User:Gaimhreadhan/Irish Terrorism-Politics

Stop canvassing!

I am not impressed by your behaviour over the past few hours - we can all carry on like this and canvas a group but we do not - please read - WP:CANVAS--Vintagekits 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it necessary for you to publicly contact people. In your case you presumably have each others 'phone numbers, addresses and e-mail addresses already. Do you categorically deny that you have been in private contact with 303?

On a more constructive note, I've now read the article WP:CANVAS and I am satisfied that my three posts to three separate editors that I suspect would be interested in your agenda are neither deprecated, banned or even fall under the category you claim....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You've overstepped the mark now to be honest - I'll hold my fired for a moment but you and the guys from the British Isles article are going to be reported.--Vintagekits 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not in my opinion a correct comment by Vintagekits. It's part of Wikipedia to draw things to editor's attention that they may be interested in - at no time did Gaimhreadhan try to incite any of those he contacted to a particular action. I believe he was just asking for interest. I also think you need to provide proof if you are going to allege concerted action in the way that you are doing, do you have any? If not, you are in breach of WP policies yourself. MarkThomas 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention, "the guys from the British Isles article" is silly, paranoid and offensive. I edit hundreds of articles and they are by no means limited to Britain-related material. I take an anti-POV line generally, which may I suspect by why I and others that you are thinking of have come to your notice - I have spent some time and effort countering a particularly strong Irish nationalist POV-pushing in Britain-related articles recently and whenever one does that on Wikipedia it disturbs editors who thought they controlled an article with their own POV. Could that, coupled with your frankly rather bullying attitude, be the problem here? MarkThomas 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think that that is the case then I think you need to read carefully the provisions of WP:CANVAS - if you think I am wrong I am happy to let admin sort it out! --Vintagekits 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, when you do perhaps you could point out (as I will if you do) the relevant section of WP:CANVAS that covers the recent edits:
ACCEPTED:-
           Scale = Limited posting
           Message = Neutral
           Audience = Nonpartisan
Messages that meet all of these criteria are friendly notices.

None of that was broken by Gaimhreadhan. I suggest a deep breath, a chill pill and a good night's sleep. :-) MarkThomas 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Its the audience section of those three that he fails on and will be blocked for! Havent you thought that its because your edits show a anti "Irish nationalist POV" that he contacted you and with this edit - you've just proved it!--Vintagekits 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC

I have proved no such thing - because someone says they are de-POVing, to you that's proof of canvassing? Flippin heck, if you generate a block from this flimware it would be worth announcing WP has collapsed. However, I think you would be better off having a good rest from WP for a bit to calm down! Good luck with it all anyway. MarkThomas 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not patronise me it is a breach of WP:CIVIL - the audience he sent the messeges to was a partisan one - therefore it is a breach of WP:CANVAS - simple!--Vintagekits 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you just deleted my comments from your talk page plus an entirely separate but similar one from a completely different editor who had a very similar complaint to my own. It does seem like for someone who is so knowledgeable about the rules, you have quite a habit of rubbing other editors up the wrong way. Could it be that they object to something that you are doing? MarkThomas 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Please indent correctly, 2. Stick to the subject at hand 3. I added a test2 tag to the other editors talk page for this edit which is unsourced POV nonsense and rightly shold be highlighted as such. 4. The audience was partisan and therefore a breach of WP:CANVAS--Vintagekits 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think anybody who doesn't precisely follow your (extreme) POV is "partisan" eh Vintagekits? Witness your recent edits. This is obviously a completely futile "discussion", little more than name-calling and ranting, I can only ask anybody passing by to check all edits by Vintagekits for POV and revert where needed. Thanks. MarkThomas 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE INDENT PROPERLY, I am sick of correcting your formatting! This discussion is not about my percieved POV - its is about Gaimhreadhan's canvassing and the possibly POV of those he canvassed - you have proved your POV now all I have to do is show the same for the other two! slainte!-- Vintagekits 21:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, good luck with that. If you do file any sort of complaint, I will consider what action to take - your whole attitude to other editors and the project in general brings to mind lots of potential abuses and complaints. MarkThomas 21:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Gaimhreadhan

See what you three "hand grenade" messege have dont - now do you see why canvassing is banned! It stirs up trouble and just causes more problems. I hope you are happy with your handy work!--Vintagekits 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a page for dialogue. If you're not willing to answer a direct question I see little point in you posting here, I doubt you'll educate me if you don't directly address my questions:

In your case you presumably have each others 'phone numbers, addresses and e-mail addresses already. Do you categorically deny that you have been in private contact with 303?

Do you deny that you have co-ordinated your agenda outside the visible pages of WP?

If you deny you do and have, then I will apologise - otherwise you are condemned by your own silence....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 21:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I categorically state that I do not contact him outside of wikipedia! now can you defend your canvassing and are you proud of the distruption you have casued!--Vintagekits 21:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of your clear and unequivocal denial:

1. I unreservedly apologise for the assumption that you were in communication.
2. I believe that my three messages to three separate editors of North east atlantic archipelago articles were within both the spirit and rules of WP. If I am in error in this then I will genuinely be grateful if you can show me exactly how I have misunderstood the canvassing article.
3. You have a point of view that I will categorise as wanting to hide from obvious categorisation IRA killings (if the article being categorised does not bear the name of an individual). I conceded that your narrow grammatical reasoning was technically correct and, therefore, created a wider category that was not limited to articles with only a victims name in which to place the articles you had "un-categorised". Your response was to organise for the new category's deletion. Since I'm limited by the hospital by when I can post, I thought (and still think) it appropriate to alert others to your agenda (since they may or may not agree with it) and otherwise you succeed in your agenda by dint of secrecy. This may all be academic for you but not for the relatives of the deceased...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 22:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not trying to hide anything and resent that acqusation! They were categorised incorrectly and were already categorised in the IRA actions category so no "hiding" there either. As for your canvassing - the selection of the people you left the messege was obvious and only took me seconds to work out and admin will take even less - if you can explain how and you selected these people I would like to hear it.--Vintagekits 22:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to reply to this?--Vintagekits 23:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Better late than never: "It always surprises me how eager many Republicans try to justify the terrorism of the Provisional IRA by saying they were soldiers in a war. Look at Northern Ireland today, its still part of the United Kingdom, the Provisional IRA has disbanded, Ian Paisley is the First Minister, the Irish Republic has given up its claim to the North and has named the Provisional IRA as an illegal organisation. If the troubles was a war, then the Republicans definitely lost. These people, who so many of you want to give the honour of POW, were murderers, criminals and thugs. These are the people who in 1983 killed six people shopping in Harrods, how were shoppers preventing a united Ireland? I can not imagine the thought process that goes through even the most ardent Republican’s mind to make these terrorists soldiers and prisoners of war. Open your eyes and see what they did, do you really want to give them such respect?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.155.76.139 (talk • contribs).

Sockpuppetry block

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by abusive sockpuppetry. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Sockpuppetry is confirmed by your editing patterns and a signature substitution.[1] You have used the sock account User:W. Frank abusively by arguing with both accounts on the same page.[2] This block is for 2 weeks. Tyrenius 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked for the time being to allow you to participate in the discussion re sockpuppetry. You are cautioned per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL not to make derogatory references to other editors, e.g. regarding any supposed affiliation with the IRA, such as "terrorist spin doctors or their apologists". [3] If you continue to do so, this will also lead to a block. This is your final warning regarding this. Tyrenius 21:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are now editing again. The above matter has not been resolved. Failure to do so will revert to confirmed sockpuppetry. Please see User_talk:W._Frank#Sockpuppet_proof. Tyrenius 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is Gaimhreadhan. Not Frank or anyone else. I understood I was blocked on 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC) for two weeks and I have not edited during the duration of that block period. Am I to understand that you are now increasing that block to a further period. If you don't wish me to edit full stop, then simply say so. (Usually blocks are preventative rather than punitive and I fail to understand at all what my perceived delinquency [other than a corrected slip-up in the wee small hours of the 4th December 2006] is)....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 01:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look three paragraphs above, it clearly states you were unblocked, so you could freely debate the sockpuppetry situation, but you have chosen not to do this. If you look two paragraphs above, you will see a link to evidence that you and W.Frank are the same person. You have not addressed this, and unless you do, I will act on that evidence. Tyrenius 22:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by running an abusive sockpuppet. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. You have failed to make any response to my warning and request immediately above and have merely carried on editing. I am reinstating the original block of 2 weeks. Tyrenius 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

You are unblocked per wish of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Overturning_a_block. Tyrenius 22:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Please note that I have now sat out TWO (2) consecutive blocks of 14 days (totalling 28 days) because you believed (wrongly and without adequate evidence) that I was the same person as a bald, retired German six inches shorter than me.

