Whilst it is true that as far back as February this year I came upon three or four Articles for Deletion regarding IRA terrorists it is the right of all editors to take part on these AfD pages. It appears to me that ONIH is somehow saying that is not the case. I also left general comment on the suitability of the subjects and their pages, comment which was entirely factual. If I made a remark on those pages which was entirely untrue, then naturally I apologise. The other point I would make is that the origins of the current ArbCom case were the indefinite ban(s) of User:Vintagekits in and around August 2007. I am unable to see how I contributed to those. David Lauder 12:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The point Mr Lauder is now to investigate what you think are the "all too obvious activities" [1]. Giano 12:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, David.. it wasn't me who submitted that section. SirFozzie 18:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My very sincere apologies. My mistake. I have corrected the heading. David Lauder 19:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was me. And the significance of that section will become even more clear when some AfDs about an entirely different set of articles are submitted as evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that it would be far more damaging to see the AfDs you refer to because of the real and obvious causes for their nomination in the first place, and the abrasive, provocative, and questioning character of certain editors of any editor who voted 'Keep'. Attempting to hide behind any number of WP 'guidelines' in those matters should not fool the arbitrators. I may, of course, be wrong. David Lauder 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this discussion continues when the evidence has been presented, including the AfD where a certain editor used an IP to vote twice. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whacko! Do you honestly think that 1 AfD months ago is the issue in this ArbCom case? Maybe I have misunderstood what it is all about? I was unaware that the tables had been entirely turned and that every other Tom Dick and Harry was now on trial. What is that saying about people in glass houses? David Lauder 20:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Stop this here right now. If you have a problem, which you clearly do, then there is an evidence page to say these things. This is not the place. I told your group some time ago that if the case was accepted the Arbcom normally explores all evenues leading to such a case. So this is no surprise to you all. So please stop bickering here. Giano 20:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you are not an administrator you are not really in a position to speak to people like that. The rules clearly state that if one disagrees with something on the evidence page you may not challenge it there, but instead leave a comment on this page. That is what I did. Apart from my mistake in identifying who gave the evidence, now corrected, there was no reason for any editor to leave a response to my entry here. David Lauder 19:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A a very long term and highly experienced editor of this encyclopedia I am in a position to advise so I merely suggest you leave your comments in the correct place. Like Kittybrewster, you are clearly highly involved in this case as you demonstrated so clearly here [2] which was the culmination of several edits. Obviously you have strong views on the matter, so please place those views in the correct forum.Giano 19:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• David Lauder, the heading for the evidence page says this: "If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move." So, you actually use the main evidence page to note that, not the talk page of /evidence. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but on the 27th August you stated: You may not change your comments here once the case has opened. Anything that you want to mention needs to go to talk or evidence. So I put it on Talk. Regards, David Lauder 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies. I didn't mean for my comment to be interpreted liked that. Let me re-clarify: if you have diffs, that should go in evidence to counter what others said. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would a clerk like to sort this out please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please tell me where to post my response incorporating evidence against User:Vintagekits? --Counter-revolutionary 09:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your own section, on the main evidence page, under who ever posted their evidence last. Giano 10:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Does it need to conform to any template, as I have combined my defence and allegations into one. --Counter-revolutionary 10:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just post it, people read it just the same, but of you look at the workshop page you ofen have a better opportunity to refute allegations as it is more of a free for all than here. On the evidence page one may only post in one's own section, so refuting allegations made three sections higher up the page is often not the most clear way of doing so, having said that the workshop page while more topical can become a mess of long and confusing threads - so take your pick. Giano 10:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]