never been rude to me, although I have seen his considerable disruption elsewhere - albeit after a sensible period (which I suggested as 3 months), with mentoring and a cast-iron framework in place to prevent a repeat performance, and an equal amnesty for David Lauder, who anyway has a much better record. I am concerned by Andrwsc's post on Vintagekits' Talk page, which has been largely and unfairly ignored in the subsequent discussions, which shows that Vintagekits is still indulging in sock-puppets and gratuitous abuse.

Given that there was never any likelihood of a consensus to unblock - and I pause here to point out that Alison's awe-inspiring saintliness is an example to us all - and nor has one been achieved, my own proposal to pass the decision on to ArbCom would almost certainly have worked in Vintagekits' favour, given that a large number of Admins with knowledge of Vintagekits' behaviour in the past were likely to oppose unblocking. Never mind; your campaign has reached its successful conclusion; and we shall all have to hope that Vintagekits doen't revert to type and wreck havoc on whatever subject he, in the wider sense, decides to alight on this time. The omens are doubtful.

Incidentally, one other thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the off-Wiki harassment of Rockpocket. On the balance of probabilities , we can probably lay this at Vintagekits' door and he's fortunate that we're working on a beyond reasonable doubt burden of proof. If he is ever linked, we should expect an immediate, unequivical ban. No doubt the harassment, if it hasn't already, will end now. --Major Bonkers (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Vintagekits earlier today indicated his unwillingness to accept the terms of Giano's proposal. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are quite wrong. Vintagekits was expressing, as asked [2], his views towards drawing up some rules by which he can edit. Those views have been pasted to the discussion page (remember he can't edit) where they can now be discussed. No where has he rejected the overall proposal, but if the rules are to stand a cat in hell's chance of working, his views have to be considered too. Giano (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't find Vk's haggling (Batsun's diff above) to be very encouraging. I have still to see him unequivocally accept the proposed restrictions, and I have still to see a demonstrable consensus that he should be unblocked, even under these restrictions. Failing these necessary steps, I don't think unblocking would be a smart move. --John (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits had the possibility of that there might be an agreement to allow him amazing comeback, despite a massive history of misconduct. In the discussion higher up on his talk page, he repeatedly indicated his support for a sports-only restriction. He said "I dont see why I should be limited from editing sporting articles", and then there are several more comments in the same vein. Later on Squeakbox proposed that Vk should be allowed back "only for sport and other innocuous ie non-political articles, and is restricted to 1 revert per week (non vandalism). He should also be banned from voting or standing in arbcom elections for 5 years", to which VK replied " I would have no problem with restrictions like that".

Yet now that there is a firm proposal on the table, Vk is trying to ratchet up the scope available to him, by demanding to "be allowed edit all articles that aren't relating to "the Troubles"". Sorry, but that's enough for me change from a provisional support to opposing any return. If he's trying to stretch the bounds already, that looks to me like a pretty good indication that he views this process as imposing unfair restrictions on him. It's quite the opposite; what has been happening has been that after a long history is misconduct after final final chances, Vk is amazingly lucky to have any prospect of being offered yet another chance of a return. Since he clearly doesn't understand that, he shouldn't be allowed back.

His demand to be allowed to edit 'all articles that aren't relating to "the Troubles"' could also be read as allowing him to come back and needle Kittybrewster & co by editing Baronets articles. That sort of possibility is one reason why I wanted any such proposal to set very clear boundaries, and a positive restriction to area X is more clearer than a vague "the Troubles" topic ban.

So, no thanks: he is already trying to stretch the boundaries before he's unblocked, and I see no reason to unblock him and give him the chance to stretch them further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your concern, BHG. The proposal to extend to sports-related articles was made by an administrator. Although VK has expressed a wish to edit all articles, he has now agreed that such a restriction (i.e., sports-related articles only for 3 months, while he proves himself) is acceptable. Risker (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I just checked his talk page, and I don't see any substantive comment from VK after those linked above. After all the long history of threats, abuse, massive sockpuppetry etc, his response to the detailed proposal should have been "thank you, and I know I'm very lucky to get any chance of returning". Instead it began "I don't see why", and I'm taking him at his word. I think he probably doesn't see why a precise restriction for him would be needed, despite his 7 suspected socks and 19 confirmed sockpuppets, all used in breach of policy while he was on probation imposed by arbcom for his role in a huge and long-running dispute. That's why I think his return would be a bad idea, because he simply doesn't get that the extent of his previous disruption requires preventive action in future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've altered the section heading - Vintagekits' name has only appeared in the header of four past ANI sections, rather than ninety-three as the previous heading implied. Hyperbole serves no discernable purpose other than to inflame things. --Random832 (contribs) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We are are on the road to making something quite simple be something quite complex. Notwithstanding any other prior behaviours of User:Vintagekits, or any prior blocks, he was indef blocked this time for the abuse of sockpuppets to evade a former block. His permission to return to any approved editing status should be equally simple: does the community believe VK understands that his use of sockpuppets to evade a ban is unacceptable behaviour? If the community's answer is "yes", he does appear to understand and accept, then VK should be readmitted to full editing privilege. If the community's answer is "no" (an answer which his creation and use of upwards of a dozen discovered sockpuppets since his current block came into effect would seem to be the only possible one), then he stays blocked until he stops using the sockpuppets for some reasonable period of time. Isn't that what an "indef block" has come to mean? The list of rules proposed by Giano and supporters is having the effect of creating a smokescreen, blurring the fact that VK has not changed a bit in the sole area that is the subject of the block. While it seems unreasonable to use a block for one type of behaviour as a stick to get VK to agree to serious constraints related to an entirely different set of behaviours, it is equally unreasonable to release him from a block where, if anything, he seems to have escalated his unacceptable behaviour. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse this statement. His creation of 14 confirmed sockpuppets since the latest "indefinite" block tells us all we need to know about Vintagekits' willingness to abide by community behavioural policy. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• VK is now showing a true wish to edit responsibly, this is the first time editors who have had problems with VK have got together and said "Yes, he can edit, but we are only prepared to accept him under these terms." VK, like many others, has had his problems on Wikipedia, but he has something to contribute, not to find a way for him to make those valuable contributions is detrimental to the project. If he is prepared to edit under the severest restrictions - where is the harm to the project? Giano (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there harm to the project's integrity if editors are allowed to willfully violate policy without incurring any unacceptable consequences? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel various people are trying to punish VK for past actions, and that blocks are preventative not punitive per policy. It is unjust to keep him blocked if he's agreeing to edit under strict terms. Which he is. Why not help define those terms, instead of complaining? Giano (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The only way the community can assess someone's "true wish" is by the way he behaves. Throughout his current block, VK has behaved as if his true wish were to remain blocked, if only to thumb his nose at the community's rules. In fact, I seem to recall that his current wish to return became public at just about the time there was some move, though quickly squelched, to start deleting the edits of his new socks. It would appear VK was quite content with his block until there was a risk it was no longer working to suit his interests. Whatever true wish you are perceiving should, perhaps, be weighed against both his recent activities and the timing of his request. The boxing articles will still be here, even after the Olympics; Wikipedia is not a project with deadlines. (If readers find gaps prior to the Olympics, they may be encouraged to join the editors' ranks and to start writing.) VK's return, unconstrained, after a few months' hiatus, will be all the more welcoming, both for the knowledge he brings and for the demonstration of his true wish to be a responsible editor. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"VK's return, unconstrained, after a few months' hiatus" Sorry, I am not following you - when exactly are you anticipating Vk returning? Giano (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be preventative, certainly. The community has noticed how VK has co-operated in being prevented from creating more socks to evade his block. Giano, to call comments by those who don't accept your view of the situation "complaining" is to attempt to trivialize them and those who make them. I have suggested one single term for VK's return. It is clear, easy to administer and, more important, is directly related to the reason for his block: VK leaves Wikipedia for X months, with no socks, no talk-page discussion and no emailling to drum up support for a change. (There is nothing to stop him from working off-line on articles; he could return a writer's hero.) Then VK is back, no constraints, not even a topic ban. The current proposal, a long list of constraints on behaviours where all but one has nothing to do wih his block, on the other hand, is unreasonable and, given VK's history, seems designed to ensure he will fail. (Even in making this last point, I am driven to disgress from the core issue, as any discussion of the list of terms seems to me, by its very nature, a red herring.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. It would appear that your last comment above, Giano, was posted just fractionally head of this one I made. I presume it answers your question. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vk e-mailed me earlier today, he seems possitive about editing the boxing articles. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits now unblocked