I note that you have not apologised to me for your mistakes and abuse of power and continue to act as "Lord Protector" of a minority (but strenuously vocal and harmonised) point of view with regard to the history of Ireland.

I also note that my "prophecies" as regards deleting categories prior to the conclusion of discussions have also come to pass.

I now intend to prove wrong your notion that the blocks were either a necessary precaution or a deserved punishment ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 12:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Result of PIRA investigation

I wish to clarify that this passage was my edit (using an IP because edit conflicts had prevented me from inserting my amplification for some 11 minutes and then I was temporarily blocked from my own account.) I believe that this use of an IP address did not constitute sock puppetry (as later alleged by Vintagekits) since the relevant passage was inserted above my earlier signature, but was delinquent behaviour and an abuse of the rules and policies of Wikipedia. I apologise for the 90 second breach of the block but not for the comments or sentiments expressed below:

"Why exactly do you think that the views of PIRA should not be fairly represented on Wikipedia in reference to the (presumed?) death of Jean_McConville?

I am rather puzzled as to why you keep excising my new section referencing the PIRA "Statement on the the Abduction and Killing of Mrs Jean McConville in December 1972", (dated 8 July 2006) by P O’Neill, Irish Republican Publicity Bureau, Dublin

Is it just because you are still editing carelessly and without respect to other editor's work by just hitting the revert button when you see 'naughty words' such as Murder and PIRA, Vintagekits?

It is no accident that Mitchel McLaughlin's immediate instinct when asked about Jean McConville is to start talking about the 1981 hunger strikes. For those protests, in which 10 men starved themselves to death rather than submit to an ordinary prison regime and therefore accept that they were criminals serving their time, were the ultimate statement of how viscerally important the issue is for the Provos. A less epic version of this struggle for the moral high ground was played out at Philadelphia International Airport, when a former PIRA member, Joe Black, was briefly detained by the authorities. He had served time for carrying out a kneecapping but answered "no" to a question on the visa form about whether he had ever been convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude". To accept that the deliberate mutilation of a non-combatant involved moral turpitude would be to acknowledge that normal standards of morality apply to IRA operatives. Such a conclusion is, for PIRA and its apologists, unfathomable.

The fact is that even by PIRA's own standards, the murder of Jean McConville and hundreds of other acts of violence it has perpetrated are crimes. PIRA justifies itself by claiming that it was engaged in a war, and that wars inevitably involve the infliction of violence on others. Along with Mitchel McLaughlin, it conveniently forgets that there is also such a thing as a war crime.

And by all accepted definitions of war crimes, the murder of Jean McConville was an illegal act. The International Criminal Court, of which Ireland is a member, clearly states that war crimes do apply to "an armed conflict not of an international character", a category which obviously applies to the Northern Ireland troubles.

Under this heading, it defines as crimes a number of acts against non-combatants that the IRA perpetrated against Jean McConville, including "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture", and "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognised as indispensable."

The IRA's refusal to disclose Jean McConville's fate or produce her body also constituted a war crime, that of "enforced disappearance of persons", defined as "the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organisation, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons." With a hypocrisy that would be breathtaking had it not become so familiar,

Sinn Féin regularly supports calls for these international laws to be enforced - so long as the crimes in question happened elsewhere. At the time when there were attempts to prosecute the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in the UK and Spain, for example, An Phoblacht quoted with approval Virginia Díaz, a member of the Spanish prosecution team against Pinochet: "One of the consequences of the Pinochet case has been the creation of an International Criminal Court to take on cases of crimes against humanity. 'But what is more important' , highlights Virginia, 'is the final confirmation that crimes against humanity are imprescriptible and that human rights are inviolable. There is no possible immunity to cover those responsible for those crimes'." Except, of course, the immunity of those inoculated against guilt by their own tender sense of honour.

However, I must congratulate your improvement in tone (if not the quality and care you take with your actual edits). Keep up the improvement!...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you really expect anyone to engage in a discuss with you or to assist you when you use abusive and provokative language such as that?--Vintagekits 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)"

I expect that a conscientious editor would realise

1. that I'm just calling a spade a spade (rather than a "bloody shovel" or a "manual implement for gardening) and
2. you should not continue to editing carelessly and without respect to other editor's work by just hitting the revert button when you see 'naughty words' such as Murder and PIRA, Vintagekits
3. you're not the best person to lecture other editors on abusive and provocative language...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 12:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jean McConville

You have breached 3RR on that Jean McConville article and been reported. --Domer48 21:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have blocked you for this had you not been blocked elsewhere William M. Connolley 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But if you examine my actual edits, none of them were reverts and all took account of the article's talk page. Do you wish me to take a voluntary block?...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

. Edit Summaries like "replaced stuff lost by Vintagekits sloppy and careless edits (again) . Why don't you actually read and cogitate on other editors work rather than just spasm your revert reflex, Vinnie?" is not acceptable, and please note I warned you earlier on civility to other users. SirFozzie 21:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was in the middle of an edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean_McConville&oldid=144864420 when you blocked me so I logged out and in again anonymously to complete the comment. Apart from that, I will naturally respect the block.

I assume that, as Vintagekit's Mentor, you will advise him to be less sloppy and careless in his edits and cease dismissing others edits out of hand by spasm reverting?

VK's entitled to continue to try and sanitise the crimes of the Provisional IRA by bowdlerising the facts - what he's not entitled to do is to keep reverting edits made in good faith without discussion on the relevant article's talk pages.

Good night and God bless!...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I will assume the reference to living person's biographies in the warning was just because it's a template - unless, of course, you specify otherwise. ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 21:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You have my sympathies. A quite pointless block. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This was an absolutely disgraceful and completely POV-inspired block by SirFozzie. It appears to be his chosen role to act as Protector for the various defamatory and manipulative editors whose POV he loosely shares. I believe a general complaint against this admin is in order. Anyone interested in joining it? MarkThomas 16:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you reaaaaally want to know.. I brought this block up on IRC after I had made it, and the admins I consulted with said that the block should have been longer.. 24 hours for the civility and/or 3RR violation. Also, I notice once again, Gam is calling User:Brixton Busters a sock and/or ONiH returned. SirFozzie 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The latter sentence is a lie. Read what I wrote and don't you dare twist it again. Repeat that falsehood again and I will cease to assume that you simply don't read too well....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it might have been better if SirFozzie had recused himself (as the protector/mentor of Vintagekits) but I think we should give SirFozzie the benefit of the doubt and a chance to reply to my question (privately or publicly) as to whether he thinks he is making any progress in educating Vintagekits to at least examine an editor's work for a few seconds before he reaches for his revert button.

I had less of a problem with 303 (now returned) since at least he often cogitated for a few minutes before inserting the current Provisional IRA point of view.

I think that the time may have come for Jimbo Wales to be alerted to the fact that WP is in danger of being seen as a Provisional IRA propaganda organ (due to a concerted effort by team edits and biased judgements by admins who fail to ensure that the majority viewpoint on political murders and other atrocities are referenced in our articles) rather than nitpick with individual editors/admins who cannot stop pushing a minority and politically motivated POV...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if the Jimbo Wales thing will work, but I totally agree about the campaign. Actually this seems to have intensified recently and I wonder if we are seeing something organised. My opinion is that two or three of the most unpleasant and persistent editors represent a team game. I actually don't have a strong anti-Republican POV, just want WP to be NPOV, so for example have tried to counter the worst edits on articles, only to be met with blizzards of agression from the users in question, something they were not reprimanded for; when I complained on WP:ANI, SirFozzie took it over and placed it in an Arbcom. I opposed this and requested other admins to look objectively at it. Of course, this takes time, so the editors doing all the attacking were able to make it look as though it was my fault; SirFozzie pointed to my "lack of clean hands" yet when I challenged him to cite an example, remained silent. I think we should kick up a big stink about this; the question is how best to do it? MarkThomas 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And I will bring up your numerous insinuations and attacks, that have already landed you infront of the ArbCom, Mark. I notice you haven't posted anything there.. SirFozzie 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess when we've all given up under the sheer weight of the attacks, it will become known as Provisional Wikipedia. MarkThomas 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tribally, I am an Irish Republican. But not a mindless one that glamorises violence for its own sake, I hope. It's not just the hypocrisy and self-delusion I hate about the Provo's failed and wicked campaign of violence; it's the fact that they've set back the unity of peoples about 145 years.

I really think we should not allow these Green Nazis to twist WP's policies and weaknesses into allowing them free reign to corrupt our articles and twist referenced facts. But how? Now 303 is back in harness it will be an uphill struggle since he has at least 4 admins in his pocket and is a clever and cunning strategist ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess when we've all given up under the sheer weight of the attacks, it will become known as Provisional Wikipedia. MarkThomas 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case. SirFozzie 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult not to get blunt when confronted with such devious and concerted manipulation of the system. Well done - happy to admit I'm outclassed. Used to enjoy courteous editing discussions on WP but now it's just a big ratpack of POVist factions superintended by POVist admins such as yourself. Good luck with it - all you will achieve in the long run is the systematic discrediting of WP. MarkThomas 17:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for incivility and use of very offensive language, specifically calling other editors "Green Nazis". Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's a reference to other editors - in its context, it could just as easily be taken as a reference to a political party (such as Sinn Fein), terrorist organisation (such as the Provisional IRA), or to a point of view/ state of mind. I'm not convinced that over-hasty blocks like these are in any way helpful. Incidentally, might some extreme environmentalists not also be tagged with this label? --Major Bonkers (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The actual statement was "these Green Nazis to twist WP's policies". Extreme environmentalists and various Irish political parties are not attempting to edit in ways that "twist" WP's policies. Only editors can comply with or twist policies. Therefore he is referring specifically to editors. I can appreciate your questioning an over-hasty block, however in this case warnings and a 3-hour block for incivility had already been issued, and this was Gaimhreadhan's third edit to this page after the lifing of the previous block. Clearly, lessons weren't learned, a very offensive term was used, and so I've escalated the block length to 24 hours. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's it, it's only for 24 hours. Many thanks, Gaimhreadhan, for correcting the typo on my User page - to think that it's been there for 12 months and I never even spotted it. Some people!--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Trim

Hi, Gaimhreadhan. I hope you don't mind, but I removed the reference by name to another user from the top of this user talk page. If you have a dispute with another user, there are various ways of addressing it. See WP:DR for details. We do not allow the kind of statement you had and I hope you will understand this. Best wishes, --John 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried steps 0, 1 and 2 in your reference and seem to have failed. Perhaps you (a third party) would ask him to reply to the messages I've left on Tyrenius's talk page? Nobody's infallible and he just needs to be big enough to admit he made a triple of mistakes and apologise....Gaimhreadhan • 20:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you are concerned. I take it you have tried emailing him. From his contribs it looks like he's not been on here much lately, and he has "This user is currently not available very much - on erratic wikibreak" on his user talk page. John

Yes, I noticed that. But he has been on WP at least three times since then:

1. 03:29, 21 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sherylelaine (welcome) (top)
2. 03:28, 21 July 2007 (hist) (diff) List of painters by name (rv redlink)
3. 01:57, 21 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EliminatorJR (#Support I thought he was... Gaimhreadhan

Are you still annoyed about the incident from April? John

I'm annoyed that I was a newbie that had never been welcomed and Tyrenius issued the longest first block I've ever discovered on WP (two consecutive blocks of 14 days) ostensibly for being a sockpuppet and then when he was overruled, instead of apologising for his mistake he keeps harassing me by leaving more sock comments around the place and wittering on about e-mails that neither I nor W.Frank received. I admit it when I make a mistake and apologise (as do you and most other honourable folks.) He needs to either substantiate his allegations or withdraw them and apologise publicly rather than ignore the comments I left on his user talk page 61 hours ago.Gaimhreadhan

It may be that forgiveness will take you further than hassling him. I expect he'll answer you when he can. --John 20:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope so, John. Thanks for your concern...Gaimhreadhan • 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Tyrenius

Please don't edit-war, especially on another user's talk page. I'm going to have to block the two of you if you keep this up. --John 22:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon?

If you are referring to someone (mistakenly) removing my comments, then you have already corrected this situation by removing both the question and my reply - obviously I was content with this compromise or I would have reverted your removal of my comments too.

If you are referring to something else then, I would appreciate you being more specific. Thanks for your concern, John....Gaimhreadhan • 01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my threat to block seemed harsh. However I was concerned at this edit; why would you reply to a question another user had asked and then thought better of asking? By undeleting his comments and answering them, in what way did you hope to advance the goals of the project? And reverting repeatedly is never a good thing to do. I'm glad you thought my solution was acceptable. --John 02:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Because - stupidly in hindsight - both W. Frank and I used subsets of our real names when registering our Wikipedia user names and our reputation for integrity is important to us. I earn my living as an attorney, remember, and it is very difficult to do that if people get the impression you are both a liar and impersonating others (in this case, my real-life client of more than two decades). Make no mistake, these resurrected sockpuppet allegations are important to us.

Please also remember that we are not dealing with private correspondence here. Once a question has been posed, many people can read it before it is deleted. Had the redundant and obsolete question been deleted with an edit summary such as "Sorry, withdrew nonsense question posed without properly reading the history of accusation and reply", then I would not have needed to answer it since the reason for both the deletion and the non-reply would have been contained in the edit history.

I do believe it would be better for our project if we had 3 classes of editor: anonymous IP editors, anonymous account editors (like Tyrenious) and editors who's bona fides had been checked and confirmed (such as is the case with the Citizendium). Until that happens, our project will continue to be at risk, not from sockpuppets, but from the activities of those who use unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry to harass and repeatedly block those who either resist their own PoV or seek to advance a PoV they do not like.

I agree that reverting repeatedly is not a good thing to do but, as you have found out yourself, there exist some people who are immune to our policies of considering the other editors standpoint before they revert. I agree it's better if, at that stage, other editors can step in to impose wording based on our policies and consensus. In this case, policy is fairly clear that - only in exceptional circumstances - should the comments of other editors be excised or changed on article and user talk pages. (In the proximate case, had the user completely excised his own comments, leaving my orphaned replies entirely intact, then and only then would I have been able to remove my thus-orphaned replies. Thank you for doing the obvious)(I did appreciate that the discourteous/ignorant user probably was unaware that he had inadvertently edited my comments by lazily using the reversion tool to revert to an earlier version rather than carefully editing and said as much in my edit summaries - twice - but these comments seem to have been ignored. I confess I am a bit over-sensitive to this having been over sensitised by VK using the same sloppy technique.) Thank you for taking the time to clarify that your threatened block referred to the situation described above and not to some other incident.

I do think that the solution to these difficulties lies in higher standards consistently applied to all editors. That is why I am concerned that

1. new editors (understandably) receive more latitude in enforcement
2. one can easily become a "new editor" (and thus print your own licence for further and greater disruption) simply by vanishing and then reappearing under a new account.

Thanks for taking the time to put your (usually correct) standpoint, John....Gaimhreadhan • 08:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these last few points go to the heart of the problems of Battlefield Wikipedia. The really determined POV "tag-team" simply reform and re-appear in another guise a few hours later. Also it's actually very difficult for admins to do their jobs as they should and swat the ignorant. WP is very, very good but it does have serious problems in the controversial areas and they appear to be getting worse. I think what's needed is invigilation by expert teams who would be elected and then dropped if they turned out to be POV, but probably this would still not work in reality as any system can be gamed. I think WP has it's limits! It really isn't yet an expert system in all but a few really superb articles. MarkThomas 14:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

just dropped by about something else, and saw this interesting discussion. In some areas, there are such teams--the one I know best is the one in Chemistry. They are not elected, they are self appointed. In this subject, it seems to work very well--possibly because it is impossible to contribute to chemistry articles, whether constructively or destructively, without actually knowing some chemistry. Most WPedians, like non-WPedian, are unreasonably afraid of the subject, and refuse to learn the language. For any who do, the expertise there is quite sufficient, and well enough organized to keep vandals at bay. I do know the language, and when I came here, I thought I'd help, but I found that other areas needed the help much more.

There are other areas where there are similar expert teams, but they do not work very well, in either of two directions: In some areas, those who think they are experts, but with peculiar ideas, try to use WP to propagate their ideas, and can paralyze the work. But in others, the conventional experts organize to keep out those who have slightly different but valid views. I'm more afraid of the second situation--poor edits and biased edits can be fixed, but the absence of edits cannot. It is almost impossible to break such a clique.