Vintagekits has now been unblocked. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:13, 5 May 2008 UTC)

I am looking for the "concensus" for change that User:Deacon of Pndapetzim has seen. I would have said the comment were running about 50/50. Is that now concensus? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I do not endorse this action either. User:Deacon of Pndapetzim claims no consensus to keep him blocked, but I see no consensus to unblock him either, and I don't think enough discussion has taken place on this matter (strangely enough). Specifically, I think User:Bielle's suggestion above has not been considered, and it is probably the most logical set of comments in this whole set of threads (here and elsewhere). To recap: Vintagekit's current block is specifically for sockpuppetry. Therefore, let him demonstrate compliance with WP:SOCK by refraining from creating any new ones for a few months, then he can come back. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see a clear consensus. The Deacon had got this one right. Sarah777 (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrible idea. Shame on you, Deacon. No consensus to unblock. --John (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can keep someone blocked when there is no consensus — indeed prominent opposition — to doing so. Blocking does not confer the kind of flag-planting "default" authority "current version"s do in articles. If he transgresses, he can be re-blocked easily enough. If he doesn't, then no-one should have anything to worry about. Seems quite simple to me. He has also agreed to a 3-month probation as outlined at User:Giano/Terms for VK's return, though I personally won't enforce those. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice, unblock and leave others to clean up the mess. And you didn't even bother informing the blocking admin.

This is a terrible decision for everyone involved, since there is still extensive debate going on about how structure and enforce that probation, all you have done is make it easier for Vk to be reblocked under the condition that there will not be another chance. Great work, Deacon. Rockpocket 00:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So your admin action was essentially just a drive-by one? That makes it even worse. Your action shows total disrespect for the many good faith admins who opposed this unblock. Dear oh dear. --John (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that there is concern about this user's future behaviour — and I have my own concerns about him; for instance, I'd prefer a checkuser to monitor him. That said, I don't think one can retain a permanent block when there is so much opposition. Incidentally, I did inform Sir Fozzie (the admin who blocked him 3 months ago). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This was premature. Please reblock until the final details of the agreement are met. This is in Vk best interest as this will be his last chance. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If Deaon's getting flack because there's no consensus to unblock, I'd like to see the consensus to block in the first place. The standards for keeping an established editor blocked are high and there was clearly no consensus to keep him blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There was massive sockpuppetry. The block was very reasonable. There is a mentorship or guidelines for editing under discussion now. If they are going to work we need to spell them out and get full agreement. Has this happened yet? FloNight♥♥♥ 00:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I recognise this and followed the incident when it first happened. It looks like we're now onto thrashing out the conditions of the unblock and that's why I believe the unblock was reasonable so we can get vks' insight into these. We're at the stage where his contributions to the thread could help. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He agreed to the terms of a 3-month probation outlined at User:Giano/Terms for VK's return. I'm not naive, I fully realised there would opposition to his unblock, but there is also as much if not more support. And in my view, with that, the consensus needs to be for the block (not, after three months, for the unblock). If consensus here emerges for a reblock ... well, I'm only one of one and a half thousand with the block/unblock button. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vk has been participating in the discussion. It was almost ready. Why rush it? The consensus on the proposal was not finished. I see this as premature and I hope it does not cause undue hard feeling. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He might have agreed to something, but has the community agreed to it? You unblocked him about 13 hours after Giano's subpage was created! At least let the dicussion play out as long as a standard XfD discussion would. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I did state in at least three locations that the Giano page didn't form full part of the decision. The topic's actually being going for a while. There is no longer consensus to retain the block. We're talking about a permanent block of an established user here ... not moving the name of a page. If the community wishes to reimpose the block or create different restrictions or impose other restrictions on top of ArbCom then it is entirely free to do so whether he is blocked or not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sorry, but this was wayyy to early to unblock. Put it this way, 13 hours doesn't even take into account variations in time zones, etc. The community is still deliberating over this and we've some ways to go yet before we're at unblock. Note that I actually support unblock, but not until we have discussed this properly. Doing otherwise, as has been done, will only ensure this comes back to bite us again and again and again. Nor indeed, is it fair to Vintagekits who really needs to know the full story and has to know he has proper community support - Alison ^❤ 00:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of the supports (all ~50% of them!) were conditional on the probation conditions, which are currently under discussion and, in Giano's own words, "are open to debate and flexible." Giano also said "if some people don't want VK to edit Barry McGuigan - then he does not get to edit it" meaning those conditions are merely the framework for the community to build on. The community is building, but it takes time. So all those "supports" that you have counted have not yet had their conditions met. This is ridiculous. How can we hold Vk to something that is not yet in place? I don't have a clue what the restrictions are I have have been following it closely, so how is Vk supposed to know? If the unblocking is to permit Vk to contribute to that discussion only until it can be finalized (he was doing so anyway, by proxy) then make that clear. But as it stands, all this unblock has done is muddy the waters and make an already difficult situation much more difficult than they need to be. Please listen to the consensus on this thread and reconsider until the probation discussion is resolved. Rockpocket 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for unblock is consensus to unblock, if you want the threshold lowered then go to WT:BLOCK. Until there is a significant change in policy then you do in fact need consensus to unblock. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This unblock is outrageous. A discussion was underway in which some editors indicated that they would support an unblock if a set of conditions was agreed and enforced, and this unblock pre-empts two steps: discussion of those conditions, and then a final decision on whether what's hammered out is acceptable to the community.

There was no urgency about this, and Deacon's unblock is highly disruptive because it has reinstated without any restrictions an editor with an appalling track record. There were three possible outcomes of this discussion:

1. Keep the block (whether indefinitely for a stated period)
2. Lift the block subject to a set of conditions yet to be agreed
3. Lift the block unconditionally

Deacon has not demonstrated a consensus for the unblock, and the indefinite block should now be promptly reinstated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with BHG. She puts it well. Enigma ^message 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Deacon's unblock perfectly fits on one of the definitions at Wikipedia:Wheel war, viz. "An administrator deliberately ignores an existing discussion (often at the Administrators noticeboard/Incidents or Deletion review) and implements their own preferred action or version of an edit." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am prepared to endorse an unblock if the terms are sorted out and agreed to but I absolutely do not support this premature unblock. There is no need to rush to unblock and I can't understand why Deacon of Pndapetzim felt it was necessary to do this in such a manner while discussions were still in progress. I don't think it's in the best interests of the project or VK and I think User:Deacon of Pndapetzim ought to reblock immediately. Sarah 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah on this, it's a bit premature, best to get the agreement hammered out, agreed to by VK, and the community on board first. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that at least half of the those people who conditionally supported an unblock has now asked Deacon of Pndapetzim to reblock because, presumably, the conditions on which they supported have not yet been met. Perhaps, with that in mind, Deacon of Pndapetzim could re-evaluate the consensus on which he served the community with this action. ~25% in support of unblocking at this time, ~75% in opposition seems pretty hard to justify. Rockpocket 02:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Until, you are pointing to a talk page. Others, if rushing is regarded as a problem, then we should learn the lesson and not rush to re-blocking. It's important we keep our heads cool here. Also, the discussion has been going for ages, not 13 hours (that's Giano's userspace). The guy was blocked for sockpuppetry not incivility or the other things people are worried about. He's offered promises of good behavior (we will see what those are worth) and there were many calling for his unblock. So his block no longer had consensus. Vintage is under arbcom and normal civility restrictions independent of any additional future or current restrictions, and has scores of admin fans. It's not like a dragon has been let loose. I don't see any rush either way. If by tomorrow (you can see what i mean by that from my contribs) the mood is still where it seems to be going, I will re-impose the block. But like I said, I'm only one of fifteen-hundred plus with the block-unblock button. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Once again, the burden is on you to show consensus for the unblock, not the other way around. Finally, your continued use of "1500+" is highly misleading, because less than a thousand are actually active. Still a high number, but nowhere near what you state. Enigma ^message 05:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, you seem to be under the impression that its appropriate for admins to go around contradicting each other's actions, if they happen to have a different opinion. That is not how who should be doing things on simple admin tasks, never mind on a long running and controversial situation like this. Wheel-warring hurts the project, fosters admin-shopping, and undermines us all when we then take editors to task for edit-warring. Discussion and agreement is always favorable to wheel-warring. The agreement here is near unanimous that you made a poor call, hell even those whose support you used to justify the call have asked you to reconsider. There is quite remarkable restraint being shown in that no-one has re-blocked yet, preferring instead that you do the right thing yourself. Vk has been counseled not to edit until this is resolved, so you unblocking has done nothing but direct attention our attentions to you and this debate, and taken them away from the matter at hand. Its patently clear we still need to sort out three things in a specific order:

1. Putting a plan in place for a probation
2. Once that is done, and only then, determining whether there is a community consensus for unblocking based on the plan.
3. Unblocking or not.

This can't be done in reverse. Rockpocket 02:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[Assuming you are talking about his user page] The only other conditional supports I can see are Giano's, which has been met (Vintage's acceptance of his terms in response to Guy). The bulk (certainly not all of course!) of opposition and disapproval of my action here is coming from people who have had runs in with the user. It's hardly a surprise that initial vocal opposition would come partly from that direction. Really, always gonna happen either way, but I think my actions were justified in the context and don't see any reason for rushing into a reversal. Accusations of wheel-warring are not in my opinion reasonable. Like I said, no harm waiting another little while on this. Anyone who thinks this waiting would be harmful is free to restore his block, as you say. But honestly, I don't see any point in rushing it other than to lift heat off me, which would be selfish. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If Giano's is the only conditional support you can see you can't have read the discussion very well. For example BHG said on this very page: "If VK is to be allowed to return, I think that there should be..." Alison: "If he's to be unblocked, it needs to be cast-iron with some sort of policing mechanism that's absolute in its interpretation". A certain editor called Deacon of Pndapetzim: "Conditional support as long as there is a checkuser constantly monitoring him." Who is the checkuser constantly monitoring him, Deacon? Because I don't see it listed on Giano's page. It seems you have unblocked Vk without even considering your own conditions, never mind anyone elses!

Perhaps you'll also like to justify your claims above. Lets see: we have Alison, who had previously conditionally supported Vk's unblocking, BHG who did likewise, Lar likewise, Flo (an Arb) likewise, GoodDay likewise. We have Bielle who previously opposed it, Andrwsc likewise, John likewise. We have Until, myself and Enigma who offered no preference. All are now asking you to reconsider. How many, exactly are "people who have had runs in with the user", Deacon? Since you claim it is the "bulk" of these 11 editors I assume you can identify at least 6. And what do you mean by a "run in", do you mean those admins in good standing who have spent the best part of two years attempting to deal with Vk over his 20 odd blocks? Do you not think if "vocal opposition" is coming from them en masse it might because they have some experience that you don't, or have you spent your 2 months as an admin studying this complex issue? Finally, I find your "it would be wrong to rush" argument truly astounding. When did you have this revelation? I wish it had happened a few hours earlier, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rockpocket 06:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

By vocal opposition I meant the users leaving hysterical abuse on my page. I was talking about, as I said, the talk page and only two of them showed up here, neither of whom seem really as opposed to his unblock as you're trying to make out. Talking about here, GoodDay is only trying to keep heat off me, Enigmaman is only here because I gave him into trouble last week. So, once again, I don't find your summary to be accurate. Also, your continued abuse is verging on the tedious. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Enigma ^message 21:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Block Administrator speaks up

Gee. This situation kinda seems familiar, don't it? I apologize for not speaking up before now, but I've been a bit of a wiki-hermit the last bit, and had not been fully aware of the situation until Deacon emailed me. Here's my two cents (with the dollar so weak these days, maybe I'd better make it a nickel or a dime.)

Vintagekits had GENERALLY improved his behavior, this is true. He certainly had some rough spots, as well. It wasn't all beer and skittles, and then it came out that he had not only socked on ArbCom elections (checkuser found). He then told the world we had caught him bang to rights, and that he would leave with honor, as compared to another sock puppet master who had been caught around the time and raised an unholy stink about things.

Then he started socking again and again. 25 socks or so, SINCE he got blocked for the last time. While I do not protest the unblock action taken by Deacon, I want to make it clear that we have been here before with VK. I'll freely admit I like the guy. He has a niche where he improves the encyclopedia (boxing/sport articles). However.. even his most ardent supporters have to admit that he's been a magnet for issues, and even I, who likes the guy, freely admit that most of his blocks were not only deserved, but well-deserved. (well, of course I'd say that, I think I'm the person who blocked him the most!)