Citizendium has some similar problems. In at least one area I am familiar with, the quality of the articles is less than it could be, because the most influential editors may be good scientists, but do not know how to write articles that will also be interesting. I fear it will end up accurate enough, but very dull. DGG (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Ok. Enough already. You have been repeatedly warned by numerous editors to stop your campaign of harassment of User:Brixton Busters. You were warned yesterday about it but you didn't stop with the insinuations. I'm sorry to have to do this but I've blocked you for 24 hours for harassment. Please just leave the guy alone and get back to constructive editing when your block expires - Alison ☺ 19:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Alison ☺ 19:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a word with Alison, to gain more specific information over this block; in the meanwhile, stay put ~ Anthøny 20:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Alison appears to be offline at the moment, and until I can contact here to establish the facts surrounding your block, I'm postponing an official response to your request at this time. Please contact me the next available opportunity, during which both yourself and Alison are online (if I'm not, please contact another Administrator - a full list is available here). Regards ~ Anthøny 20:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaimhreadhan's Block

[Copied from my talk page, as SirFozzie sums up the situation rather well]

Hey :) Gaimhreadhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting a review of his block (enacted by yourself), so before I handle it, I was wondering if you could give me some details over the nature of his contributions that lead you to block? Cheers, Anthøny 20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just in case Alison doesn't see this, basically, User:Gaimhreadhan strongly believes that User:Brixton Busters is an old editor who used his M:Right To Vanish, User:One Night In Hackney, and refers to Brixton Busters as ONiH (or 303, part of ONiH's signature). Brixton refuses to respond to Gaimhreadhan, and this just fuels this. Several editors (User:Tyrenius, myself and Alison, have asked Gaimhreadhan to stop doing so.. referring to Brixton Busters as ONiH is a violation of good faith and WP:CIVIL. Both Alison and myself have talked to ONiH off-WP, who insists that he is not User:Brixton Busters and that he (ONIH) has no desire to edit WP full time any more There's a discussion slightly above the block notice on Gaimhreadhan's page with Alison's final warning prior to the block. SirFozzie 20:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I was typing this up, I see that User:Brixton Busters has recently complained to admin User:Akradecki over his treament. You can see his statement here SirFozzie 20:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point Gaimhreadhan has stopped pointing at Hackney and is now making vague allegations that Brixton Busters simply must be someone else. I was completely unaware of User:Akradecki's talk page until just now, as it happens. Frankly, this campaign has gone on too long. Gaimhreadhan was repeatedly warned by numerous people. He received a final warning from myself yesterday (see above) yet persisted. The excuse of "simply answering questions" is not good enough. This intimidation needs to stop - Alison ☺ 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (nor do I appreciate comments re my nationality and "insider knowledge")

Please indent correctly on my user page, Alison. I realise that you're very busy but you should recuse yourself if you do not have the time to read carefully.

What I (as opposed to another editor) wrote as regards yourself, Alison, was: "She may not be monitoring my user page - she is a very busy admin and she has just come back from holiday in Ireland". You do not have to be Irish to holiday in Ireland so please withdraw the slur about [comments re my nationality...]

You really need to be calm, cool and judicial when you wield the mop - if you can't manage that then it'll be best to ask someone else to wield it. God bless!...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Indenting my comments according to my style does not indicate one way or another that I have read your comments properly or not. The 'nationality' comment is a reference to "I see that you're from the old sod so I'll assume you have insider knowledge" above; the insinuation that because I'm from Ireland that I must have "insider knowledge". I appreciate your concern as to my calmness and my competence at adminship and I'd like to take the opportunity to inform your here that I feel wonderfully serene today and at the top of my form regarding my work here. Deity-of choice bless! - Alison ☺ 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry that you find it offensive that I should assume a degree of knowledge of Irish affairs on your part, Alison, but reassured to hear that you are in a serene mood.

It's really great to see that you are now finding the time to adapt your indentation style to that followed by everyone else on my user page - it just makes thread following that wee bit more easy.

The other tip for you is to look at the time stamps of the edits. If you do that, you'll find that your précis of my editing conduct above is downright misleading. I've never referred to BB as ONiH and stopped referring to him as "303" before you ever commented in my user space.

Please remember that I don't post new comments at the bottom of this page - I reply to comments in the appropriate section - sometimes weeks afterwards if an update is needed.

Since I've repeatedly clarified that I've made no allegations of Sockpuppetry whatever in respect of any editor, May I assume that if anyone even hints that I'm a sock again, I'll get a greater level of protection from harassment? Deity-of choice bless!...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

From an outsider looking in, Admin:Allison is quite correct to block you. Remember we can all make mistakes here on Wikipedia, but we must all watch for consistent "bad blood". It's not in our gift to continually harass any editor, and for whatever reasons. Keep to the issues and not discuss the other editors. Otherwise you are very good editor, and hope to see things moving on. Cheers! 13:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page

There is no point keeping a log of time elapsed since your post on my talk page, since I have stated my "erratic wikibreak" at the top of it. Please try to exercise a little patience.

You have incorrectly stated that you were blocked for 28 days (last April/May). As your block log shows,[4] the first block lasted for two days, when you were unblocked at the suggestion of Gadfium, as was W. Frank, pending further discussion. The ensuing conversation can be seen on User:W._Frank/Green_Zone#Denial_of_being_a_.22Sockpuppet.22, where you also took part. This dialogue preceded the second block:

You have edited and not answered the questions on this page regarding sockpuppetry. This matter is far from resolved. If you do not give priority to the discussion to resolve it, I will assume this account is a sockpuppet and block it accordingly. This is the final warning in this regard. Tyrenius 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Two days ago I both e-mailed you and asked you to e-mail me. You have not responded by e-mail. Do you seriously expect me to discuss the security procedures of our former workplace in public pages? If you decline or are unable to e-mail me, please ask another administrator to assist. This farce has gone on long enough.W. Frank 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That proves the sockpuppetry then, as the email was headed Gaimhreadhan. Tyrenius 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You have stated on my talk page, " I sent you e-mails and Frank sent you e-mails. You didn't reply to me by e-mail and Frank says you didn't reply to him by e-mail. How does that confirm that I am him or he is me?" You sent me an email on 13 April. I received no email from W. Frank and have never done so. Two days after your email, W. Frank left the message which is quoted above, namely, "Two days ago I both e-mailed you and asked you to e-mail me." I stated "That proves the sockpuppetry then, as the email was headed Gaimhreadhan", and waited for two weeks but there was no explanation from him or you for this, so I reinstated the block. There is still no explanation for W. Frank's statement that he sent the email headed and signed "Gaimhreadhan".

I note that you appreciate the relevance of "strong circumstantial evidence".[5]

After a phone call, Fred Bauder unblocked W. Frank. He did not unblock you, he said in an email to me, because of your "disruptive editing". However, I unblocked you because other editors felt your behaviour had improved. You have since been blocked by three different admins for harassment.

You may well prove there are two different individuals in existence whose names relate to the user names on wikipedia. This is not at all the final explanation, when they claim to be each other.

Your explanations indicate that the use of the same computer came about through specific temporary circumstances. Please confirm that now you are no longer using the same computer as each other to edit from.

You have stated that you are concerned for your professional reputation, because of these incidents. If that is the case, I suggest you change your user name, which can easily be done. I suggest also that you moderate your behaviour and follow advice in order to avoid censure from other users.

Removal of this post will be taken as confirmation that you have read its contents.

Tyrenius 02:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

You have called my comments "libellous".[6] This implies a legal threat. Please confirm unreservedly and immediately that no such threat is implied. Failure to do so will result in an indefinite block per WP:LEGAL until the matter is resolved.

Removal of this post will be taken as confirmation that you have read its contents.

Tyrenius 02:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong again, Tyrenious.

You were wrong when you called W. Frank and I sock puppets, wrong when you blocked us on insufficient evidence, wrong when you neglected to apologise for your mistakes, wrong when you continued to grandstand rather than e-mail us or phone us to clear matters up (if it is a genuine misunderstanding on your part) and wrong again now to raise a spurious implied "legal threat" as an excuse to block me - again.

Many ordinary english words have a specialised legal meaning in various jurisdictions; that does not mean they lose their ordinary english meaning. A libellous statement in the ordinary (non-legal sense) is a statement that is both untrue and damaging to the reputation of another - alive or dead. It was in that common English meaning that I asked for an apology.

For the avoidance of doubt: I confirm unreservedly that no legal threat was or is implied by the diff you have referenced above or by my asking politely again that you

1. do not continue to libel and label me as a sockpuppet
2. do not post offensive and/or untrue statements in my user space again
3. apologise for your mistakes
4. do not post in my user space again until and unless you have apologised

PS: I will try and respond in detail to your latest nonsense in the section above when I am feeling a little better. It's still very simple, though: e-mails from W. Frank are from him and e-mails from me are from me. The fact that you say you don't receive W. Frank's e-mails and we both say we haven't received any e-mails from you does not change that obvious truism....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk •

I am sorry to hear you are not well and hope improvement is imminent.