If there is a consensus to unblock, fine and well. If there is no consensus to unblock, but no consensus to keep blocked, perhaps ArbCom will want to speak on it (I can just see ArbCom collectively glaring at me asking what I have against them, considering what the LAST ArbCom case was like), or determine that the status quo must stand until consensus forms one way or the other. SirFozzie (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good post. I think situations like this invite higher entities to mediate, certainly if another half day of posting here confirms no consensus either way. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You have an interesting argument, Deacon, which you started in the preceding section. Having taken a precipitate move, in mid discussion, and with almost no support, you justify your continuation of what other admins have determined is a prime example of a wheel war by claiming a "precipitate" return to the original status would be equally unacceptable. I would like someone more skilled than I am to develop a symbolic logic diagram for that one. And then, having secured your position, and still over copious objections, you want to (a) walk away and/or (b) hand the argument over to a higher authority? What good have you done for Wikipedia in this, or even for Vk, I wonder, aside from ratchetting up the drama? Admins have a hard enough job trying to get people to reach agreement before they act without this sort of admin action on your part. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well this is is a turn up for the book. Are we still trying to provide him with suitable places to edit under some firm guidelines - or is VK released back onto the wild, where he is just as likely to be sinned against as sin himself? I am glad he is unblocked, but I would have preferred to see some firm rules to protect him, as much as restrict him. I am concerned that without them, it will be only a matter of time before he is provoked or wanders into trouble. I'm not quite sure where we stand now. Giano (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto on that, Giano. It's in VK's interests that this get nailed down properly otherwise he has no idea as to where he stands, what agreement has been concluded nor what he can nor cannot do. I recommend you maybe suggest to him that he sit tight for a while until this mess gets sorted out - Alison ^❤ 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Who'd have thought it: Giano, Allie and I all agreeing on something to do with Vk. Now all we need is Kittybrewster to concur and the End of Days may be upon us! Seriously though, Giano, perhaps you could convince the Deacon what almost every other respondent in this thread can't: that its in everyone's interest - not least Vk's - that he reblocked until agreement on those firm rules can be established. Rockpocket 06:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with Giano?? Ewww - I did!! Can I change my mind? :-D - Alison ^❤ 06:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Heck guys, this is not even close to the worst Admin decision I've seen - and I totally oppose re-blocking - No consensus for it. When truly terrible and abusing decisions were taken to block folk by Admins who were in dispute with them I didn't notice the whole Admin community rushing to voice their disgust and opposition. Actually we had drive-by shooting-down of "unblock" requests. My only concern here is that Vk isn't being released like a clay pigeon as it isn't clear exactly what terms he has agreed to. I'm sure he will formally sign up to the finalised Giano "agreement" without the need for what would be an interesting block to see defended. Sarah777 (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am being a little inconsistent this morning, this has caught me out completely. It is no secret I want to see VK editing in the near future, but this is not the way. I understood the consensus to unblock to be very much conditional on some seriously tough rules being implemented giving Vk three months to pull his socks up and show the community his intentions. I am pleased to note the un-block is conditional on VK accepting those rules. He has said he will accept those conditions, but until those conditions have been finalised, I think it better that VK does not edit anywhere but his own page or else is reblocked. It was my intention when the conditions had been thrashed out to ask an arb such as Flo Night or the original blocking admin to unblock - to give some official gravity to the situation. At the moment it is obvious some feel the conditions are too Draconian, others not firm enough, so I think Deacon has rather jumped the gun. However, perhaps this is VKs opportunity to prove he can sit tight (unblocked) while things are sorted out. The only thing I know for certain is that those conditions need to be sorted fairly and firmly to create an environment where Vk can edit quietly and trouble-free. I would like to think we were pioneering a new way forward for other "difficult" editors, with something to offer, to return, so this needs to be taken step by step and very slowly, if this works it can only benefit the project, and it can only work with a lot of effort from a lot of people - and that includes VK and passing Admins. Giano (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano has a very good point (twice in one day - the sky is falling!). This could prove be a success for everyone. No-one has even questioned that Vk has something to offer us, the problem was always whether it could be utilized in a manner could accommodate his, um, idiosyncrasies and benefit the community. Giano has been criticized widely (by myself among others) in the past for being quick to criticize admin and Arb solutions without offering any himself. Well here he is offering a practical solution. I say lets let Giano run this show they way he is proposing and see how he does. Rockpocket 08:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As a totally outside user who is familiar with VK's case but has never edited along side them I have to agree with everything that Giano has just said above. An unconditional unblock for VK is not a good idea - his previous actions were beyond any acceptable level - conditions for return need to laid out clearly before VK edits wikipedia again. Unblocking should be reviewed unless, as Giano says, VK waits for conditions to be finalized--Cailil ^talk 09:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To clear things up. Before it gets repeated yet again and turns into an untrue truth, I wasn't just passing. I've been following the issues for ages, as the related topics and controversies occupied the time of many users that I've been involved with, so I've always kept an eye on it. To repeat, he was blocked mainly for sockpuppetry; he got other punishments and restrictions from ArbCom and elsewhere for his other previous countless misdemeanours. On the user's talk page, contrary to what Rockpocket made out, there really is no consensus to impose extra restrictions on him (looks more like a means of appeasing opponents), but there does seem to be consensus for it here. Since calling for it here seems to be almost unanimous now and since some users here think I am going to be easily brow-beaten, it might be better now if I restored his block and allowed a user with more gravitas to do the dirty deed after more chattering has taken place over extra restrictions. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But RP, wouldn't that mean KB and the other unionists would have to re-cork the bubbly they broke out when VK was indef'd? :-P --Dragon695 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is a concensus to unblock

Whilst I am not going to get too involved in this and am going to try and let the community sort it out I would just like to say that they John, Andrew, Bastun and Bielle are all being pretty harsh on Deacon for his unblocking of me. There was two discussions which were aimed at seeing if there was a concensus to unblock me. The first was here, which was pretty unstructured and informal however it lead to this which shows a clear concensus to unblock. I make it 12:5 in favour of an unblock. So lets just put that out there in defense of Deacon - despite what the vocal four would let you believe. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Harsh? Vocal? My entire contribution to the "Vk has been unblocked" issue has consisted thus far of one contribution, above: "Vintagekits has now been unblocked. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:13, 5 May 2008 UTC)" Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vk, there were indeed previous discussions on your talk page, but those predate this current, ongoing ANI discussion, which is where the issue can be drawn to the attention of uninvolved participants. Furthermore, most of the comments on your talk which supported a return were supporting a return subject to conditions and mentorship, none of which are currently in place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there is not such a consensus right now. Deacon was incorrect in unblocking(imho). Not sure how best to proceed, the whole things been muddled up. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not muddled at all, [3] we sre proceeding as we were before, it is as though the block never happened. This is VK's wish too. Giano (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

VK is very well aware of that, which is why he has agreed not to edit until his editing conditions and restricyions are sorted out. Giano (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then there will no problem in his block being reinstated until a consensus has actually been reached on whether he should be unblocked subject to an agreed set of terms and conditions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Block reinstated to restore the status quo ante

I have just gone through the discussions since Deacon of P lifted the block, and I note that the unblocking at this point was

• opposed by: Bielle, John, Rockpocket, FloNight , Andrwsc, Alison, Until(1 == 2), Enigma, Sarah
• supported by: Sarah777, Vintagekits
• neutral (or more nuanced): Giano, Cailil, Ryan Postlethwaite

On that basis, it is clear that there was no consensus to lift the block at this stage, so I will now reinstate it to restore the status quo ante.

Lifting the block now presumes that there will be a consensus to lift it, and that conditions are a detail; in other words, that the issue is how, rather than "whether". Keeping the block in place leaves open all the options discussed above:

1. Keep the block (whether indefinitely or for a stated period)
2. Lift the block subject to a set of conditions yet to be agreed
3. Lift the block unconditionally

I am therefore reinstating the block, pending a decision by the community on which of those options should be followed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair, but we should now move to discuss the details of any potential unblock because I think many of the people opposed to the unblock at this stage do believe vk should be unblocked after the details are thrashed out. Gianos ideas are certainly an excellent starting point. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. I'm not sure whether there is actually support for an ultimate unblocking, but I too hope that we can get back to discussing whether there is a set of conditions for unblocking which would be acceptable to the community and which Vk will agree to. Whatever decision is made on this issue doesn't have to be made instantly, and the discussions have some way to run. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This action seems to make sense as it is clear that the discussion regarding the terms of unblocking has not reached a conclusion. For the record I do not oppose an unblock if the community can agree on reasonable terms and they can be accepted. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl , please undo this block, quickly. You are absolutely the wrong person to block this user. And Vk had agreed not to edit, for now. There was no reason to re-block. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is wheel warring by the way. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. Please re-read WP:WHEEL. "Wikipedia:Wheel war, viz. "An administrator deliberately ignores an existing discussion (often at the Administrators noticeboard/Incidents or Deletion review) and implements their own preferred action or version of an edit." I acted with a consensus demonstrated above, to undo action which ignored an ongoing discussion. Now, can we get back to discussing the substance of whether there is a set of terms on which the community will agree to unblock Vk? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a complete misunderstanding of a consensus based decision. There was not agreement ironed out that either the unblock or the reblock were correct based on consensus. Both were untimely, and ill thought out. Two wrongs do not make a right. That is why we sanction admins for undoing each others actions. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Flo, there was consensus that the unblock was premature, and that discussion should continue. I have merely restored the status quo before that premature unblock. Now, plaese can we get back to discussing the substance of this, which is whether there is a set of terms on which the community will agree to unblock Vk? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not ok for admin to take actions that raise the the tension in a situation and that is exactly what you did. Yes, the unblock was premature, but there was not consensus to correct that by re-blocking the user. Especially since the editor agreed to not edit. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree: The unblock was ridiculously premature, and we've already unblocked one sockmaster without even any requirement that they admit they were ever wrong. Once the details are thrashed out, THEN unblock him, don't override process. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WTF, I must be lacking information about something. The unblock was without consensus, that much has been agreed upon here. I don't see how it can be considered wheel warring when there was an agreement that the unblock was premature. We are supposed to seek wider opinion on reversing admin acts and act only within that, and that is what BHG did. Now if there is some sort of previous involvement I don't know about then that may be a problem, but it is not wheel warring. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Terms of unblock