There is a strict policy on legal threats and accusing someone of libel must be taken seriously, especially coming from a lawyer, which you state you are. I was not looking for an excuse to block you. On the contrary, I was requesting a confirmation so that you would not have to be blocked, which would otherwise be mandatory. I am glad that you are able to provide this, but please refrain from using the word libel in future, because of its legal implications and to avoid any misunderstandings.

I haven't continued to label you as a sockpuppet, nor have I posted untrue statements, to my knowledge. Please provide diffs if this has been the case. You don't own your user space: it is there for dialogue between users. I will certainly post here, as long as my name is mentioned on this page and you make comments to or about me, or implications which obviously refer to me. I will also post if it is necessary to conduct wiki business. Other than that, I have no motive to post.

There are no mistakes to apologise for. You were blocked in the first instance because of strong circumstantial evidence, of the kind that is normally deemed sufficient to establish sockpuppetry. I unblocked to give you and W. Frank an opportunity to explain this. I asked for an explanation as to why I had received an email from Gaimhreadhan and none from W. Frank, yet W. Frank said he sent me an email. This request was ignored, despite being repeated and a warning issued. I waited two weeks for it. It is entirely on your head and W. Frank's that you chose to ignore it. It has taken you three months to finally provide an explanation that W. Frank sent an email to me on the same day, which unfortunately failed to arrive.

You have previously explained that you were editing from the same computer as W. Frank because of specific circumstances. Could you please confirm that you are now editing on different computers to each other.

Tyrenius 01:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi Gaimhreadhan, you were reported for 3RR violation on Mairéad Farrell and I have blocked you for 72 hours. I see this is your fourth block in the last month. I strongly urge you to carefully read our rules, such as WP:3RR and WP:CIV, and the general rules as well. If you fail to abide by these rules, and persist in your unacceptable behavior pattern, you may be blocked for longer periods and eventually barred from this site. Please take the time off to carefully think through your future conduct here. Thanks, Crum375 02:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

G'Day, Crum. Would you be kind enough to provide a diff of the report? God bless!...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 03:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my posting on your talk page, but here's the link - Alison ☺ 03:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding the block template here, so you know your options - Alison ☺ 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Alison.

Is it material that the report by Brixton Busters was mendacious? I never used a rapid revert tool and in each case edited the version in line with policy and the consensus reached here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#Abreviate_to_.22PIRA.22_or_.22IRA.22_.3F

I understood that the reversion facility was never to be used on good faith edits - only for simple vandalism. That is why I consistently examined each rapid revert by Brixton Busters and Domer48 before improving the article with spelling and grammar corrections in addition to making abbreviations less ambiguous and in line with the lede in our article Provisional Irish Republican Army: "Provisional Irish Republican Army (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann) (PIRA..."

You will see that in each case there are substantive differences between my actual edit and what BB wrongly alleges I reverted back to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mair%C3%A9ad_Farrell&diff=148931545&oldid=148889908 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mair%C3%A9ad_Farrell&diff=149032193&oldid=148889908 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mair%C3%A9ad_Farrell&diff=149038020&oldid=148889908 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mair%C3%A9ad_Farrell&diff=149040071&oldid=148889908

Should I not have received a warning (I've never been accused of 3RR before) and a chance to contradict the allegation?...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The report was not mendacious, please brush up on policy. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule says - An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. It does not have to be an exact revert, hence the the inclusion of "in part". The only mendacity is coming from you. As you remove messages about your conduct from your talk page I will link to the relevant section on the current version of this page here. You breached 3RR before and were told you would be blocked had you not been already blocked for incivility, so your comment of "I've never been accused of 3RR before" is untrue. Your claim of consensus on the IRA talk page is equally untrue, there is no such consensus. Brixton Busters 07:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"A revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time. However, in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article."

Using that definition, means that nobody can edit any page more than 3 times in 24 hours (unless of course they entirely blank the page at the start of each of their edits and then inserts either entirely new words or completely re-arranges the order of existing words) - to avoid the "partial" catch all. I understood that building an article was usually a collaborative, incremental process requiring a degree of respect for other editors work. Part of that respect means not continually using a complete revert (unless in simple cases of vandalism) as you often do. Thanks for educating me...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 09:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Mairéad Farrell. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gaimhreadhan, it's probably best to do the {{unblock}} thing at this point and let another admin review your block here. I did previously warn both of you earlier. I'll keep clear, as I have no respect in the community. Kinda :) - Alison ☺ 08:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Alison, you may not have noticed but, as requested I have struck through your inclusion there.

I have received clear and consistent advice from a source I trust to "move on" and not make provocative "digs" that fan rather than extinguish the flames. Perhaps you could provide an amended diff or also strike thru?

The other thing you might care to do in a spirit of forgiveness and co-operation is to actually examine all the relevant edits at Mairéad Farrell and Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army in the course of the 48 hours before my block. It is very difficult to be an advocate in my own cause and I really wouldn't know what to stick in the template above. After your proposed intervention, I would hope that I could then have a "Road to Tarsus" moment and the scales slip from my eyes reference your impartiality. DoycB!

...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 10:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I've noticed your strikethrough on User talk:Vintagekits and have done same above. Re. your block, I'd rather not comment as I'd taint another admin review and that wouldn't be fair to you. I shall bring the matter up with the blocking admin as I'm of the opinion that there was a certain amount of 'baiting' involved here. However, that does not excuse revert-warring. Can you undertake not to persist in revert-warring on the Mairead Farrell article in future, as blocks are meant to prevent disruption and not to be punitive? If you undertake to do that, I'll go to the blocking admin and request review. I'll also followup your email you sent when I get a moment here - Alison ☺ 20:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring can not be tolerated. It destroys trust and co-operation amongst editors and diminishes our project. I guarantee you will not be disappointed with my editing of the Mairead Farrell article in future. If I look like putting a step wrong, haul me up short with a warning - public or private at your discretion - and I will immediately accept guidance...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 08:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

?Hi Gaimhreadhan, There had been a discussion on the issue of PIRA and IRA on the PIRA talk page, and you agreed with the concencus. I know you did not mean to call my edit vandalism, and am willing to work through discussion with you on this article, thanks, --Domer48 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's helpful. Thanks also for correctly stating the position.

My reference to "vandals", in my edit summary "(reversion is for vandals. You should know better Domer. I've reverted your reversion and then made some constructive edits 'cos you also excised an admins contributions)", was meant to state not that you were engaging in vandalism, but that you were guilty of a lack of civility and respect for the work of myself and other editors (including an admin) in using a simple, complete and speedy revert rather than inspecting thoroughly the existing text on our article at the time you reverted.

One of the suggestions I have to make would be that nobody editing these types of article makes simple, complete and speedy reverts in future....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 09:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's sound advice Gaimhreadhan. I've removed the reference to Tyrenius from your header and I strongly suggest you follow Alison's advice to you; if you undertake not to revert-war in future, we can maybe get your block reduced, but not otherwise. Best wishes, --John 06:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It would seem a bit annoying to others for me not to follow my own advice. Both Alison and you are admins that I (and, I believe, the majority of the conscientious community) respect.

I assume that admins will be watching these sorts of articles (where it is very tempting to some to try and fashion an article wholly biassed towards the particular minority political viewpoint of a faction) with intense and timeous interest in future.

That being the case and, whereas I have given a clear public undertaking to Alison above, I think we can all now move on...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 08:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly satisfied with the above undertaking & appreciate your sincerity. I've requested the blocking admin to review and will unblock under the above conditions if Crum375 is amenable - Alison ☺ 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Infallibility

I shall not restore any reference to Tyrenius on this page but this concession is without prejudice to my demand that it not post on this page until it has apologised and my usual WP:CIVIL rights...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 08:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Block reduced

Hi Gaimhreadhan. I have consulted with User:Crum375, the blocking admin, and have reduced your block to 48 hours, less time already served. You should be free to edit in just under seven hours.

However, this reduction is contingent upon the conditions agreed above. Please refrain from revert-warring on the Mairéad Farrell article and bear in mind the policy regarding civility. I'll continue to monitor the situation and note however, that you were not the only editor involved in this. Thanks - Alison ☺ 20:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, also, for your apology. I appreciate it and am sorry for having caused you any upset. That was never my intent - Alison ☺ 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Aledged Harrassment

I came across the first article by hitting the ramdom article link, and discovered it was incorrectly title as per WP policy on disambig so I left a message on the talk page explaining that I moving the article and why, then moved it. I then checked some of the others in the same series and any I thought was wrong I moved, I don't know nor care who created these articles but all articles in WP should meet policy on naming conventions. Nor is this the first time I have been involved in editing or moving these types of articles as I have done the same in the past and no doubt will do in the future again, if the creators of these articles can't title them correctly, or believe other editors shouldn't edit or move their work then they shouldn't post them on Wikipedia to begin with.--padraig 14:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a very reasonable explanation and rationale to me, Padraig.

Now if you'll just promise me that's the whole story or a fair and reasonable summation (either here or by e-mail) then I can ask David to lay off the heavy manners. (Not that I'm his keeper or yours, but I'd hope that he might accept a truce when he sees I've put my light blue helmet on again...)...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 14:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I resent his accusing me of vandalism on articles, I didn't even edit any of the content as apart the title I didn't see anything needing editing. I have never had much dealings with David, apart from a recent edit that he made to List of British flags which I spoke to him about on his talkpage, and explained his error which he seem to understand, before I reverted his edit.--padraig 15:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm already pretty confident that, in a limited Wikipedian sense, you are not technically guilty of vandalism - but that's not the real issue here.

I, perhaps as much as any editor on Wikipedia, know just how much hurt and anguish entirely unjustified accusations can cause. If you don't wish to go into explanatory details in public, just drop me an e-mail and make clear which sections are entirely confidential.

I would prefer it if you included a public declaration - something on the lines of:

"I deny stalking and/or harassing David Lauder and I have a perfectly honourable and reasonable explanation which I have given in confidence to G". Then I can just publish your statement if

1. I believe it (remember, I'll have the confidential part and we've corresponded amicably on other matters so I assume good faith on your part unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary)
2. Your public statement is relevant and without too many havers

I've also corresponded amicably with David and I would be amazed if, in those circumstances, he didn't simply accept your apology for any unwitting distress and move on. If he didn't then he'd be a lesser man in my eyes.

I'm waiting for your e-mail...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't stalked or harrassed him so I see no reason to issue any statement by e-mail or otherwise. He should appolgise to me for breach of WP:AGF as I did with him, if he thought I was wrong he could of approached me by my talk page or e-mail and discussed the issue like I did with him, or even brought it up in the talk page of the article itself, wouldn'that been a novel idea. If he can't accept that then thats his problem.--padraig 16:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, your first 6 words were clear and unequivocal. Your position is that you happened upon a Lauder article entirely at random "by hitting the ramdom article link" and then, presumably, followed internal links or categories from one Lauder article to another (I do that from time to time and that's how I came to cross swords with Corticopia above)?

Just give me your promise on that, as one man to another, that that's the case and I should imagine that'll be the end of this particular spat...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It never started to begin with until he accused me of vandalism, which he has failed to prove, as I moved a number of articles so I am not even sure which specific one hes refering to unless hes saying me moving any of them is vandalism, if that is the case then he should read WP policies on naming articles. As far as I am concerned that is the end of matter, if he wants to take it further then he can. I have done nothing wrong.--padraig 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm.

So no promise and no e-mail.

Seems I'll have to change my opinion of you and pop you into my new naughty cupboard.

Bye Bye....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 17:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: Just received an e-mail. Further updates will follow when the situation is clearer...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 20:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

More mail. Still awaiting definitive promise...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 21:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Third e-mail received...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fourth e-mail received. Taking off my helmet and trying to go to sleep. Some you win and some you lose. This section goes in the Naughty Cupboard tomorrow...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 22:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fifth e-mail received while I was cleaning my teeth. Since Padraig has not promised here or by e-mail that his plausible statement above was actually also true, this entire section will now be moved to User:Gaimhreadhan/Irish Terrorism-Politics...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 23:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I don't have to explain to any editor why I followed the policies of WP to move article to their correct location, Because the creator of these article, who accused me of vandalism on my talk page afterwards, thinks he has Ownership on the articles and that no one should edit them, I explained to you how I came upon the articles, I also place a message on the talk page of each article explaining exactly why they where being moved before I made the, move nor was I aware of who the creator of the articles was prior to his accusations on my talk page.--padraig 00:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not excused. You had your chance to make a simple promise or affirmation of truth and fluffed it by endless havering and prevarication. You haven't told me you're a Quaker or given me any other reason why you refuse to simply promise that your entirely plausible explanation above is also true. Where we both come from, Padraig, if a man won't look you in the eye, so to speak, and give his word - that's a reason to assume bad faith in future. Now I'm not some sort of judicial authority that you have to placate or convince - but don't expect me to assert your good faith in future.

I'm sadly disappointed and you've just doubled the list to 2 of those unwelcome to post on my usual talk page....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 00:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not meaning to butt in here but you only have to look at edits Padraig has made in the last 24hrs, their pattern, and then also who else has edited. In otherwords I made edits, some over weeks apart, last night Padraig comes along and edits them all within an hour. I don't think the word stalker could be any clearer. Conypiece 00:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

Controversial Cupboard

I have very little time left now for major work here so I propose making a subsection of this, my talk page, since it's getting a teency weency bit long now. (171 kilobytes)

The first "naughty cupboard" will be entitled "User:Gaimhreadhan/Irish Terrorism-Politics" and I propose moving whole sections of my talk page into it - if there are no vehement and persuasive objections. I'll keep the same chronological order of the sections, but these are the sections I plan on moving in their entirety:-

 X * 7 Stop canvassing!
 X * 8 Gaimhreadhan
   * 9 Sockpuppetry block
   * 10 Unblocked
   * 17 Result of PIRA investigation
   * 20 Jean McConville
   * 21 You have been blocked
   * 28 Trim
   * 29 User talk:Tyrenius
   * 38 Blocked
   * 39 Gaimhreadhan's Block
   * 40 Your post on my talk page
   * 41 Legal threat
   * 46 Block
         o 46.1 Infallibility
   * 48 Block reduced
 X * 51 Aledged Harrassment
   * 52 Controversial Cupboard

Those sections that have an "X" have already been excised from my main user talk space. I estimate that this "housekeeping"/censorship will reduce this page's size by more than half and make it more manageable for those readers who use dial up modems and/or are moaning.

I realise that some of these sections are not wholly concerned with "Irish Terrorism/Politics" but all have at least one comment that could be categorised as such and/or controversial and I did not wish to separate comment and riposte, in so far as that is practically possible....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 15:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Because G is unable to do so, and with the permission of relevant admins, I have today completed G's archival plans (so the whole list above could now be marked with "X"'s).

I have also judged it appropriate to remove the (very long) "You Gotta be kidding, right????" section to here, together with the (very short) last section that (until today) terminated G's talk page. Farewell! W. Frank talk ✉  21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You Gotta be kidding, right????

Ban me for A YEAR - For WHAT?!! I was on holidays the past 4 weeks. Where is the threatened ban? Don't see anything...I'm still ploughing through my watchlist. Regards (Sarah777 22:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies. Rockpocket 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Owch :( That's a bit extreme ... - Alison ☺ 00:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It sure is...and I don't notice any opposing votes. Can I vote? (Sarah777 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

No, you can't, though you may comment on the talk page. A majority of supporting votes are required for the remedy to pass. Rockpocket 02:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Remedy". What a Very British phrase. (Sarah777 02:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Does everything that you find not to your pleasure have to come down to its Britishness? It seems that is the basis of your involvement in the case in the first place. For the record, the "phrase" is from Latin, remedium, and has distinct meaning with regards to the decision of a body, panel or court, see Legal remedy. I don't see what is British about it. Rockpocket 03:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, everything does NOT "come down to its Britishness". But attempts to impose a British pov on Ireland-related articles in Wiki obviously does; and the fact that the vast majority of editors behind these attempts are British, to use a Wiki-phrase, is very noteworthy. As I said, the use of the word "remedy" in the context it was used sounds very British to me. Maybe you gotta be looking from the outside to get a different perspective. (Sarah777 08:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

You seem to accuse individuals who disagree with you of promoting a British POV (either explicitly or implictly). As it happens I am looking for the outside, and all I see is someone digging a bigger hole for themselves. Accusing Arbcom of "Anglo-Saxon propaganda" and using your statement to further make political points at the expense of othe editors ("...being akin to having a "primary interest" in the membership of the Nazi Party") is only re-inforcing the perception that you are a problem editor. You do realise that its not those editors that are in dispute with you that have proposed this ban, it is a select group of editors elected by the community and appointed by Jimbo? Has it occured to you that not everyone is be part of a Pro-British conspiracy, and that there might be some merit in their concerns about your actions? I, personally, don't think a 1yr ban is particularly appropriate, but in attacking all and sundry, you are doing a fine job of justifying it for them. Rockpocket 08:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarah: According to G's last wishes I have made two comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Great_Irish_Famine/Proposed_decision One comment is from G and the other is my own personal opinion.