Right, I think it's best if we stop discussing blocks and unblocks for the second and move onto looking at the exact restrictions that could be placed upon vk should she be allowed to edit. I'll come up one a few to start with so we can discuss it in more detail and see what everyone would be happy with;

"Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hereby unblocked with immediate effect. For a period of three months he is only allowed to edit boxing related articles and project space pages that have no connection with "The Troubles". Vintagekits must not interact with Kittybrewster on any page within the project for an indefinite period of time. He is only permitted to use his main Vintagekits account and should not register an alternate, or sock account. After three months, the article editing restriction may reduced with an appeal to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Vintagekits is also placed under the mentorship of one or more uninvolved administators. Any violation of this probation will result in a block for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator."

Thoughts? Ryan Postlethwaite 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a productive direction to go in. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please no more blocking or unblocking this user. It is extremely upsetting for editors to see admins undoing each other actions. Let's get the guidelines finished and agreed on as quickly as we can. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My only thought is why do you think this will work this time when all these things have been tried several times already without anything to show for it? - Galloglass 14:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we've tried firm restrictions like this. Editing solely boxing related articles over three months will help us guage how productive vk could be in the future and possibly help show his willingness to abide by the communities restrictions placed on him. It would be strict however, and many people will no doubt keep a close watch on him. Should he step out of line, there will be plenty of admins lining up to reblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I also note that Ryan's proposal is considerably looser than Giano's proposals. To take just one of several examples, Ryan proposes that "Any violation of this probation will result in a block for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator", whereas Giano's proposal (accepted by Vk) says "11: If he breaks this agreement, in any way whatsoever, he is indeff banned."

There seemed to a lot of support for Giano's proposals (although I don't think there (yet) was a consensus to accept them). Ryan, can you explain more about why you have tabled an alternative set of terms? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've tried to incorporate Giano's proposals into something more workable, in a few sentances. By all means change them above, it was just something to get the ball rolling here. I don't think a whole page in userspace is the best way to start discussing terms of someones unblock. I actually agree with Giano's thoughts, so please put anything else you think is required into my proposal. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion in the user space was going very well. I see no reason that we need to stop working on it there when it was making head way. The reason for the ruckus had noting to do with that orderly discussion. I see no benefit to starting a separate discussion now. Let the ongoing discussion play itself out. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose an unblock under Ryan's terms above. They seem far less stringent than the proposals already made by Giano, here, which Vintagekits now seems willing to abide by (presumably once they're finalised). This is supposed to be a last chance salloon, effectively, for someone who has racked up over 20 blocks for incivility, personal attacks, revealing another user's address on-Wiki (twice), threatening physical violence, meat-puppetry and sock-puppetry. And who continued to create new socks while indef blocked for creating and voting in elections. What Ryan has proposed above is nothing more than has already been tried multiple times. Would support an unvlock under Giano's proposal (assuming it doesn't change too substantially from what's there now). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Ryan's suggestion. Vk would run rings around such ambiguous terms. --John (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This indicates any unblock would be premature. I strongly oppose any unblock until Vk has indicated a genuine willingness to change. I'd like to see him unambiguously answer BHG's question before considering an unblock. --John (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please guys, this is supposed to be a discussion. Please add/remove things from the proposal so we can thrash out a consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, that was already happening somewhere else. Let's go back to the place where there was an productive discussion already started and well under way. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This was exactly why my decision was good. There is enough passion and interest in this topic to stall pretty much every discussion, meanwhile Vintage is blocked. The guy is under arbcom as well as normal civility restrictions. He doesn't need any more, and wikipedia won't benefit from them. He was blocked for sockpuppetry, and his profile in practice will prevent that becoming a problem again. Let ArbCom make a decision, or just unblock the guy. His opponents shouldn't have any good faith reason to worry. Either he will transgress again and will be blocked again, or he'll be a good boy and no-one will have anything to worry about. Sometimes people gotta realise where and when talking shops are appropriate. Really, I don't think it is here, but maybe I'm wrong. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment confuses me. I think there is miscommunication happening. I do not see the people working on his editing guidelines to be Vk's "opponents". Some of those people have commented, yes. But they were not the main people that were writing up the details of the agreement. I would never let that happen. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is going on? We had VK pledging not to edit, while others were working on creating some proposal that would allow him to edit - a nice happy situation. Suddenly, We now have BGH wheel warring, and other proposing terms so lax that even VK himself could not have dreamt them up, and BHG doing her best to stir things up on VKs page. Well done all of you Giano (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) At FloNight, if you have confidence you can carve a way to a clear decision with concrete terms in good time, that makes me feel better. I'd be more interested to see how it goes when people get the feeling they are really going to be put in practice, rather than just now. You can see from above that Vintage's agreement to the terms as they stood last night was not acceptable to many. Anyways, I don't believe more restrictions will be good (I seem to be alone in this), but wiki has its own logic and I do very much hope, believe me, we can make the best of it in these circumstances. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Several contributors to this discussion have questioned whether it is appropriate to unblock Vk on any terms, in view of his history. So I have posted on Vk's talkpage to ask him the question directly about why he believes that assurances from him should be accepted. Yes, the question is loaded, but it is an issue which has been raised in this discussion, so VK should have a chance to answer it if he wants to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Lost in all this drama is an outstanding point that Bielle has made. Vintagekits' current (well, second to latest) block is specifically for votestacking sockpuppetry while he was on ArbCom probation. As noted multiple times, yet seemingly ignored, is his blatant continued abuse of our sockpuppet policy in the past three months, this time to evade the community ban. It's all well and good to now set up elaborate editing restrictions to ensure that he abides by WP:CIVIL et. al., but what about compliance to WP:SOCK? If he is unblocked now, he won't have to use sockpuppets anymore. Therefore, I think it is mandatory for the community to see Vintagekits actually demonstrate that he (finally) agrees with this policy, and the only way to do that is to continue the existing block for a few months (I suggest 4) and verify that no new socks are created during that time. If we unblock him now, we are essentially brushing aside the past few months of sockpuppet abuse and saying it doesn't matter. I would even be willing to accept a much simpler set of conditions at the end of that 4 month period, if he successfully gets through it. I am concerned that the current approach advocated by Giano II is much too convoluted. I appreciate Ryan's attempt to simplify things, but that can only happen after he shows a willingness to drop the socks forever. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge everyone to permit a process to occur here. Progress was developing nicely on a set of conditions under which Vk's unblocking could be proposed. That was cut off at the knees by The Deacon's baffling unblocking. It would have been much better if he had adjudged the feelings of the community better and re-blocked himself, but instead BHG did it for him. Hell, even Vk himself could appreciate that unblocking at this time wasn't germane to a successful conclusion (which says a lot the The Deacon's judgment in my opinion). But that is now done. Like Flo, I suggest those that are interested go back to Giano's page (User talk:Giano/Terms for VK's return) and continue the discussion on formalizing the probation conditions. Then, and only then, when we know what is on the table, we can assess the communities feeling on whether he should be unblocked. Those who oppose or support unconditionally will already know where they stand, but the majority of people appear to be willing to consider it and once they know exactly what the conditions are, they can make an informed decision. Rockpocket 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your loving message. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it really isn't personal. But I (and I'm not alone) am so utterly perplexed by your reasoning that I seriously considered questioning whether your account had been hijacked yesterday. I'm sure you are a great editor, but I really struggle to see how, in such a long and complex case, you thought being bold was a good idea. But worse, how when people from all sides of the Vk debate (those for, against and neutral) all told your this was a bad unblock and you still refused to reblock. I find it offensive that your response to our reasoning was a dismissal because we "had a run in with him in the past" suggesting I (and I expect Alison and BHG, but you neglected to name anyone) just wanted him blocked because of that. Nothing could be further from the truth, and if you had followed this as closely as you claim to, you would have appreciated that. I hope this can all be held together and we can reach as solution that works, but I fear your unblock may well have seriously derailed any attempt to sort this out. Rockpocket 18:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To be quite brutally honest, and I hope we can all agree on this, the person who has acted with most dignity and best behaviour since the unblock/reblock has been Vintagekits, himself. While we can all imagine what he has been shouting at his screen, he has behaved in an exemplary way. I'll risk disclosing an email from him a short while ago which just said "don't worry, I'm cool." He is obviously really trying, so let's carry on trying to help him out of this mess. Giano (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) From what I can see it seems to have gotten it going, but rather than making psychic predictions we should wait and see. I think the most important thing is how VK responds when his "last chance" does come about. I have fully justified the decision I came to, and I think hot-headedness got in the way of convincing responses (most responses for instance didn't seem to acknowledge let alone address the points I made). Having had a run in with the user is important I think to coming to an objective decision; or if not, seeming to come to an objective decision. Appearances are very important in such matters. There are concerns which got more wide backing that the unblock was premature, but that even though it was done reblocking wasn't necessarily the answer. While I don't agree with the premature part personally, I certainly acknowledge that that was becoming the consensus when I offered to reconsider the unblock. As for being bold. Well, I am definitely an uninvolved editor, and the conversation (going on and off for a while) reached a certain point where retaining the block no longer had consensus. VK may have done some damage in the past, but there were many other significant factors to be kept in mind and the attention he has brought himself (ignoring the lessons he has prolly learned) has put much of that potential to rest, so the danger is really not there. It's kinda like the Third Punic War, where experienced-garnered paranoia and mistrust have vastly exceeded the actual danger. I'd suggest from your perspective that there is more danger pushing him out of the system, getting another computer and ISP (both of which he will acquire in time), with those guys at the opposite end of the POV-spectrum having to start from scratch. Anyways, that aside, gloomy predictions certainly won't help (even if they turn out to be accurate), so it's prolly best if you put them aside for now. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well I can't say I agree, and I expect that comes from experience (of Vk), but there is little point now in flogging a dead horse. There was significant and constructive discussion on the probation terms beforehand, but these stopped completely for everyone to wave angry fists in your direction. I can only imagine that is what you mean by "seems to have gotten it going". It is now as you were and the discussion on Vk' terms (rather than his unblocking) seems to be going forward again. So lets leave it there. But please, let someone else ascertain the consensus when we have the probation conditions sorted and the discussion turns to unblocking again! Rockpocket 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming people were shaking their fists at me mostly because either they got emotional or they believed that would help them attain their goal. I on the other hand, since I stepped in, had to stick to solid reasoning and listening, and to patience. I know you disagreed with me, but you have to bear in mind that the terms of his block are loose and such things have no set structure or process for everyone to follow and respect [claims to the contrary don't accurately reflect the policies in existence]. The course of events since has been shaped by wiki weather, the random bursts of storm and sunshine that came into it in the aftermath. The initial reaction was kind of knee-jerk and possessed a little bit of a herd momentum, and I didn't feel comfortable rushing into anything further until that had given way to thoughtful reasoning and before more people had got an opportunity to give their thoughts. I do think this process would have gained most by following my decision, but the next best consequence of my decision is that the dangers of a chatter-shop might be — hopefully — avoided. With restrictions being generally desired now — the idea some have that this was "agreed" before my unblock is not an accurate assessment of the discussion — I hope it means both ends are more willing to accept some kind of terms. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow! Let's not compound an endless stream of conflict and errors by making a scapegoat of The Deacon. When Vk is back under agreed rules I suggest everyone forget 'who did what' and move on. And that means everyone. Sarah777 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Forget what? (just kidding, Sarah). PS- Let's move on, shall we? GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Scapegoating is natural and should be recognised as such. Recognising it too, unless arbcom takes this into their hands, admins should not and cannot let themselves be intimidated or brow-beaten into making a decision. There are strong feelings on both sides, and one has to accept that someone's wrath will be forthcoming if one is going to do one's job. With that in mind, it would have been better if someone with more profile than myself did it (less vulnerable to such things), but there you go, they didn't. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Or even better still if nobody had done it; it did not achieve anything for Vk, and merely led to a lot of wasted energy, as wiki-drama uses of IAR tend to do. Never mind; this is supposed to be about Vk, not raising Deacon's profile, so I suggest we restrict further discussion to the subject in hand, unless or until someone files an Arbcomm case regarding the silly unblock. --John (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you are still full of so much joy. ;) BHG chose to restore the block, and I'll assume what you really meant was that the focus should clearly be on VK now. Well, you are correct, and if those so inclined would refrain from bringing me up and issuing pointless threats we could get on with it? Agreed, everyone? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever gets the traffic moving. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