You might like to give some undertaking there to make clear to the committee that you are not a single purpose account like Brixton Busters and Domer48. Perhaps propose a similar remedy as that proposed for Vintagekits' return?

I shall probably not post here again since it has become such a rude and unfriendly place. I just wanted to honour one of my oldest friend's last wishes. W. Frank ✉ 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Old friends last wish"! I hope that isn't what it sounds like.

Rocket; the Admin Merkensen; whoever appointed him, proposed a ONE YEAR BAN in a context where ANY ban would be completely disproportionate. After that, I owe him nothing in civility, as he is clearly motivated by dislike of my comments on British genocide (which he refers to as "claims"!). He admits as much for crissakes! The issue here has all to do with Ireland/Britain. To think that an English Admin who is into the Peerage and seems to regard comments about British genocide (made in context) as out-of-order per se - can be regarded as a neutral, is is a joke - as proved by his proposed "remedy". To try and characterise my views as "anti-British" is, I must repeat, simply the same as calling someone who expresses dislike of the Nazis "anti-German". That is the simple fact that I can see, and so many British editors cannot, or will not.

Frank; as for a VK-type "undertaking", I offered a solution months back involving Swatjester or some credible Admin and it was totally ignored by "the other side". (Sarah777 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

First of all, what makes you so sure Mackensen is English? Its not clear to me where he is from, but the evidence would favour the USA. You also assumed I was British previously, for reasons that are not clear to me.

This is part of the problem, as I see it. When an editor makes an edit that you consider to to be pro-British/anti-Irish, you immediately consider that that editor has an agenda and say so. Whereas an independent view (which is what ArbCom is) may see POV only coming from you, in that its your POV that labels the other person as such. Its really important to assume that everyone that makes a contentious edit is not doing so to further their POV, but to assume that are doing so to improve the project to the best of their ability.

Secondly, your accusations about Mackensen are completely unfounded and incorrect. He didn't make that proposal, Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) did, and he is Russian. [7] Mackensen actually opposed the proposal (calling it "Draconian"), [8] so I think you might wish to reconsider your accusation of bias with regards to him (also his name is not, Merkensen.) If he was to withdraw because of a conflict of interest, as you appear to suggest he has, then you would lose the only person currently opposing a year long ban. Ironic, don't you think?

Finally, whether Mackensen does have a conflict of interest or not (and he clearly doesn't think so, or else he would have recused himself), it doesn't really matter that much in the bigger picture, as the rest of the committee will decide on a remedy together. You would be much better off politely stating that you consider the proposed remedy to be excessive (as do a number of other editors) and that you hope the rest of the committee will consider the findings in the appropriate context and vote accordingly.

I think your comments above are illuminating. Instead of kneejerk reactions in response to people you think are conspiring against you because they fit an Pro-British profile in your mind, take some time to investigate what actually happened, who said what, add a dose of WP:AGF and then respond. Rockpocket 20:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you most know I'm an American of primarily Belgian and French Canadian extraction. I don't know what that says about my likelihood of pro-English bias; I'll leave that to those interested in racial politics. I'm not in favor of a one-year ban, having opposed in general sanctions on editors, but I confess that comments like these really don't do you any favors. Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, apologies for confusing you with Krill - but I am not looking for any favours. I thought the proposed ban was unbelievable, so much so that it discredited the whole process as far as I was concerned, and I reacted accordingly. Without, obviously, reading the small print, for which I apologise to you, personally. (Sarah777 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Perhaps, Rockpocket, you are considered to be British because of your elegant use of English?--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In this Hall of Mirrors who knows who's who? We can only make deductions and check the IP addresses. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Smart guy said that. (Sarah777 11:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy, there are no "freedoms" to be won. Vigilance is fine, but when it leads to ill-considered accusations of impropriety then it is a problem. [9] [10] [11] Using our project as a continuation of a political campaign is simply not acceptable. Outside editors, even those who are not au fait with the details of the struggle, are not stupid. The implicit meaning in your comment above and this is not lost on me. This sort of implication is persuasive in your contributions and, while each one in isolation is hardly a significant incivility breach, the sheer persistance of your attitude towards other editors is problematic. Vintagekits has the same problem and eventually the community became tired of it. So, assuming you emerge from Arbcom, then you should consider Vk's situation very carefully. He and others have requested that a low tolerance for poor behaviour be enacted across the board, as can see from the response to an anonymous editor's actions yesterday, [12]

My point is: its time to stop with the snide political comparisons because they are incivil, inflammatory and completely unconstructive. If they continue, then the people who make them will end up like our anonymous friend. Rockpocket 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is full of trolls and puppets; that is a simple observation - no hidden meaning. There is NOTHING implied in my contributions that isn't clearly and openly stated. In fact, it is the honest open statement that seems to cause some "offence". Does WP:AGF not apply to you? I am NOT, repeat, NOT using Wiki "as a continuation of a political campaign" and regard the charge as breach of WP:NPA. It appears you don't see the law applying to yourself; only others. I have attempted, on a small number of articles, to remove what is clearly (to me), (British) POV. Within the rules. And I am meeting a completely OTT reaction. When I answer attacks, jeers, accusations of bad faith etc in kind - the inquisition starts. The is nothing "snide" about any political comparisons I have made. Your inability (and that of others) to grasp that fact is at the root of the problem that you seem to have with several Irish editors, in my opinion. You also adopt a tone of "voice" that is not lost on me. It is overbearing, judgemental and pompous. But I guess it is OK for you to read your own meaning into things I say but you'll take me doing likewise as "personal attack". Stop lecturing me; stop making accusations. Now. Please. they are becoming VERY tiresome. (Sarah777 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Then please tell me:

• What does "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom" have to do with editing an encyclopaedia in a co-operative manner? - Spotting puppets and trolls - important to be able to distinguish them, surely?
• What does implying Vk was being incarcerated by supporting his "unconditional release" have to do with editing an encyclopaedia in a co-operative manner? - Turn of phrase that VK would appreciate; am I permitted to be friendly to VK?
• What does comparing British people with Nazis have to do with editing an encyclopaedia in a co-operative manner? I was under the impression (mistakenly) that Mackensen had proposed the one year ban. Whoever proposed that deserves to be compared to a Nazi, frankly. [13] [14]
• What does accusing the British the of "torturing" and "murdering" detainess in Iraq (in a discussion about NPA) have to do with editing an encyclopaedia in a co-operative manner. Exposing the fatuity of the argument being made - which, from memory, I think was that there are no POWs in British hands in Iraq using the reasoning being applied to NI [15]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please stop treating it like one. Rockpocket 18:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't. please stop repeating that charge. (Sarah777 19:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

"The disparate claims for some sort of special treatment for convicted Republican prisoners can be rejected with confidence as almost totally without foundation in domestic or international law." I guess that couldn't be classed as POV pushing; political agenda, whatever. There is so much more where that came from. The beam blocking the view of the speck I'd say. (Sarah777 18:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

A quote from Walker, C.P., Irish republican prisoners—political detainees, prisoners of war or common criminals? Irish Jurist, 1984, 19, p.225. Providing reliable sources is what we are supposed to do to justify our edits, you are aware of that, right? Rockpocket 18:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you don't think that statement is POV pushing then I take it? I do. Rather a lot of Irish people would agree with me. Political prisoners are a political issue (the hint is in the term) - not a legal one. Spurious "law" is always and everywhere on the side of Government; from Ireland to Britain to the Third Reich. And that isn't snide. It is a statement of fact. This isn't POV pushing. It is attempt to eliminate insidious POV. I feel I had this discussion with someone recently regarding the fact that the US and UK engage in very many wars yet never take POWs anymore. Which is both bull and naked propaganda - whatever the jurist says. (Sarah777 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

No, I don't see that as POV pusging. The point is that, rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, Sarah or Rockpocket's (or any other punter on O'Connell Street's) opinion doesn't count for very much when it comes to deciding what constitutes a POW in Wikipedia. What matters is what reliable, verifiable and attributable sources tell us. That is what I provided and thats what I based the edit on. C.P. Walker is a senior academic and published expert in political violence, can you tell me why our articles should reflect what you or I think when we have expert analysis that appears to contradict your (or my) opinion?

If you had bothered to ask, rather than infer my opinion, I would have told you that my personal take on the subject isn't that far away from yours. I can totally see how the Republicans consider themselves POWs, and there was clearly political motivations from the UK in many of their arrests and sentences. However, all that is unimportant, because it is verifiability, not truth that dictates what we add to Wikipedia, and there is no independent verifiable source that finds (non SCS) Repulican prisoners meet POW criteria. So, while we don't favour any particular Government, we do tend to favor the establishment. Why? Because the establishment, almost by definition, tends to provide us with the journalists, academics, lawyers, philosophers, writers and lawmakers that we define as verifiable material. Is this a problem? Well, it depends on what you want out of an encyclopaedia. But, by the very nature of its core policies, this "bias" is one inherent to Wikipedia.

Your mission: to ELIMINATE insidious POV in Wiki is doomed to failure. Because what you consider "insidious POV" is a consequence of policies fundamental to our project. That simply isn't going to change. And by attacking those people who aim to uphold our policies, whether they personally agree with them or not, you are simply shooting the messenger. You shoot enough messengers and they will begin to shoot back. And they have bigger guns.

Now, you may think I am lecturing you here, and maybe I am, but its because I have seen this happen time and again. I have seen skilled editors battle to reveal the "truth" about psychiatry, vaccines and religion, but all have left or been blocked because they cannot accept that verifiability trumps truth. An unfavorable ArbCom case is usually the beginning of the end. Its tragic because what we need more than anything are editors with expertise on these issues, but they need to play within the rules.

So, i'm not having this discussion because I disagree with your opinion, or because I want to push the opposite POV, but simply because I have been around long enough to know how this will end if you don't tone down the rhetoric, stop treating other editors as combatants, and back away from your "mission". I've said my bit now, and Gaimhreadhan's page is really not the place for this discussion anyway. If you wish to continue discussing this then feel free to do so on my page. Otherwise, I'm going to leave you to it. But please, take these comments at face value and in the spirit in which they are meant, and please give them some thought. Rockpocket 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the re-interpretation, then, you're calling Kirill Lokshin a Nazi. I can't speak for him, but I suspect most Russians would take considerable exception to such a comparison, with some justice. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd take considerable exception to being threatened with a ONE YEAR BAN for basically very little. I guess this is how wars start? Anyways, sorry for my unfortunate attack on your good self. No excuses there. (Sarah777 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Rockpocket; I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to explain your position above. I can easily understand how Wiki loses those who think an Encyclopaedia should be simply stating the facts as best they can be determined, rather than just recycling state propaganda. So I guess what we have left here are us editors with no commitment to the truth? That appears to be what you are saying.

Verifiability is not what we are producing - that is a delusion. We are merely recycling the lies and fictions of states. "and there is no independent verifiable source that finds (non SCS) Republican prisoners meet POW criteria." So, define "independent" in this context? I put it to you that there is no verifiable independent evidence that they are ”criminals” or “terrorists”! Lawyers are not independent just because they are lawyers! Experts are not independent by definition; they are experts by definition. With a few regrettable exceptions (very few), I have confined my arguments to the “talk” pages rather than edit-warring or making controversial edits. But I am concerned that you (plural) and not just “messengers”, but rather captives who love their chains – to quote some Commie bastard. If attempting to tone down the establishment bias – by discussion, within the rules - is so threatening, then one must wonder what the heck NPOV means. Is it like GW Bush talking about “democracy”? Pure and unadulterated hypocricy? What?

As I said: I am NOT here to advance any political programme. But I cannot, and will not, pretend to believe that black is white and up is down in order to serve......what???? (Sarah777 21:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

I guess that's why I love geographical articles. I can take out my troglodyte and measure the height of the Sugar Loaf Mountain and PROVE it’s 1,500 feet high even if the British Government insists it is an 8 foot tall haystack. (Sarah777 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Guys, there's some stuff here that suggests very strongly that Gaimhreadhan has died. Is that so? If it is, why on earth are you carrying on this battle on his talk page? 83.70.253.142 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely not? I assumed that was his sense of humour, but some anon has claimed he has on the NI talk page(Sarah777 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

See here. On re-reading, maybe he hasn't passed yet, but it doesn't look good. Scolaire 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Troglodyte? Don't you mean trilobite?--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Theodolite84.13.6.103 22:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was a very silly joke I knew Gaimhreadhan would enjoy. (Sarah777 01:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

It is clear from the papers that he left marked "...to be opened only on my death or incapacity..." that you held a very special place in his heart and affections, Sarah. I am sure he would have appreciated both of the valid points you and Rockpocket continued to make on this his talk page. I'm sure that, if he could, he would have been laughing now at your own dry wit.

So, my message to you all is: Read the top of this talk page. Have a drink on him. And "...on with the craic."

G took a very consistent ethical line. He respected genuinely held opinions and fair play.

G would not have wanted to spoil the party/wake.  W. Frank ✉  19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Condolences

Please post condolences at: User_talk:W._Frank#Condolences

.

Awake!!!!! British Cultural Imperialism Rampant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(This entire section was moved, with permission [16], from User talk:Major Bonkers. It was the penultimate edit Gaimhreadhan made before he fell unconscious [17])

I don't wish to be accused of canvassing in a partisan environment but have you noticed this recent outrageous example of British Cultural Imperialist PoVism?

More Irish Army articles threatened by BCIP

May I draw everyone's attention to this outrageous POV pushing: [18]

How can we proud Irish Men and Women counter this vicious slur that one of our armies can not
afford/ operate competently/ our own web site/ achieve final and lasting victory over our everlasting enemies and former colonial oppressors/ are associated in any way what ever with our neighbours?

Who will join me in starting an article on Provisional Irish Religious Armies, (PIRA) forthwith!!!!!!?????!!!!!

Admins really need to get a grip on this outrageous POV pushing of external links!

909 Charleston Chomper Dangling 50 Veteran Kiwi concerned from Omeath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaimhreadhan (talk • contribs)

er, quite so!--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

---

If I had known he was dying I'd of just signed for him rather than using an {{unsigned}} template. Anynobody 04:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Stop making personal attacks! Stop using other accounts to peddle your POV [19]. Have you every edit WP befoer usng a nother count? Are you sooty or BIGears? You all seem to push the same sort of POV.it llosk very sispishus to me !GHIRLfromFreeDerry 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I haven't taken part in this discussion, but I think there is a clear consensus now. It's time to get on with it and block this obvious WP:SOCKpuppet. Scholar and a Gentleman 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm astonished and disgusted delighted that this elite paramilitary organisation, well known for its atrocities heroic actions in crowded almost empty (and anyway, the police deliberately failed to clear the pubs, cinemas, and shopping arcades, and funded by hush-money and protection rackets free enterprise initiatives and sausage sizzles, has any will have pride of place on Wikipedia. We must list it for deletion feature article status immediately - common decency demands nothing less!--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC) [Edit conflict]

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the party line so I've made some minor corrections.

Please try and sing from the same hymns sheet in future or I will have to repost you to an administrator.

May I invite you to this entirely neutral and unbiasst project for where you can be de-POV'ed:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Irish_Republicanism/Template:WPIR}

This article does not need deleting it just needs more balanced language and correct categorisation and terminology. Stop pushing your minority PoV. I now see that you are correctly named! Any more personal attacks and I shall report you! 909 Charleston Chomper Dangling 50 Veteran Kiwi concerned from Omeath

There's not a problem posting on one user's page, nor on project pages, which is the ideal place to post in order to involve interested editors. NB projects are not advocate groups: they are there to improve relevant articles according to wiki standards. Try not to dramatise things though. Titanomachy 12:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop farting wiv my pists CHUNT! See WP:TheInmatesRunThisAsylim! Eny more WP:NPA and ill tell SirFizzy! Last Warning! 909 Charleston Chomper Dangling 50 Veteran Kiwi concerned from Omeath12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither of yous have provided any sources on any of the article and templates you are edit warring on, yous have been asked numerous times to provide sources, also the way both you and astrotrain seem to been working together in these edit wars its starting to look like one of yous may be a sockpuppet.--promises 12:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Many apologies (grovel, grovel). What I meant to say was: what an outstanding article - we must promote it to Featured Article status immediately! Anyone who stands in our way must be a bigot/ racist/ POV-pusher. Seriously though, it's time that this childish sectarian hatred must cease , and I hope that you will join me in this laudable aim. I shall gratefully submit myself to re-education; in time I hope to be like Gilbert & Sullivan's 'Ruler of the Queen's Navee': I never thought of thinking for myself at all!--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's better. Don't try and meddle with consensus again...off to take my medicine...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)