On the order of questions

At the risk both of stating the bleeding obvious and bringing down a load of squeaky abuse on my head, may I point out that there are, or ought to be, two questions here:

• Should Vintagekits be unblocked; and,
• If so, under what terms.

Re-reading the discussion above, it initially focussed on the first question before widening to encompass the second. The second question has now budded-off to User:Giano/Terms for VK's return, which is attracting its own commentary; but this is putting the cart before the horse: there is, as yet, no broad community support for an unblocking - support, such as it is, is lukewarm and (by and large) dependent on some severe checks being imposed.

(QED: the weaker the limits imposed on Vintagekits' editing, the less likely it is that there will be wider support for unblocking him.)

At some point, which might as well start now, the question is going to have to be faced of whether Vintagekits should be unblocked at all. My own view, rehearsed at tedious length above, is that he should, and elsewhere I've made the pragmatic argument that it's better to have him editing under supervision than creating socks and editing without supervision (the fact is that blocks seem to be so easy to evade using sock-puppets that a block is hardly a worthwhile sanction at all).

That said, the privilege of editing, as John pointed out in his very first post, is for the community to grant or withhold. The onus is on Vintagekits to make that case and it certainly should not be taken for granted.

Nobody wants to humiliate Vintagekits, but there are a variety of questions that have been posed and he needs to answer; in no particular order: the question posed by BrownHairedGirl on his Talk page (sorry - 'taking the Fifth' here isn't an option and Giano's advice to ignore the question is outrageous); Andrwsc's point (VK's Talk page, May 4., referred to in my AN/I post, above, of May 4.) that one of these sock-puppets has been handing out gratuitous abuse ([4]) - why? What on Earth doesn't he understand? Could we at least have an apology?; and BrownHairedGirl's other point, above that Vintagekits should come clean, under an amnesty, over any and all other sock-puppets. As Bielle makes her points, above, similar to BrownHairedGirl's question, based on policy rather than specific conduct, her comments possibly do not need a response, but it might be helpful to give one in order to wrap up her thread.

Ultimately, I'm afraid, I don't believe that there is going to be a consensus to unblock, and any unblocking will have to come from ArbCom rather than 'the community'. Perhaps some honest answers, even at this stage, will sway the waverers. --Major Bonkers (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I read comments such as those above by Bonkers with increasing amounts of incredulity. One large factor,which makes me want to see VK reinstated, is that for a long time he has been the victim of a clique of editors centred on the notorious and 100% banned User: Sussexman, of whom Bonkers is just one of many acolytes. While Sussexman (most recent re-incarnation), with his worrying POV, legal threats, and sock puppets, is unlikely ever to be permitted to return (despite Kiyybrewster's less than wise advice), he still controls a clique who attempt to assert those very right wings views which are their creed. VK is certainly no saint and at times less than erudite, they spotted that, and targeted him, and continue to do so. They are a large part of the reason he finds himself in this position. The input of this clique into what was already a volatile editing group, at The Troubles, has most certainly not been a calming influence. So please when evaluating these people's comments, do bear that in mind. Giano (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, rather than sticking labels over most of your claims, Giano, I'll respond; the origin of the dispute was summarised by One Night In Hackney here; a summary anyway that I dispute, these are events that took place two years ago, and it ignores Vintagekits' own activities. It's extraordinary to me that from these minor beginnings we've had an enormous ArbCom case, a huge amount of wasted time and effort, which simply seems to go on forever, eternally recycling old misunderstandings and bad behaviour, and attracting more and more participants as the snowball rolls on down the slope.

I'm not going to respond in detail to your claim of a vast right-wing conspiracy, attempting to promote its agenda through WP, which is ludicrous. However, I would point out that I edit quite peacefully alongside both John, who as far as I can see holds diametrically opposite political views to my own, and Sarah777 who seems to be an enthusiastic Irish republican. In any case, David Lauder tended to confine himself to articles on Scottish medieval history, so far as I could see; if you've got some evidence of him disrupting the encyclopaedia by asserting his alleged views, you know what to do about it just as well as I do. Who else is part of this conspiracy? BrownHairedGirl, for posting an uncomfortable question on Vintagekits' Talk page? SirFozzie for blocking him more than any other Admin? Bielle for objecting to his unblocking on policy grounds? I seem to remember that even the sainted Alison got an earful of abuse for somehow not mentoring him properly.

The common denominator to all arguments made on Vintagekits' behalf is that it's always someone else's fault. There's never any responsibility taken for his own actions, and it's an intellectually dishonest argument to make. He's got a block log as long as my arm and somehow I'm responsible? I baited and needled him into running sock-puppets? It doesn't wash.

Nonetheless, there are arguments to make in favour of an unblocking: (1) it's pragmatic - he's going to edit anyway, so it might as well be supervised; (2) he's served his time (ho-hum), and should be allowed back; and, (3) perhaps if we let him back we'll finally be able to put two years-worth of unproductive warring over 'The Troubles' to bed. The counter-argument is that it's against policy and there's been no sign of his behaviour improving.

I'm prepared to give him another chance - which, frankly, is a lot more than many others are prepared to do - but I'm not going to act as an apologist for him and blame other editors as responsible for his actions. I came back to the central point in my original post: the restoration of editing privileges is the community's gift, not for him to demand. The current policy of Vintagekits not responding to issues or questions and you answering on his behalf is a disgrace because it shows contempt for other editors, those forming the wider community and who are expected to judge this issue, and who have made the effort to behave properly themselves. So; let's finally have some honesty; you and he actually make the case for an unblocking rather than making the breathtaking assumption that it's his of right.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, no, I'm not playing silly beggars with you any longer Bonkers. You know every well what I'm talking about, whether you, and yout immediate "friends", are all socks of each other, or some ramshackle organization with only a couple of computers between the lot of you is neither here nor there. Had you and Kittybrewster kept your comments to yourslelf, and Sussexman's sock stopped agitating about like a frustrated canary in a cage, I may have kept quiet. I suppose we shall have Counter Revolutionary here any moment, or is it someone else's turn on that particular computer today? Giano (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, it's a pity that you choose to attack the speaker rather than address the questions ... and in particular that you choose to condemn editors because they allegedly hold "extreme right-wing views" (a label that doesn't what I have have seen of Bonkers, however it might fit others). Vintagekits has also accused of holding extreme Irish Republican views, and both points are irrelevant: everyone is entitled to their POV, and the issue here is the conduct of editors not their politics.

I think that Bonkers is slightly wrong to say that there are two questions here, "Should Vintagekits be unblocked", and "if so, under what terms". There is a third question, raised by Andrwsc, of when he should be unblocked. Giano has done great work in taking the initiative on drawing up a set of terms, but the other two questions also need to be addressed.

In considering those questions, there may well be discussion about some of the reasons we got into this situation, such as whether Vk's use of socks to multiple vote for you in the arbcom election was forgiveable because he was "targeted", or whether personal attacks made through his sockpuppets are a result of him being "targeted" (or otherwise excusable). You clearly have your views on those points, but the fact that you dislike the questioner doesn't invalidate the questions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ah yes, I was expecting you BHG, I'm afraid your rather pointless re-block of VK hours and hours after the unblock when he had already declared he would not be editing told us all rather more about you, then anything else. That it earned you a reprimand from an Arb for abuse of tools ought to be enough to silence you. I find it interesting that when I told you, by email, the true identity of the ringleader in all of this, weeks before the start of the Troubles Arbitration case you chose to do nothing at all. That he is now banned and exposed, is little thanks to you. I shall AGF and presume you failed to read the email. I'm afraid BHG, I rather dismiss your views too, yes we all are entitled to our own POV. However, none of us are entitled to insert our POV in articles, and attempt to do so by launching gang warfare. Giano (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Giano, I don't remember receiving such an email, and I can't find it my email archives ... but if you had some evidence, why didn't you present it at arbcom?
    Anyway, I note your enthusiasm to silence anyone who disagrees with you, and frankly I have seen few funnier things all week than you arguing that an editor should shut up when one arbitrator, outside an arbitration case, attacks someone for upholding a consensus. You yourself are the subject of a civility parole imposed by a decision of arbcom (not by one arb expressing a personal view), and your response was to vociferously and repeatedly denounce the whole of arbcom as stupid. Thanks for giving me something to laugh about :)
    However, let's suppose that Vintagekits was indeed the victim the rightwing conspiracy you allege. (It seems to me to be more accurate to say that Vk clashed with a group of editors, some of whom have been colluding and who hold their extremist political views as passionately as Vk holds his extremist views, but let's take your conspiracy-to-target-him angle for now). How does that justify Vintagekits's countless abusive comments and personal attacks, which continued even when he was using his sockpuppet accounts and off the radar of the group you allege? How does it justify his repeated use of sockpuppets to evade blocks? How does it it justify his use of socks to try to rig an arbcom election in your favour?
    The last point is particularly interesting, because there's a clear COI in your position here, isn't there Giano? That's the sockpuppetry for which he was blocked (and remains blocked) and I have to see any condemnation by you of that abuse (of course I may have missed it, and if so I'm sure you can supply the diff).
    We have now seen in this thread several rants from you against anyone who raises the point that the sockpuppetry has continued until recently, and we have also seen you advise Vintagekits not to answer a question about why his assurances if future conduct should be believed given his track record. You are quite entitled to your views, but please stop trying to shout down anyone who takes a different view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I really do not have the time for titting and tatting with you BHG. I suggest you go and talk to some of your invisible friends. Giano (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, is it possible your account has been highjacked? Whether I have agreed with you or not, I have always respected that your interactions have been on point and direct and that you expected the same of others. You do not have a reputation for avoiding questions, quite the contrary, in fact. And, as for "invisble friends", I am sure you have noted that, on the Internet, all of all our friends are invisible. Patronizing remarks tell us more about you than they do about those to whom they are directed and they are not worthy of you. BHG's question deserves an answer from those who are championing Vk's cause to be unblocked. It is the central issue, after all. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to end the discussion at User:Giano/Terms for VK's return

Being bold, I've added a sub-heading here to make it easier to distinguish the points raised.--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the discussion is going to achieve at this time, folks. (Though I did get a kick out of Giano, of all people, tellling someone: "That it earned you a reprimand from an Arb... ought to be enough to silence you." Hah!) I don't believe we are putting the cart before the horse, because how can one one make an informative opinion about whether Vk should be unblocked when its not clear what the conditions of the unblocking will be? The discussions at User:Giano/Terms for VK's return seem to be wrapping up and I think we should be able to finalize these soon. Then, I hope we can propose a few options to the community based on the major positions previously stated:

1. Vk is unblocked now, under the conditions stated. (Giano et al's preference)
2. Vk is unblocked after a sock-free time of reasonable duration, under the conditions stated or not. (Andrwsc et al's preference)
3. Vk remains blocked.

At the point, I suggest we ask an Arb or 'crat to review that discussion (and that discussion alone) and determine a consensus. Who is with me? Rockpocket 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

Yes, I agree, but with one proviso, those mentioned or abstractly referred to in the conditions are not allowed to comment or participate in the discussion in any way, that is Kittybrewster, Major Bonkers, Counter Revolutionary and BrownHairedGirl, Oh and the one called WFrank (or something like that, and his sockpuppets). Obviously this proviso also includes any sockpuppets of Sussexman. As BHG has implied, somewhere, I have a vested interest (apparently VK and Sussexman both socked in my Arbcom election) if they are forbidden from commenting I won't either. Giano (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Makes sense to me. I would also stipulate that an attempt be made to get comments from a much broader subset of the community than has participated so far. I think it is impossible to get a true measure of consensus from only the self-selected set of editors who have User talk:Vintagekits on their watchlist (either his friends or otherwise), and the relatively small number of admins who saw the ANI discussion before it got moved off onto this subpage (and hence, out of general sight). I see very few comments from people who are not listed at WP:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Involved parties, and it troubles me (pardon the pun) that this whole reinstatement affair seems to be a rehash of all the old arguments, with all the same players. I strongly agree with Bielle that there should be a much stronger scrutiny of Vintagekits' behaviour since the Arbcom-related ban, and I think it is to everybody's best interest to get feedback from "uninvolved" editors who can look at this case from a Wikipedia policy perspective rather than a political or personal perspective. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, and I concur with Andrew's point too. --John (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic, but note that User:Andrew is somebody else. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. I'm not sure how to achieve that wider participation, but we should certainly strive for it. Rockpocket 17:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, because we already had an abortive attempt to determine consensus from previous comments, I'll make an effort to inform everyone that expressed an opinion previously that we will be having a new discussion based on these proposals and invite them to resubmit a comment. Rockpocket 17:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

I think it's a great idea to try to get wider participation, but I don't buy Giano's attempts to skew the balance by selectively excluding contributors. The best thing would be to exclude all the parties to the Troubles arbcom, and leave this issue up to those who don't have a history of involvement with Vk ... but trying to exclude one group of people is a stitch-up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A stitch up BHG? - what an unfortunate expression, and were you a party to that arbcom case? Giano (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, your memory is slipping. As you well know, I and all other admins involved parties to the case. You too were a party: see the full list at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Involved_parties. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh how clever you are BHG, I would neb=ver have found that, but it seems half of Wikipedia was there. No, no need for all of them, I think just the names I mentioned will do - no problem with you is it? Giano (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, what's your game? You asked a question, I answered.

As I have already sated, it is a problem. If you want to exclude involved parties, I think that's quite a good idea, to bring in some fresh voices. But it's outrageous to cherrypick the list to exclude only one set of editors. Would you like to explain exactly why you think it is legitimate to try to stack a vote by excluding people who you think will disagree with your proposal? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it very wise to exclude thos mentioned in the proposals and conditions - They are a group who have antagonized him in the past, which is why they are mentioned in the proposals. If they are allowed to commment, then so should VK himself - so are you going to unblock him Giano (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Sorry to be the late to the game chimer in...but....can I inquire where the three month probation time came from? If people believe Vintagekits will 'sin again' then 3 months of being hand held away from the subject will not change it....why not simply release him into the wild with the condition that the next block for PA or Sockpuppets is permanent and that he is to stay away from the troubles? Is not simplicity key here, or we will have people baiting him into breaching one of the 10+ rules or lawyering the rules. Narson (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I apologise if this is an admin only conversation and by no means do I presume to tell the sysops what should be what...I should also make it no great secret that Vintagekits certainly gets no invites to my birthday, it just seems that either we trust him or we don't and in a case of someone with an (established?) history of such things, we can just be black and white. Despite my dislike, if you peruse VK's edits on non-political subjects, he is a darn good editor and if there is a way to work forward it should be grasped. Narson (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure this is just an accident, but I have noticed that Giano's comment above (timed originally at 19:18 and then revised at 20:08) comes chronologically after (though is now physically before) the apparent agreements by John, Andrwsc and Rockpocket (beginning at the 17:00s). Perhaps Giano would move his comment to its chronological place so that it will be clear who is agreeing to what. The inclusion of individuals who are proposed to be disenfranchised is certainly subsequent to Andrwsc's, John's and Rockpocket's remarks, though I have no way of knowing if they agree or not. (Note: the order is clear in the History page, though the hours in your jurisdiction may be different than mine.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh put it where you like Bielle, those of us used to long and convoluted threads don't have such problems, just make sure BHG's most interesting responses are in order too. Giano (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, please keep my comments. And please don't forget to ensure that all Giano's gems are in the right place, such as his memory loss over an arbcom case into which he put so much effort. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that everone is aware of the potential for confusion, I will just step out from between the active participants. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Rockpocket. Given that he's on West Coast of America time, may I suggest that unless there's any great movement to oppose bringing that discussion to a head during today, when he logs on and sees this he simply begins to move to do that? I'd suggest putting a box somewhere on the Talk page saying "This discussion will be closed on Sunday evening, the threads reviewed by a neutral third party, and the discussion and decision on whether to unblock referred back to WP:AN/I", or somesuch. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly my body still thinks it is on Fiji time, Major, hence the late night editing :( But yes, most people seem keen to move on so if there is no significant objections I'll make a formal proposal, probably at ANI, in the next 24hrs. Rockpocket 09:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Giano's proposal to exclude certain participants. Either everyone listed as a party in the Troubles arbcom is excluded, or noone is. Excluding one 'side' only, including someone who had their street address published twice by Vk, would be bizarre. (And also note that one of those people named by Giano has already contributed to the page outlining Vk's return conditions. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Let the Administrators handle it

I think I'll drop out of this whole thing folks. The less editors involved? The quicker a choice will be made. Also, perhaps it's best to let the Administrators handle all of this (including currently non-involved Admins). Good luck folks. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What, and let them have all the fun?

Existing sock-puppets: This is BrownHairedGirl's point; under amnesty, Vintagekits should declare any and all other sock-puppet accounts that he has. If he doesn't, and some more subsequently come to light, per User:Giano/Terms for VK's return, item 9: VK will not use any other sock, accounts or edit in any other way other than as Vintagekits - that wording needs to be tightened - he is indefinitely banned. Can Vintagekits make some kind of response on his Talk page, including coming clean over those sock-puppets which are suspected rather than confirmed. If they have all been uncovered, please can he make an acknowledgment of that fact as well. --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added All preexisting alternative accounts must be disclosed prior to unblocking to ensure that sleeper accounts are relinquished. Rockpocket 08:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – And no drama!--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

I have made the proposal for the community to discuss at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vintagekits proposed unblocking

Anyone with an opinion on Vk's proposed unblocking should make it there. It may be moved to a sub-page (probably this one) at some point in the future. Rockpocket 05:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)